Does "tough love" motivation work on you?

[sbbds]

That was my own firsthand experience, based on actually experiencing toxic situations and years of therapy. I can see how it might come across as haughty armchair analysis, but it wasn't meant to be. I've had people try to use "tough love" on me, including my own parents, an academic counselor, and two bosses. In each case, my experience was that something in me (the pat of me that wanted to be acceptable to society) would acquiesce to the criticism, and immediately try to "get me shit together." But inevitably, later on down the timeline, I'd realize that it had caused me to alienate quieter parts of me that needed to be listened to. I've realize that, if I'm not doing something, there's a reason for me not doing it: not an excuse or justification or rationalization for inaction, but rather a recognition that inaction is almost always a symptom of some inner conflict. The answer, in the end, was not for the part that wanted action or inaction to "win" the conflict, but usually some form of action that stood completely out of the perspectives of the warring parts. And when I allied with the imperatives thrown at me by others, I was betraying the part of me that was on the resistant side of that conflict; and when I allied with the nonactive parts of me, I was betraying parts of me that wanted engagement with the world. Both parts reflect vital needs, but neither had the full picture.

I've learned to value those resistant parts as protectors: learning to listen to their more quiet (though sometimes inconvenient and socially-disapproved-of) role in my life: they've helped me define my values, my own feelings, my own direction in life independent from other people's expectations. Learning to listen to the inconvenient parts of me has helped me find true agency in the last few years, which is why I don't respect "tough love" anymore because it often bulldozes over the quieter and subtler work of truly getting to know what's ticking inside.

Psychoanalysis isn't really popular anymore, but most people who bash it haven't actually read much of the good stuff (I like early Freud, Harry Stack Sullivan, Klein, Winnicott, Alan Schore, Diana Fosha, Adam Phillips). I think they have something important to say about human nature, even if they're just metaphors and heuristics. Understanding human irrationality and subjectivity from the inside-out is important, especially since we've become so bent on positivist narratives of the self, telling us who we are from the outside-in. We lose a sense of what life actually is like for us from the inside, which is painful.

Thanks for sharing, but the problem I had with your OP was that you (perhaps inadvertently) cast other people going through those dynamics as being victims like how you apparently saw yourself, which is demeaning. Yet you didn’t reveal that you were a victim yourself in that post, which is shady.

Also you could consider that you simply don’t need the tough love anymore as a symptom of evolving away from it, not that it’s useless in itself or was always useless for you. Or perhaps just that it’s just yourself who was like this. I asked you for your experience, and you only talked about yourself. You spoke as if for everybody in your OP.

[Animal]

Thanks for sharing, but the problem I had with your OP was that you (perhaps inadvertently) cast other people going through those dynamics as being victims like how you apparently saw yourself, which is demeaning. Yet you didn’t reveal that you were a victim yourself in that post, which is shady.

Also you could consider that you simply don’t need the tough love anymore as a symptom of evolving away from it, not that it’s useless in itself or was always useless for you.

I think that's a fair criticism of that post. I think I've probably been reading too much psychoanalysis, which has a tendency to pathologize people. That said, it's hard for me to think of a situation in which tough love would be the best option compared to something subtler and more respectful of people's deeper motivations (and anti-motivations). People have reasons for being the way they are and doing the things they do, even if it's seemingly self-destructive. (Some of the things I've done in the past were self-destructive, and people tried to tell me that in a tough love kind of way. I appreciated that they cared and were concerned for me, and that helped me a bit. But, I think, people need to be given time and space to listen to themselves for the resulting behavior changes to be more than just going-through-the-motions of social compliance or shame/guilt.) The "love" part of tough love is important, and is lacking in many people's execution of tough love. A lot of people who preach "tough love" are just trying to coerce people into their own value system. But I can see how tough love, coming from someone who really loves you or cares about your welfare, might register and help mobilize a healthy part of the self. Without that crucial component, hough, it's very easy to turn into self-punishment.

[sbbds]

But, I think, people need to be given time and space to listen to themselves for the resulting behavior changes to be more than just going-through-the-motions of social compliance or shame/guilt.

