100 traps in personal life. How to recognize and bypass them (S. Petrushin)

No matter how deeply and passionately we crave love, we consider almost everything else to be more important: success, prestige, money, power — we spend almost all of our energy learning to achieve these goals, and we have almost no Resources remain for mastering the art of love.

Erich Fromm

Every day, people come to the psychologist’s office because of difficulties in private life. And the reason for the appeal is most often not the problems of social success, but questions of love, marriage, sexuality. But why are they becoming more and more relevant? Probably because today no one specially prepares us for building a harmonious personal life. All existing education (school, university, etc.) is aimed primarily at success in the social sphere. No one teaches you the rules and laws of success in your personal life.

As a result, there are serious consequences: there is less and less harmony in families, the number of divorces and single people is growing, and the general neuroticism of the population is increasing every year. The time has come when people in private life should improve their skills, that is, learn to communicate outside of social roles. The problem is that skills that work well in the social sphere are completely unsuitable for personal life. A person may or may not be successful, rich or poor, educated or not, but at the level of private life, all people have similar difficulties. Everyone wants to be happy in their personal lives, but for some reason not everyone succeeds.

Why is it so difficult for two loving people to understand each other? What makes us feel anger, resentment, disappointment, emptiness? Looking for reasons, I found one of them: the loss of the inner meaning of many important concepts of love life. For example, such as “love”, “family”, “relationships”, “husband and wife”, “sex”, etc. Many have heard these words, use them in their speech in full confidence that they understand what they are essence. But as soon as I suggest looking deeper into their content, it turns out that most often there is chaos and emptiness.

My experience in counseling and psychological work shows that today few people can clearly and distinctly explain what is really hidden under such wonderful words, what they have content. In their love life, people often rely on random and false ideas, using concepts familiar to them that do not correspond to reality. A person is guided by some erroneous assumptions, as a result of which he makes erroneous conclusions. As a result, the chances of success are very small: «we wanted the best, but it turned out as always.» Having misconceptions in your personal life is like navigating your travels on a distorted map. It is clear that instead of achieving the desired goal, you can get lost in a dense forest or get stuck in a swamp.

The most interesting thing is that our false assumptions about relationships are widespread and habitual. We adopt knowledge and ideas about how to build relationships from our families, from films, from books, we adopt them accidentally and unconsciously, without thinking about what their psychological meaning and mechanism is. So don’t be surprised if some of the pitfalls are confusing. The prejudices you find in them are probably so old that they seem undeniable. It is hard to even imagine that they can be abandoned. For many people, they are taken for granted and not subject to special consideration and verification of truth. Take a look at the titles of the parts of this book — you will agree that at first glance there is nothing special about them. Phrases such as “I didn’t have a dad (mom)”, “Jealous means he loves”, “He left me”, “Mother-in-law is my husband’s mother”, “You offended me”, “I’m looking for a husband” and others, we hear all around. But if you think at least a little, you will find that these words do not reflect the reality.

All this creates unnecessary difficulties in love life, conflicts “out of the blue”. Lovers, being victims of their own prejudices and delusions about relationships, are captured by the obscure ghosts of their erroneous conceptions of love. Therefore, the problems that arise during the development of relations are perceived by them as unexpected, and attempts to solve them are often unsuccessful. As a result, the sphere of relationships for many people begins to be perceived as something chaotic and fatal — and they feel like victims of external circumstances.

In order to successfully resolve the difficulties of living together, it is desirable to have specific knowledge of the psychology of human relations. Although one often has to face the position that love is too complex and subtle matter, where the mind should not penetrate. As they say, if there is love, everything else will take care of itself. I believe that this is not so: in this vitally important area for any person, awareness is especially needed to help create spiritual harmony between lovers. The purpose of this book is to help you, the reader, dispel the fog in relationships and build them more consciously and effectively. I invite you to a joint study of the most common psychological traps and misconceptions about love that prevent us from understanding each other and being happy. In addition to describing them, I will offer possible ways to effectively resolve the difficulties that arise.

In the book, the description of the traps is a psychological study on a variety of topics, which are divided into five groups: «Relationships», «Family», «Parents», «Man and Woman», «Love». I do not pretend to be the ultimate truth, but I just want to present you my own approach to the classification of common errors and how to solve them. Of course, in addition to my own, the book contains ideas of people close to me in spirit, among whom I would especially like to mention E. I. Veselnitskaya, E. E. Kunin, I. N. Kalinauskas, V. I. Kalinauskene, S. Peck, E. Fromm , B. Hellinger, who had a great influence on me.

