Fight, Flight, Freeze, or Fix

“If anyone on the verge of action should judge himself according to the outcome, he would never begin.”
                                                                      ― Søren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling

     Most people are aware of the fight or flight response that people may have to a stressful event. An animal perceives a threat to its safety and must decide: Can I fight this threat or can I outrun it? I use the term “decide” here to describe the automatic process of the amygdala and hippocampus (click here for more). There’s no conscious decision making going on. Even a bunny will attack if there are no means of escape.

     Then, a few years after I graduated high school, the freeze response was added to the mix. This is when the amygdala and hippocampus go, “uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh” and nothing happens. Technically this is a survival response. It can work for prey animals with effective camouflage; like deer. However, it can also be an abysmal survival mechanism when a deer sees two headlights bearing down on it and it thinks, “uhhhhhhh, I’m gonna go ahead and not move then the car won’t see me standing in the middle of the road and it won’t try to eat me”. We’ve all heard/seen the outcome of that particular strategy played out. All animals (and humans) have all three of these responses programmed at a genetic level.

     Humbly, I would like to add a fourth option. Fight, flight, and freeze are all processed in similar areas of the brain. None of them rely heavily on the frontal lobe and/or the prefrontal cortex where our higher level reasoning and processing occurs. In fact, humans have a very difficult time calming their anger when these areas are not engaged (click here for more info). Which got me to thinking: what if we get really stressed and are able to override our natural reactive responses (fight, flight, freeze) and engage our higher level thinking processes (fix)? This would in no way be reflexive; it would require training and intentionality and a level of self-control that, if I’m being honest, I don’t really have. Still, the possibility is there for a fourth response to a stressful event: Fix.

     In truth, when faced with a stressful situation our primary/reactive responses will remain the same: Fight/flight/freeze. However, we can exercise a secondary/active response: Fix. Fixing a situation necessarily requires the activation of the higher thinking/limbic areas of the brain. This cannot easily happen when people are highly stressed or threatened. The irony, then, lies in the fact that until a stressful situation is corrected or until the threat is has been alleviated, it is very difficult if not impossible, for us to really think about the situation we actually need to fix.

     All is not lost. We can learn how to accept the fear which triggers our primary responses, acknowledge it, and then begin to process it. Some times this takes years of therapy, medication, and lifestyle changes before we are able to begin really processing our fear. It is all worth it. Until we process the fear, our options will be limited to the reactions of flight/fight/freeze. We will run from healthy relationships, we will fight those who provide aid and support, and we will freeze in the face of new threats. But, when our fear is identified, when it is named and recognized for the projection it has always been, it becomes smaller and less threatening, and this allows us to grow. Once we process our fear, we add a fourth option to our repertoire: Fix. Having the option to fix empowers us, broadens our horizons, and allows us to live an authentic life. Fixing is active, fighting/flying/or freezing is reactive. If you feel out of control of your emotions, your life, or your relationships, ask yourself how you respond to threats. Are you reactive or active? Empowered or threatened? Prey or predator? If you do not feel in control, find someone to help you figure out the source of fear which holds you back and begin to be a fixer.

Flight, Freeze, Fight, & Fix
(C) Nathan D. Croy, 2014

Sesquipedalian Trepidation.

     Revelation is marked by mystery, eternal happiness by suffering, the certitude of faith by uncertainty, easiness by difficulty, truth by absurdity; if this is not maintained, then the esthetic and the religious merge in common confusion. … The religious lies in the dialectic of inwardness deepening and therefore, with regard to the conception of God, this means that he himself is moved, is changed. An action in the eternal transforms the individual’s existence.

— Soren Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments
     Most people go to the ocean and surf, frolic in the foam from the breakers, build sand castles, swim, splash, exercise, and enjoy themselves. Some enjoy this life so much they spend ludicrous sums of money to live on the beach. However, people rarely find great treasures during these activities. Usually, finding treasure requires two things: Attentiveness and excavation.
     The first requirement is being attentive. We must look, be aware of our surroundings, discover and notice that which seems out of place. Some treasure hunters use metal detectors or do research when looking for treasure. People that stumble upon a long lost wedding ring or loose change are noticing something that hundreds of other people may have stepped over. Regardless, a requirement to finding something means being in the process of looking. Which brings us to our second requirement for finding treasure; excavation.
     Excavation is different from digging. Dogs dig. Squirrels excavate. Digging has no purpose other than making a hole. It is certainly fine if something turns up during the digging, but that is not its purpose. With excavating, the idea is to remove dirt in order to expose something. It inherently assumes something exists below the soil that is valuable enough to work to retrieve. Sunken treasure is called sunken treasure because it sinks. It takes special equipment, training, and intentionality to find these treasures.
     Perhaps I am being too jaded, pessimistic, or negative, but it seems to me there are very few people willing to do the hard work required which brings about meaning in life. Meaning is a treasure, it reveals who we are and what we value. Our tendency to stick to the surface and be distracted by any new trend or quick flash of NEW NEW NEW!!!! robs us of the necessary energy to find meaningful treasure and it distracts us from noticing found treasure.
     Sesquipedalian, is a word used to describe very long words. The word “sesquipedalian”, is sesquipedalian. Self referencing meta-words just make me happy. “Sesquipedalian Trepidation” means being afraid to move forward in regards to big words. Many people are often hesitant to read Kierkegaard, May, or a hundred other incredible authors because they use large words, discuss complex concepts, or ask questions they cannot answer. Yet, this is the mental and spiritual excavation that aids in uncovering our personal deep meaning. It takes effort and strain to maintain an attentive vigilance in order to find meaning where it lies; even in the mundane.
     Some people show up to the beach and money is washing up on the shore. Some people wake up in the morning with a newly acute awareness of what it means to be real, to have meaning, to be who they are. These people are lucky, rare, and waiting for money to wash up on the beach probably is not the most sound retirement plan. If you desire meaning, purpose, and authenticity, then you must be willing to do the hard work of excavation and attentiveness. To quote Teddy Roosevelt: “Nothing in the world is worth having or worth doing unless it means effort, pain, difficulty… I have never in my life envied a human being who led an easy life. I have envied a great many people who led difficult lives and led them well.”
     Your treasure exists. All you have to do is find it.
Sunken Treasure.
(C) Nathan D. Croy, 2014