There’s always going to be some kind of meta-dynamic going on IMO. Sorry but if you live in a utopia without these with those you socialize with, let me know where it is please, and how to get there.

You basically got that time and space because you kowtowed enough and climbed high enough to where you no longer have to deal with that side of the dynamic from people as much.

[Animal]

There’s always going to be some kind of meta-dynamic going on IMO. Sorry but if you live in a utopia without these with those you socialize with, let me know where it is please, and how to get there.

You basically got that time and space because you kowtowed enough and climbed high enough to where you no longer have to deal with that side of the dynamic from people as much.

I think you're misinterpreting my posts. Freud's idea of the superego was that it was a part of the ego that had broken off to police our behavior and keep us accountable to society and our tribe on whom we depend on for survival but that it can go insane and fall into self-punishment. So, yes, there has to be some degree of give-and-take with regard to honoring our own feelings, wishes, impulses (the id) and the demands of the people around us. That's a given. I'm not arguing that we all retreat into self-absorption. That's a recipe for chaos. What I'm saying is that people shouldn't let other brutalize them into becoming completely alienated from themselves, which is something I see fairly often, and IMO a cause of a lot of the psychological suffering (and cruelty) we see in the world nowadays.

[sbbds]

I think you're misinterpreting my posts. Freud's idea of the superego was that it was a part of the ego that had broken off to police our behavior and keep us accountable to society and our tribe on whom we depend on for survival but that it can go insane and fall into self-punishment. So, yes, there has to be some degree of give-and-take with regard to honoring our own feelings, wishes, impulses (the id) and the demands of the people around us. That's a given. I'm not arguing that we all retreat into self-absorption. What I'm saying is that people shouldn't let other brutalize them into becoming alienated from themselves, which is something I see fairly often, and IMO a cause of a lot of the psychological suffering we see in the world nowadays.

No I agree with that. I think that’s all a given.

What I am saying is that you present your stance as if becoming a “victim” here is optional, and an option to avoid in most cases. You’re not giving details on how you achieved your current position having “escaped” that situation, like you’re not even wanting to acknowledge it properly in the first place. You can’t tell me that you just woke up one day and started to backtalk your boss for e.g. lol. Or did you?

[Animal]

No I agree with that. I think that’s all a given.

What I am saying is that you present your stance as if becoming a “victim” here is optional, and an option to avoid in most cases. You’re not giving details on how you achieved your current position having “escaped” that situation, like you’re not even wanting to acknowledge it properly in the first place. You can’t tell me that you just woke up one day and started to backtalk your boss for e.g. lol. Or did you?

You keep moving the goalposts with every response, expecting deeper and deeper levels of self-disclosure from me (when you haven't said anything about yourself), when I think I've pretty much answered all your questions. I said years of observing that same pattern (of tough love -> acquiescing -> feeling like I betrayed myself) again and again, plus years of therapy and self-reflection. I've been on this forum for over 13 years. I feel like I've shared enough of myself here over the years that no one needs my life story anymore. I think you're reading that post as far more judgmental than it really is. I'm not even saying those people are "victims", any more than any other person. We all have neuroses of some kind (including me), unless we've reached nirvana or something.

[sbbds]

You keep moving the goalposts with every response, expecting deeper and deeper levels of self-disclosure from me (when you haven't said anything about yourself), when I think I've pretty much answered all your questions. I said years of observing that same pattern (of tough love -> acquiescing -> feeling like I betrayed myself) again and again, plus years of therapy and self-reflection. I've been on this forum for over 13 years. I feel like I've shared enough of myself here over the years that no one needs my life story anymore. I think you're reading that post as far more judgmental than it really is. I'm not even saying those people are "victims", any more than any other person. We all have neuroses of some kind (including me), unless we've reached nirvana or something.

My problem is that if you indeed have had such experiences and you believe in them, you should be as revealing and helpful as possible, instead of just dropping off a quasi-demeaning comment nonchalantly and vamoosing. I did reference my personal experience in my posts in this thread, and I have talked about my life a lot on here too. I don’t care how long you’ve been on here; you’ve been inactive for a while and so I haven’t seen your posts and apparently you haven’t seen mine either.