ATTENTION

I want to warn you that this book is not for everyone. If you are confident in the correctness of your ideas about love and do not want to part with some delusions, then you should refrain from reading it. Otherwise, you will no longer be able to perceive in the old way what previously seemed to you ordinary, healthy and natural.

Relationship Pitfalls

Trap 1. Let’s find out our relationship!

There is one question that periodically pops up and at the same time, as a rule, is never solved, which arises in the process of life with loved ones. Before asking it, a person usually hesitates, makes meaningful pauses, sighs, and only then says it. Most voice it with exactly the same words: “Let’s finally find out our relationship!” Most often, this proposal does not cause any enthusiasm: we already anticipate in advance that such communication will not end in anything good. Practice shows that you can sort things out for a very long time — and still not fully figure it out. For some couples, this activity stretches for many years. How to «correctly» sort things out? As a result of reflections, I had my own version that allows me to solve this «eternal» problem.

In my opinion, the difficulties in relationships arise from the fact that for most people the world of relationships is a complete chaos. They do not always understand why they decided to live with this particular person, why their relationship suddenly ended, why they do not develop as they would like. What needs to be done in order to be able to manage relationships? The first step I suggest is to see that this world is not homogeneous, it has different levels, types and forms. Structuring the world of relationships, that is, highlighting these levels in it, we have the opportunity to take an active position, to become the master of our love life.

In my approach, I propose to distinguish three levels of relationships between people as the main ones: social, emotional and sexual. Each level is associated with the satisfaction of various basic human needs. Social needs are associated with the position in society and joint activities with other people; emotional — with a deep need for emotional contact; sexual desire is based on the instinct of reproduction. Thus, any combination of human relations is possible, depending on what they are based on. At the same time, we can enter into relationships with different people at different levels, and with one person we can have relationships at several such levels.

On the basis of these three levels, it is possible to construct a classification of possible forms of relationships. There are forms of relationships in which there is only one level. For example, I went to the store to buy my own food. My relationship with the seller is an example of a social relationship. Or I have a friend with whom we just have a good time. In this example, we are talking about the presence of an emotional level of relationships.

There are more complex forms of relationships in which there are two levels. An example of the presence of social and emotional levels: we work together and experience emotional affection for each other. Lovers in a relationship combine emotional and sexual levels. There may even be a combination of social and sexual levels, for example, in women of easy virtue.

When the number of levels in one form or another of living together increases to three, the system of relations becomes much more complicated. In this case, there is a danger of its destruction. For example, if in industrial relations, where two levels are normally possible (social and emotional), a sexual level is added, a non-working form arises, contradictory in its essence — an office romance. A classic example is the boss and the secretary. If they go beyond working and emotional relationships, then their roles at work will be blurred (whether the boss, or the man …). Such relationships become overloaded and dead ends. If a woman of easy virtue falls in love, then she will have difficulties at a professional level.

I have found that only one form of living together as normal can contain all three levels. In other cases, when the third level arises, the system of relations does not stand up. This only form is marriage and family relations. There is a social level (“husband-wife”), emotional (“loving”) and sexual (“sexual partners”). It turns out that it is no coincidence that such relationships are the most complex and confusing, one might even say — extreme. What is more surprising is that when we join them, we hope that everything will be fine with us. Without special training, such expectations are most often unreasonable, unless someone is just lucky.

Why do relationship problems arise? First, there is no problem in relationships «in general». If a difficulty arises between people, then first of all it is necessary to determine at what specific level it arose. Whatever happens, we are always dealing with either social or emotional or sexual difficulties. At what level the problem arose, at that level it should be solved. For example, a complaint is heard: “The husband fell out of love, it is necessary to get a divorce.” Such a view only exacerbates the marital situation. In fact, the problem arose on an emotional level (“the husband fell out of love”), and the woman’s search for a solution to it takes place on a completely different – ​​social – level (“it is necessary to get a divorce”). It is logical to assume that a constructive approach in this case is to help discover the differences between love and marriage and resolve the problem on the same level at which it arose, in this case, on the emotional level. If a woman files for divorce, her husband’s love will not increase.

Secondly, at each level of relations there are specific laws. I think that the emergence of problems in the sphere of relations is the result of an unconscious mixing of these levels. A classic example is when two friends who have a good emotional relationship try to do business together, that is, build a social relationship. Mixing relations as an attempt to take into account two different systems of rules at the same time leads to a dead end. There is, as one well-known psychologist wrote, «pressing the gas and the brake at the same time.» The engine roars, gasoline is spent, and the car does not move.