Bad Hair Cut

     Let’s pretend you live in a small town. It’s so small, there are only two barbers in the entire town. One barber has hair so amazing it’s talked about in hushed tones and people have begun using the word “coif” to describe it. The other barber has horrible, awful, terrible hair. It’s bad. If you didn’t know better, you’d say he had half of it permed and the other half was cut by a blind man with a severe muscle tick.
     It’s two days before an important job interview. Your hair is beyond shaggy. You’re new to town. Which barber cuts your hair?
     Clearly you have the barber with the bad hair cut, cut your hair! It’s a small town, remember? Only two barbers? That means the barber with the horrible haircut cut the other barbers majestic hair! And the barber with the horrible haircut? Well that was inflicted upon him by the barber with the great hair!
     In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche writes that, “Some cannot loosen their own chains and can nonetheless redeem their friends.” In The Wounded Healer, Nouwen takes this idea a step further and writes that it is only by realizing our own broken woundedness we are able to help others heal. Nouwen expounds on that idea to say that the inherent reciprocity of relationship means that as we facilitate the healing of others, we will begin healing ourselves.
    What I’m trying to get at is this: Perfection is not a requirement for helping others. We do not need to have a perfect marriage before we help someone with their relationship. We do not need to have perfect grades to help someone know a better way to learn. We do not have to have perfect hair in order to be a good barber. Think about this: Tiger Woods has a golf coach. I bet all my worldly possessions that his golf coach is no better at golf than Tiger Woods. However, he may have a better understanding of the game, its physics, its nuances, and he is able to communicate that understanding in a way that improves Tiger’s game.
     So you have a bad hair day. Our bad hair days become fodder. It is from our broken, wounded, pain, that we are able to sympathize with others. This does not make the bad hair day any less frustrating. It does not make our injuries any less painful or our trauma any less damaging. However, if we are brave, these experiences can help heal others. And, if we’re lucky, the very process of helping others may help heal our very self.

Bad Hair Day.
(C) Nathan D. Croy, 2014

Pharmacological Sanity

     When I was originally diagnosed with ADD, it was called Minimal Brain Dysfunction. This diagnosis was designed to address children who seemed to function poorly in school and other social settings, but could not be clinically diagnosed as mentally retarded. For a time, this worked, but then someone noticed a discrepancy between these children’s school performance and their IQ scores. While their IQ’s tested in the normal to high range, their performance was abysmal. Researchers realized children with this diagnosis seemed to struggle in focusing long enough to take in information in a way that allowed them to retain it. This new theory lead to different types of treatment. I underwent testing for food allergies, adhered to a strict diet with mineral and vitamin additives, biofeedback sessions, and was even in a trial study for Prozac. My father claims I would have blackouts while on Prozac and even began having suicidal thoughts at the age of 8. I received therapy from several immanent psychiatrists and psychologists, one of whom was Dr. Hunt who still runs the Center for Attention and Hyperactivity in Tennessee. My father had his masters in counseling and when Dr. Hunt suggested that my parents check me into a mental institution, forget they ever had a son, and focus their time and energy into their “healthy” daughter, my Father asked Dr. Hunt, “Why can’t you just admit that you can’t help my son?” Needless to say, this concluded our sessions with Dr. Hunt.

     My entire family worked hard to stay with me throughout my years of rebellion and boundary testing. Through the overdoses. Through the depression. Through the denial and rage. They showed me, through modeling and through actions, what it means to truly love someone. But that’s not what this post is about. This post is about the benefits and risks of medication vs alternative/holistic means of treating ADD/ADHD.  
   