[Singu]

I think I've probably been reading too much psychoanalysis, which has a tendency to pathologize people.

I've also read a bit of psychoanalysis, so I understand where you're coming from. I used to be into Karen Horney a lot, and I think the idea about attacking the subjective premise that everyone essentially has in interesting (everyone's behavior is a result of some sort of a subjective premise, perhaps an emotion). The idea of self-criticism is interesting, and learning to tone down the dial of self-criticism is something that you can practically apply to your personal situations. A person whose too critical of oneself might take most criticisms as devastating, but people who are not very self-critical may take most criticism in stride. They don't accept it or they don't register it.

However, over the years I've learned that it was more like "Socionics 2.0", or "pre-Socionics", depending on which you started from. There may be some genuine insights on human nature that may be interesting, but in the end they're usually just the opinions of the psychoanalyst, and shouldn't be taken as gospel truth. Actually it's kind of similar to Socionics in that it start out with educated guesses or conjectures of the psychoanalyst, but it's lacking in the critical approach.

Anyway, tough love is usually just a way to justify and rationalize love by saying that it's a form of love.

[Animal]

I've also read a bit of psychoanalysis, so I understand where you're coming from. I used to be into Karen Horney a lot, and I think the idea about attacking the subjective premise that everyone essentially has in interesting (everyone's behavior is a result of some sort of a subjective premise, perhaps an emotion). The idea of self-criticism is interesting, and learning to tone down the dial of self-criticism is something that you can practically apply to your personal situations. A person whose too critical of oneself might take most criticisms as devastating, but people who are not very self-critical may take most criticism in stride. They don't accept it or they don't register it.

However, over the years I've learned that it was more like "Socionics 2.0", or "pre-Socionics", depending on which you started from. There may be some genuine insights on human nature that may be interesting, but in the end they're usually just the opinions of the psychoanalyst, and shouldn't be taken as gospel truth. Actually it's kind of similar to Socionics in that it start out with educated guesses or conjectures of the psychoanalyst, but it's lacking in the critical approach.

Anyway, tough love is usually just a way to justify and rationalize love by saying that it's a form of love.

I agree. I don't regard it as "true", any more than I would regard Socionics as "true." I've found that it presents a useful lens through which to get a handle on some of the experiences within that don't make much sense with either modern science or ancient religion. For example, we don't have a much better explanation of a trauma victim's attraction to situations that recreate the traumatic experience than what Freud conjectured (repetition compulsion; "we repeat to complete"). But, in the end, it's just a blunt instrument for trying to get at things that are much a more complex interaction of many things. I like the precision of psychoanalytic language and I like that it takes a critical eye toward the larger society, and the way it can have negative effects on a human being. People are talking about such things now (like the influence of technology on young people, etc.), but not with as much depth as I'd like.

I appreciate this distinction, given that this thread is inquiring into "Tough Love" I understand where You're coming from. I would also argue that not all valuable lessons in life are presented benevolently. Often in life, we can grow too comfortable. For some, having their mettle tested is productive, and even for those who find it grating, there can be a reordering of priority and focus. It is true that hot iron can bend to the point of breakage, but cold, unused iron rusts. A ripple is a ripple, and even those making waves can teach us important lessons. Our attitude is as important to our own benefit as that which is seen as done onto us. Growth and clarity sometimes comes from the most unexpected of places.

I agree. The attitude we bring to life can make a big difference in our ability to make use of the lessons that are available. My main issue with a lot of the "tough love" going around these days is that it starts with the basic assumption that people are inherently lazy and that they wouldn't do anything if they weren't coerced into doing it. In particular, I'm uneasy with the substitution of externally-imposed goals for those that come out of a person's weighing their own wants/desires and what others need of them. I think laziness is an attempt to get an unmet need met. Even people who act self-destructively or are suicidal are trying to get a need met. Those needs will have to be acknowledged at some point, or else there will be reckoning later on, in some other form. Rude awakenings can be useful, like you say, but only if they don't overwhelm the organism's inborn inclination towards actualization.