Once the level at which the problem has arisen is found, it is no longer difficult to resolve it. The approach I propose, based on the differentiation of levels of relationships, makes it possible to resolve almost all existing problems, including jealousy, dependence on the mother, difficulty in choosing a spouse, critical attitude towards parents, merging with a partner, infidelity, consequences of divorce, etc. Next, I will give many more examples of problems arising as a result of mixing levels of relationships, as well as ways to solve them.

So, if your partner once again suggests “to sort things out”, then instead of a long and tedious conversation “about nothing”, remember the levels. Ask first what level of relationship he is not satisfied with. I assure you that the offer of an intellectual consideration of a difficult life situation will cause thought and confusion. The partner will definitely become interested and ask: “What are the levels of relationships?” You can tell him authoritatively about the levels and their rules. I hope that your further conversation will be more constructive. It will take no more than half an hour to clarify the most complex problems.

Although there is some risk. If you sort things out so quickly, then what will you talk about next? Perhaps, due to the lack of other important topics for communication, people are trying to maintain chaos and uncertainty in this area? To always have something to talk about?!

It is better to stop at the ellipsis at once than to gradually reach the point …

D. Aminado

Trap 2. A dead-end way to sort things out

We found out that there are no problems in relationships at all, any problem is associated with any particular level. Therefore, it is desirable to know at what level their resolution is possible, and at what level they will inevitably come to a standstill. Let me tell you a secret: it is possible to sort things out constructively only with regard to an object of conflict of interest that is obvious to both partners. We are talking about the social level, where conflicts arise over real and obvious objects for both sides (money, territory, people, powers, etc.) and therefore are resolvable. Such a conflict can be denoted by the phrase «business struggle».

You can get into a dead end if you start sorting things out on an emotional level: “you love — you don’t love”, “you respect — you don’t respect”, “you appreciate — you don’t appreciate”. There are a lot of topics for such conversations. When they say that “it is necessary to find out the relationship”, most often they mean talking about feelings (one’s own or a partner’s). But such a conflict cannot be resolved, since love and respect, like other internal states, are not a concrete and obvious object for both. When in an emotional relationship you invite a person to find out what the object of the struggle is, then you immediately come across the absurdity of such an approach. It is subjective, that is, invisible. Each of the partners interprets feelings in their own way, they cannot be presented, measured or compared with each other. You can only demonstrate behavior, but not the feeling itself.

Such a conversation «about nothing» (since there is no specific visible object) can be designated as a positional fight. The reason for the positional struggle is unfulfilled expectations from the partner, the struggle for the other to meet them. Unlike a business struggle (when there is a real object of competition), a positional fight is based on psychological moments (pride, pride, self-esteem), that is, when there is no object of conversation. In it, everyone seeks to prove their case and take the top authoritative position. Therefore, conversations at the level of “you began to treat me badly” can last indefinitely due to the lack of a real object of struggle. Even if it seems to us that we have won by proving our case, there is no guarantee that such conversations will not start again. Nobody wants to feel like a loser. The partner will gather strength and want to take revenge. Therefore, it is desirable to move away from clarifying the relationship on an emotional level, since there are no winners in a positional struggle. The struggle for love will always be a useless waste of energy and strength. People swear, psychologically injure each other, energy is spent, but there is no result.

Sometimes mixing relationships can be extremely exotic. Here is one example that was given to me during the consultation. The husband came home from work and asked his wife to cook soup for him. She at first refused, but then changed her mind, cooked it and solemnly brought it to her husband. Suddenly he declares: “I won’t eat this soup!” “But you asked him to cook?” the wife was surprised. “Yeah, but I won’t eat that kind of soup!” The wife did not understand: “What kind of “such”?” The husband replies: “You cooked it without love, only because I insisted! If you loved, you should have wanted to cook it yourself. If you don’t like it, then I won’t eat your soup.» After such statements, there is nothing to talk about, the conversation has reached a dead end. A free interpretation of behavior as a manifestation of an attitude immediately creates a neurotic situation. Here the husband would have to figure out what he wants: to be fed or to be loved? Soup is soup, love is love.

If you want to come to some result about emotional relationships, it is advisable to transfer the discussion to the level of behavior, specific actions. There is no point in criticizing or discussing the feelings themselves. With open, sincere relationships, it is possible to express any feeling, but the form of its expression is very important. Ultimately, we do not react directly to feelings, but to their manifestations, to what does not suit us in these manifestations. For example, it is not anger itself that hurts us, but gu.e.e. words and aggressive gestures. Therefore, instead of criticizing your partner about his anger at you, tell us what you don’t like about his behavior. Then the situation is solvable, since it is much easier to change the behavior than the person himself.