     While I have ADD, I am also a marriage and family therapist who has worked with many families and individuals who’s lives have been impacted by this disorder. Some articles claim exercise reduces symptoms of ADD and it is difficult for me to think of a reason why, after consulting a physician, anyone would not incorporate exercise into their daily routine. For me, this has not been enough. Despite diet changes, added vitamins and minerals, and lots of other attempted fixes, what has worked for me is medication. I still exercise, and I should probably eat better, and at this time in my life and for the past 16 years, medication has helped control the symptoms of my ADD. It has helped me maintain my marriage and provide me with a greater amount of impulse control and levels of tolerance.

        This post is being written in reference to a twitter conversation I recently had. My decision to take medication to help with the symptoms of a neurological disorder was fairly quickly disparaged. The reply asked if I had every tried taking an art class rather than simply using medication to treat my symptoms. While my illustrations are evidence I did not pay attention, I have taken art classes. What got to me about the tweet is this: If I were taking medication for depression, would the same person have been as quick to ask if I had tried alternative means of treatment?  
     
         No doubt about it; ADD is over diagnosed and over treated. Many children are over medicated for a variety of reasons. However, this does not mean medication is not necessarily effective when used appropriately. To that extent, I would suggest more research be done in the area of diagnosing. Finding out if ADD/ADHD has a trauma or relationship attachment component to it vs. it being organic and purely physical. More accurate diagnosing for many disorders may play a key role in allowing doctors to target treatment and medication in order to treat the person rather than just treating symptoms while having very little etiological understanding.

        In the meantime, let me tell you a story about a friend of mine who was in high school with me and had been diagnosed with ADD and refused to take medication. When I asked why he chose not to, he stated that he didn’t want to and it felt weird. I asked my friend why he wore glasses. He said he was near sighted and without his glasses probably wouldn’t have been able to function day-to-day. I reflected back to him the incongruence that he chose to wear glasses to correct his vision but refused to take medication to correct his neurology. He laughed me off and said it was different and complained that I didn’t understand. The truth was, I deeply understood, and wanted him to experience the same form of freedom I had.

        Medication isn’t the answer. No pill will ever make someone perfect; and if it could, it would be at the expense of their own humanity. However, unless it’s doing more damage than good, please be careful not to disparage a persons means of maintaining sanity.

Pharmacological Sanity
(C) Nathan D. Croy, 2014

Intentional Love: Part A

     I only know of one way to write about love: personally. Everything in my life, from my personal philosophy to my professional practice, hinges upon my understanding and definition of love. So much so, that when I refer to love throughout the rest of this blog and in my other writings, it will be capitalized. This is to set it apart from the general population’s use of the word “love” to describe how they feel about everything from their family to various carbonated beverages. “love” has become a shadow of its former self and if I can restore the concept of Love to its former glory for just a few people, I will consider my life a success.
     I was sitting with a friend at restaurant and we were discussing Kierkegaard’s book, Works of Love (aka Ethics of Love). The server walked over, saw the book on the table, and asked what it was about. We both froze for just a moment because the book is such an intensely in-depth study of the concept of Love as it applies to various settings; it was difficult to say what the book was precisely about. In a moment of panic I did the best I could do and said, “It’s a book that tells you how to know if you’re really in Love”. That seemed good enough for her, probably because she wasn’t that interested in the first place, but for me the answer seemed very hollow. I decided that, right then and there, I would have an answer the next time someone asked me about Love.
     Love, as defined by Kierkegaard, is an infinite debt to another, willingly taken on (Works of Love, 2009, p. 172-173). When asking ourselves, “What is the most Loving action in in this situation?”, there are three basic facets of Kierkegaard’s definition that must be considered: (1) Intent, (2) Infinity, & (3) Indebtedness. This post will address the Intentionality necessary for true Love. The next two will address its Indebtedness and Infiniteness.
     Part of Kierkegaard’s definition is that the infinite debt of love must be “willingly” taken on. In order for this to be the case, we must Love others on purpose. This may sound like a trivial point, but it is most certainly not. How often in popular dialogue do people talk of “falling in love”? People do not fall on purpose. Falling implies a lack of intent or awareness; as if love was something they happened into or was sprung on them by surprise. While attraction and the emotions result may in fact happen unexpectedly, that is not Love. It is more likely that is hormones. Or beer goggles. Or both.
     Love, true Love, requires an intentionality of commitment that regardless of what the other person does, who they become, or how horribly they fail, we will continue to be in relationship with them. Please do not take this to mean that people should stay in relationships that are abusive. There will be another post about why staying in an abusive relationship is the least Loving action possible. For now, it should suffice to say that it is almost never acceptable or Loving to remain in abusive relationship.
     The point that must be adhered to is this: once I enter into a relationship of Love, I cannot truly leave. Therefore, entering into Love relationships must be done with the utmost Intentionality and forethought possible. The initial condition for Love is a commitment, made willfully and intentionally, to the best of our ability. Anything less will inherently doom the relationship to temporality; even if there is no separation.
There is a great deal more to be said on this particular topic, but it’s not within the scope of this blog. Please click this link to be redirected to a Forum topic titled “Love”, as I would like to encourage more dialogue on this. Also, leave a comment on your thoughts about intentionality as it relates to Love.