[Singu]

I agree. I don't regard it as "true", any more than I would regard Socionics as "true." I've found that it presents a useful lens through which to get a handle on some of the experiences within that don't make much sense with either modern science or ancient religion. For example, we don't have a much better explanation of a trauma victim's attraction to situations that recreate the traumatic experience than what Freud conjectured (repetition compulsion; "we repeat to complete"). But, in the end, it's just a blunt instrument for trying to get at things that are much a more complex interaction of many things. I like the precision of psychoanalytic language and I like that it takes a critical eye toward the larger society, and the way it can have negative effects on a human being. People are talking about such things now (like the influence of technology on young people, etc.), but not with as much depth as I'd like.

Well perhaps a more constructive approach would not be to ask "Why does the person recreate his traumatic experiences?", but to ask "Does the person want to recreate his traumatic experience, or not?". And given the basic premise that humans basically want to be happy and healthy, probably not. It could be that the thought-processes and the behavior of the person is compulsive, and he may not have much conscious control over it. So perhaps we can try to see and analyze how the person may no longer behave in such a compulsive pattern in the future. And that ultimately requires the ability to eventually control his own destiny.

I don't think there is much use in saying "I am this way", and just end it at that. You can describe a certain pattern of behavior, such as Borderline Personality Disorder. But I don't it's much use to just say that you're Borderline, but you can't really do anything about it. It only brings the power to be able to change it, if you understand the cause behind it. So if we could understand the cause behind "Why does the victim recreate his traumatic experience?", then that would be helpful. But I would think that it would require a different approach to get to the direct answer to that question, even if we initially asked the wrong question.

[Singu]

I think that's a good point, and part of my own problem with some older psychoanalytic writing. It had a tendency to corner human beings into a dead end: "Well, you're fucked in the head, and this is probably why. Good luck sorting yourself out!" That specific example of trauma is one that I actually pulled from my own experience, and I actually found the psychoanalytic explanation helpful, rather than demoralizing. I had tried other approaches like CBT and such that tried to just deal with the habitual thoughts and behaviors at face value, but I found they left something to be desired. When I read about repetition compulsion, I realized there was some inherent logic to the seeming madness: that the reason I was drawn to people who would hurt me in the same way people in the past had hurt me was because there was something I was wanting that I hadn't got in the original situation. That old concept helped me to articulate a personal experience that was there, and actually pointed for me the way out, which was to have a corrective emotional experience that contradicted what I'd previously learned about myself and the world and other people. Newer forms of psychodynamic therapy are much more hopeful than old school psychoanalysis, I think. They get to places that other explanations of people's behavior don't, and can help you feel less alone and weird. Personality typology played that role for me once, but it didn't offer effective tools for deep change and healing like the psychodynamic work did. Actually, FWIW, dynamic therapies like that actually have shown some of the best results for people with BPD, except they tend to call it "complex trauma/C-PTSD", which is less pathologizing.

Indeed, you may not be able to change the behavior by just knowing what causes that behavior, because what you're trying to do is to not have to do that behavior! In short, you're trying to create a new behavior that is currently unknown to you. And the problem is that you currently don't know how to, because you haven't figured out a way of knowing how. So that may be where the "repetitive compulsion" comes from, which you can only understand in hindsight. But while you were doing that, you may simply had been looking for a solution of a kind.

I would think that the reason why that "works", is that it may negate the trauma by having been countered by a positive or neutral experience. It seems to be a human thing to just keep expecting the same thing to happen that has happened before. It's understandable that if you had a traumatic experience, then you might want to avoid it, even if it's not entirely rational to do so. Or you might deliberately seek it to be proven wrong. Nevertheless, people can't quite intellectually understand it, but they can only experience it.

I think the interesting thing about humans is that they try to imagine doing something in the future that has never been done before. So perhaps the answer to the question "Why does the person keep reliving his traumas?", is because of a failure to do something where he would no longer have to live through that trauma, and only because he does not yet know how to. This can't exactly be understood in a strict causal sense of analyzing the past. It's true that the trauma is caused by childhood abuse or whatever. But we'd also have to get at what the person is trying to do in the future, which is presumably to live in peace and not having to live through that trauma.