People are lonely because instead of bridges they build walls.

Cicero

Trap 3. The boss does not like me

One day a girl came to me for a consultation to discuss a problem with her “bad” boss. When I began to find out why she characterizes him like that, the girl suddenly declared: “But he doesn’t love me!” I heard in this phrase a reflection of a very common problem. Its essence lies in mixing work (social) and human relations. How much strength, nerves and spiritual energy many people spend on sorting out relationships at work — who treats whom how!

I asked her a simple, as it seemed to me, question: “Why do people go to work?” In response, she began to talk about self-realization, creativity, social significance. I even felt a little uncomfortable reminding her that after all, the leading motive for most is the opportunity to earn money. “If tomorrow people are told that they will be paid, but it is not necessary to come to work,” I suggested fantasizing, “then not everyone will come.” Work is most often a situation of forced communication, people interact with each other not for love, but for the sake of obtaining a resource for life. Thus, we gradually came to the conclusion that a bad boss is not at all the one who does not love, but the one who pays little money.

But there are cunning bosses who understand that you can save money on mixing love and social relationships. Instead of paying more, they stimulate a person with their «love»! They start conversations with subordinates like: “In the next months, the salary will decrease a little, temporary difficulties. But you won’t betray, won’t leave us? We respect you very much, we love you, we will be lost without you. People who tend to seek love from their boss in the workplace fall for this trap. For example, they say to their friends: “I would leave, in another place they promised me to pay more. But I’m so appreciated here! I feel uncomfortable leaving such a good team.” A person works for a small salary, but does not leave because he does not want to let down his boss, «such a good person.»

Why is there no place for love at work? Social relations are associated with joint activities. It is difficult for a person to act alone, therefore, with cooperation, he has more opportunities to achieve a particular result. A working relationship is about working together to achieve a goal. We may have different negative feelings about colleagues, but we will restrain our emotions and endure mental discomfort in order to achieve the goal. Therefore, in social relationships, we are able to sacrifice pleasure for the sake of the end result. The goal is achieved, but the pleasure may be absent.

In this way, social relations built not on love, but on the coincidence of interests. Social space is a place of struggle or cooperation for very real resources (money, territory, status, etc.). Therefore, social relations are fundamentally temporary and exist as long as there is a coincidence of common interests. If our interests coincide, then we are friends. If they don’t match, then we part ways (“Sorry, friend, it’s nothing personal, it’s just business”).

The expectation of love in social relationships is dangerous because it leads to psychological overload. In this case, instead of activity, people begin to switch to a showdown. Well, there can be no human relations between a boss and a subordinate, between a seller and a buyer! It is important to remember that in social relationships we are always in certain roles (for example, accountant, manager, director, etc.). A role is not a person. Therefore, exaggerating, we can say that the boss is not a person, but the subordinate is also not a person. A social role is not a characteristic of a person, but only a designation of the activity in which he is engaged. At the role level, people enter into “not human” but working relationships with each other, the essence of which is interaction. If, instead of interaction, relationships arise, then we have temporarily gone beyond the role framework and are mixing the working and human levels. For example, you are angry with your boss or colleague, afraid or feel guilty about him. Or the boss decided to take offense at you. Such a mixture speaks only of his lack of professionalism and is often the cause of the so-called mental burnout syndrome.

Another reason for mixing yourself and your professional role may be the following. Communication in the social plane always affects only that part of our personality that is necessary for normal functioning within the framework of a professional role. Everything else is not in demand: neither our rich inner world, nor our other abilities. Therefore, often a person is forced to identify with the role part of himself, that is, how to get used to it, to decide that he is this role. Sometimes you ask a person: “Who are you?”, And he, for example, answers: “I am a teacher.” From the whole person, only one social person remained. In this case, a person becomes a teacher not only at work, but can be a teacher on the street, at home, and even in an intimate situation.

Therefore, no matter how hard you try, the maximum that we can get at work is respect. Moreover, we will be respected not as a person, but as a specialist. And for our efforts, we will receive not love, but a specific social resource in the form of a certain amount of banknotes. The love of the boss for the subordinate is expressed in the amount of the salary assigned to him.

Friendship is friendship, and service is service.

Proverb

Trap 4. Love triangle

One day a young man came to me with a relationship problem. He has a wife and a mistress. The wife knows about the existence of another woman, especially since from time to time he goes to live with her. The mistress, in turn, periodically offers him to divorce his wife and marry her. Each side requires him to make a choice. The drama lies in the fact that he does not want to leave his wife and at the same time he is drawn to his mistress. As a result, two loving women, as it were, tear him apart.

At first glance, the position of a man is hopeless. Whatever he chooses, it will only be a compromise and will not give him a final decision. We can say that he was in the famous love triangle, when you are in which, the problem seems insoluble. From there there is no way out, and it remains only to suffer.

In fact no triangle exists. This is just a mistake in thinking. To illustrate this clearly, I will give the following example. Imagine that we have several glass plates, each of which has a picture drawn on it. If you put them in a column on top of each other, then, looking at the top plate, you can see an image that is the sum of all the drawings. But a single pattern is an illusion arising from the transparency of glass plates. A story about a love triangle is most often a description of the situation from the point of view of the top plate. That is, two types of relationships merge into one plane, as when two transparent plates with different patterns are superimposed.

For a competent consideration of the described situation, we need to look at this column of glass plates from a different angle. For example, on the side. Then we will see that under the guise of a dramatic situation, two fairly simple planes of the relationship of this man are hidden. The first plane is marital relations, relations with the wife. The second is a relationship with a mistress. My client’s mistake was that the man connected them together, as a result, relationships arose between the women too. They communicate through it and find out something. Women have a conflict not with him, but among themselves.

Thus, to solve this problem, it is necessary to separate the «triangular» relations into different planes — so that they do not intersect. That is, it is desirable to consider all relations separately. The conflict in each case arises between two people and must be resolved without the involvement of third parties.

In this example, the difficulty of the relationship with the wife is not the presence of a mistress. She is just an excuse to fight. If everything was fine with the husband and wife, then the mistress would simply not have arisen. The presence of a mistress signals: something does not suit a man in a marital relationship. But perhaps he himself does not realize this or does not understand how to fix it. Speaking to his wife about his mistress, he thus shows hidden aggression against his wife.

On the other hand, the claims of the mistress should be seen as interference in his marital relationship. Here it makes sense to consider the issue with a mistress like this: what is more important to her — a relationship with him or a desire to get married? If her desire to marry is the goal, then the man is only a means. Then there is no need to talk about any human relations. In them, the goal is always a person, but if the goal is something else, then a person becomes a means of consumption. Any consumption of one person by another destroys the relationship.

The main thing is not to confuse relationships with different people in one ball. In the sphere of relations, the concept of «ecology» can also be introduced. The ecology of relationships involves maintaining certain boundaries, both work and personal. You don’t have to tell everyone everything. Unfortunately, the boundaries of relationships are often not only not taken into account, but also constantly violated. For example, at work, people discuss their family problems, involving colleagues in them unnecessarily. After a while, the entire department sympathizes with the offended wife and resents the «terrible» husband. Many people do nothing but discuss other people’s relationships instead of caring for their own. It is easier to discuss the game of a football team than to play football yourself.

By revealing to his mistress the secret of his relationship with his wife (and vice versa, by telling his wife about his mistress), a man introduces them into his personal relationship. To prevent this from happening, it is advisable not to tell others about intimate relationships with others. That is, if the wife starts talking about her mistress (or vice versa), do not support these conversations, do not let others interfere in their personal affairs: “My relationship with my wife is my relationship with my wife. We have our own relationship. Let’s focus on our own relationship, not someone else’s.»

Most likely, such a mixture of layers of relationships is not accidental and reflects the hidden desire of the man himself. What is this desire? This is not hard to guess. Any triangle resembles a childhood relationship when there were two parents and a child. Creating a triangle is a hidden attempt to return to a childish state, to solve children’s unfinished problems. Most likely, as a child, this man was torn between two parents who wanted him to choose the one he loves more — mom or dad. (Of course, this is not about a real parental conflict, but about the child’s perception of the family situation.)

If you are reluctant to cheat on your wife, then you love her.

S. Altov

Trap 5. Do not do good if you do not want to receive evil

Opinions differ about the commission of altruistic deeds. On the one hand, this is widely considered to be an extremely positive action. On the other hand, there are a lot of cases when the one who was helped paid off the benefactor with “black ingratitude”. Usually in such cases, a person is perplexed: “I did so much good for him, but in return I faced meanness!” In this regard, there is such a gloomy modern joke: «No good deed will go unpunished.»

What is the reason for such inconsistency and what to do with the desire to help someone? This desire is absolutely natural on the part of parents in relation to their children — the good deeds of parents do not need compensation, or, in other words, compensation is the giving position of children in relation to their own children.

In private relationships, one gives something to another, and the compensation is that the giver feels good about it.

At the social level, one of the important laws of human interaction is the principle of balance between «take» and «give». If a person has done something for us, then we definitely need to compensate for it. Otherwise, we feel obligated. An exception to the rule of social balance are gifts as a manifestation of a relationship on a private level, and we are not obliged to pay for them.

Interestingly, this principle applies not only to the good, but also to the negative. If someone harmed us, then in order to restore relations with this person, compensation for his act is necessary. Otherwise, the disturbed balance will taste of bitterness and resentment, which will not allow you to restore relations with this person. The offended person looks at the offender from the arrogant position of the disadvantaged, and the offender finds himself in the position of a scoundrel. Remaining in such positions, they can not connect in any way. Moreover, on a psychological level, when a person says: “Excuse me,” he seems to be asking: “Can I do something else like that?” In turn, when we forgive, we unconsciously allow that person to continue harming us. Therefore, it is undesirable to limit ourselves to accepting a simple apology — in order to maintain a relationship, we must ask for compensation for the damage caused.

The position of the benefactor is at first glance the opposite of the offender. But both positions have something in common. Both of them break the balance between “take” and “give”. By doing good from a “pure heart” and not expecting a return, we involuntarily begin to rise above another person. Our self-esteem rises, but for the other it, on the contrary, decreases. He, in turn, subconsciously feels his debt, and a state of humiliation accumulates in him (after all, he cannot return the same amount to us). When the state of the debtor reaches the limit, the person is forced to restore balance. This is done in a simple way: intrinsic self-worth is increased by devaluing the benefactor. Perhaps the long-standing idea that a good deed should be done anonymously makes some sense.

I remember one couple’s consultation. A man, being abroad on a long business trip, learned about the plight of his friend. She was nice to him, and he decided to help her financially by sending a fairly large amount of money. After some time, he returned and tried to continue friendly relations with her. To his surprise, relations from his act not only did not improve, on the contrary, they became very tense. The girl began to prove to him that she was “not like that”, that she owed him nothing, etc. At the end of the consultation, he realized how a good deed can offend a person.

It would seem that the situation described above refers to the level of private relations. What is the catch then? Perhaps the man had certain expectations in relation to the girl, and she did not reciprocate — and the balance was upset at a deeper level — an «asymmetrical» relationship.

Let’s consider another example. One of my friends has an elderly aunt. She has no children of her own, and she sees her child in her niece. Despite a small pension, the aunt buys gifts for her niece — often unnecessary and expensive, but she herself does not accept anything from her. This upsets the niece very much, because she wants to somehow brighten up her aunt’s life. One day it was my aunt’s birthday and her niece invited her to the cinema, but her aunt wouldn’t let her pay for the tickets. Even in this form, it was impossible to make a gift. The balance in terms of «take» and «give» can not be achieved. With such an aunt’s position, her relationship with her niece is possible only at the social level. Moreover, the niece actually acts as an object of fulfillment of the aunt’s dreams, and not an independent living person. It is not surprising that the aunt’s ardent love for her niece remains unrequited.

It is the same in other cases: if in a couple one person takes the position of a giver, and the other turns out to be a taker, then sooner or later such a relationship will end in failure.

Benefactor — the first whip!

Russian folk proverb

Trap 6. I love you more than you love me

One of the most common reasons for a showdown is related to an attempt to quantify love and intimacy. Quite often, during consultations, one has to hear accusations from spouses: “I do so much for him, but he doesn’t pay attention to me at all, behaves coldly, etc.” Or other accusations: «I love him more than he loves me.» In such words, one hears a complaint that the partner upsets the balance between «take» and «give» in love. From the outside, it sometimes seems that one is asking the other for some kind of emotional money and accuses the partner of stinginess. Like, he “squeezed the money” and does not give it back, although I know that he has it.

An important difference between the emotional level and the social level is precisely that in the first case, the principle of balance between “take” and “give” does not work. Love, respect, acceptance have no quantitative criteria. Nobody loves more or less than they can. Once, listening to another complaint that my husband pays little attention, I suggested drawing up an “attention contract”. The woman enthusiastically set to work, but then difficulties arose. First, how will we measure attention? In the hours spent together, in the number of gifts, in the appropriate facial expression? Should the husband sit next to her, talk, walk? The longer we tried to draw up a contract, the more the woman realized the absurdity of this exercise. No lawyer will sign a contract for attention. In the world of emotions, the laws of arithmetic do not work. Love is not a quantity, but a quality. How can quality be measured?

Trying to accept the contract on an emotional level leads to all sorts of manipulations. Suppose I agreed to pay attention to my wife for three hours a day. At the same time, no matter how hard I try, nothing will stop her from saying: “Is this how they show attention? You are not sincere now.» Try, prove what is really wrong, what you do with all your heart. Therefore, the contract on an emotional level does not work, everything is built on a spiritual resonance. With good emotional contact, feelings, sincerity or insincerity are often understood without words. The problem of «clarifying the relationship» disappears by itself, only the problem of the form of expression of the relationship or the choice of action remains.

Love is love, no matter how we cut it. A little love is like being a little pregnant.

E. Semrad

Trap 7. What is a good wife, mother, daughter?

At one of my seminars on the psychology of relationships, the question arose: what is a good wife? I decided to develop this theme and made a list of possible options: what is a good wife, a good daughter, a good mother, a good woman? Then he asked the participants to come up with answers to these questions. They said. A frequent synonym for the word «good» has become the phrase «the one that loves and is loved.» In addition, the participants added the following:

• good wife the one who takes care of the house, takes in her husband and children, who keeps the house economically;
• good daughter obeys her parents, lives up to their expectations, takes care of them until old age, is grateful for everything they have done for her;
• good mom she always remembers her child, tries to give him a good upbringing, does not offend in vain, is always ready to sacrifice herself, she is a friend to her child, and he can tell her everything;
• good woman sexually attractive, looks after her appearance, she has many men, she is modest and passionate;
• good mother-in-law the one who respects her son-in-law, feeds him pancakes, etc., reconciles with his wife if they have a conflict, helps the family as best she can.

At first glance, everything is very plausible. After that, I invited the participants to analyze these responses. The general conclusion was that the answers were dominated by children’s interpretations (although the people were old enough). Then I showed adult responses to questions about what it means to be good. They turned out to be completely different — and for many unexpected. The word «love» was not there at all.

• good wife. By itself, she cannot say, «I am a good wife.» Nor can outsiders say that she is a good wife. The roles of husband and wife are interrelated, so this is the one that the husband evaluates as good;
• good daughter. The previous characteristic is suitable for a little good girl. An adult good daughter is not one that does well to her parents (that is, she does not focus on their grades), but does to her parents what she herself considers good for them;
• good mom. This is not a role at all, but a given, therefore it is not subject to evaluation. In addition, since mother gives life, then there is no bad mother in nature;
• good woman. If there were no men, then there would be no women. They would just be individuals. A woman is a mirror for men and vice versa. Therefore, a good woman is one in whose presence men become prettier like men. The more their self-esteem rises, the better it is;
• good mother-in-law. The mother-in-law is not the mother of the wife, but the wife of her husband. She has her own family, and her daughter has her own. A good mother-in-law is one who respects the boundaries of these families and does not interfere in the relationships of another family.

Children’s position on the question «what is good» is quite monotonous: as much love as possible. In an adult approach, transferring everything to an emotional level means simplifying everything very much. It is impossible to be good in the abstract. What is good in one situation may not be good in another. Love is not connected with the concept of «good.» Love is a state, quality or ability. She doesn’t leave an adult relationship. If, in relation to children, love means, first of all, caring for them, when parents give children everything they need, then in relation to adults, this is a different, more complex and diverse content. While «good» is situational and transient, love can be the backdrop to our interactions at any level.

Every man needs three women in his life: a mother, a wife, and at least one more who considers him a man.

Э. Bern

Trap 8. Touchy girlfriend

Somehow I received the following letter on the site: “I have a girlfriend. I like talking to her. But there is one problem: she is terribly touchy and capricious, and I am her only friend. Apparently, because of this, she often plays on my guilt, gives out claims like: “I thought you were my friend, and now I’ll think about it.” I often have to apologize to her — or rather, it’s easier for me! I’m not proud, and I have a wild desire to maintain good relationships. Therefore, I am always ready to apologize, at least a hundred times a day, if only she was satisfied and did not think that “there are enemies around”.

But I keep thinking that it’s not constructive! Tell me, please, how can you respond to a touchy and full of claims person in such a way as to cool his ardor a little? For example, to such typical phrases: “How could you do this?”, “You didn’t even think to call and ask how I feel”, “Think for yourself why I was offended by you”, “You seem to be a bad friend” «I shouldn’t trust you.»

Many of us have had to deal with touchy people and try to please them somehow. On a psychological level, resentment hides a desire to punish a partner for not meeting expectations from him, and guilt is a way of self-punishment for the same. Both resentment and guilt are a single complex of two interrelated reactions, a kind of emotional automaton for controlling human behavior. That is, they arise without awareness, as if by themselves, showing our dominant way of responding. There are people who are more prone to resentment, while others are more prone to feelings of guilt. Although if you catch a touchy person in some misconduct and start blaming him, you will see how he immediately falls into a feeling of guilt and begins to make excuses. I jokingly call it “whoever gets up first gets the slippers.”

The problem is that our apologies do not remove, but rather increase resentment. If we react to offense with a sense of guilt, then we involuntarily reinforce the right of a person to be offended by us. The next time he will be even more offended, we will apologize even more, and so on. This girl, apparently, reached a certain point, when her friend’s resentment became difficult for her.

The way out may be to change the nature of your response to the emotion of resentment. If we react to offense with a sense of guilt, then we should stop automatically reacting and, instead of complementing the adjustment to the offense with a sense of guilt, try to respond in a different way. Here any options can come up, except for guilt there are a lot of them. You can be surprised at an offense, show a sense of humor, calmly ask again, etc. If the offense is not reinforced, then it will gradually decrease.

Of course, this does not mean that when a person is offended, he should be ignored, they say, «they carry water on the offended.» You can stay in contact with him and continue to communicate normally. Possible examples: “How could you do this?” — “I’m surprised myself!”, “You didn’t even think to call and ask how I feel” — “But you yourself couldn’t call and tell how you feel?”, “Think for yourself why I was offended by you” — “I won’t guess in life”, “You, apparently, are a bad friend” — “Why are you friends with me then?”, “I shouldn’t trust you” — “Next time be more careful with me.”

An intelligent person cannot be offended; offended exactly as much as the feelings surpass the mind.

F. Lid

Trap 9. How we push people away from us.

The manifestation of love is associated primarily with communication, its quality, richness and diversity. The most interesting thing is that in order for it to take place, we already have everything — our unique personality. Communication has always been valued not so much for the exchange of information (even the most valuable), but for the opportunity to get in touch with unique worlds, bottomless universes that are hidden in every person. To do this, you need quite a bit: to be able to open yourself to another person. According to the apt definition of the philosopher and psychologist I. N. Kalinauskas: «Love is the removal of distance.»

Therefore, the expression «learn to communicate» is not entirely true. We just know how to communicate. Our problem is quite different.

In life, we only do what we do to prevent each other from opening up. We “close” ourselves and “close” others with it. To create communication, we must first learn to remove all sorts of barriers that we (often unconsciously) put in the way of trusting communication. What are they?

Observing real contacts between people, you can see a variety of barriers that destroy trusting communication. Each is the architect and builder of his own loneliness. Our defenses lie in the style of communication, in the way we behave in contact with other people. It is on this that the success of building relationships largely depends. There are no trifles here. Look, posture, facial expressions, phrasing, intonation — all this can be both attractive and repulsive.

Pay attention: how often we by our behavior do not inform the person dear to us that he is dear to us. Sometimes we even spend a lot of effort to hide it. And we ourselves are waiting for him to see, understand and accept us behind this “closed” behavior. Sorry, but this is not always possible even for an experienced psychologist!

For expressiveness, I will try to draw an analogy with sports. There are boxers who defend themselves by keeping the opponent at a long distance, preventing him from approaching them. This athlete is really not to get. The style of communication of some people is not much different from the tactics of such boxers. Imagine how it would feel if the person you are talking to:

• avoids eye contact, usually looking sideways or down;
• does not call you by name, says “in general”, and not personally related to you;
• the inner feelings of a conversation with you are not reflected in his usually impassive face;
• withdraws in conversation, avoids shaking hands.

Well, how? There is a feeling that the interlocutor is keeping you at a distance. He is perceived as an indifferent, hidden and cold person, no matter how sincere and warm feelings he has for you.

Someone achieves safety only in «close combat». This is a person who goes straight to “you”, unscrews your button and pats on the shoulder. Such excessive «breaking» of the distance in communication can also cause discomfort, be perceived as excessive obsession or familiarity.

Another style of defense is based on changing the height of the position in communication (both literally and figuratively). In the practice of psychologists, an unusual experiment took place. Two people were put in chairs that could rise with the help of special devices. At the time of the argument, proving his point of view, one of the interlocutors pressed the lift button and immediately found himself two heads taller than his opponent. The other didn’t like it. He also rose, but already much higher. So, arguing, they rose until, to the loud laughter of those present, they hit the ceiling.

Here are a few tools that pretty quickly make us out of reach for a friendly conversation:

• confident meaningful tone;
• categorical formulations, which allegedly cannot be doubted — we give the truth in a ready-made final form;
• we try to have the last word in any dispute;
• we build a conversation not as a conversation, but as a demonstration of our “valuable” qualities or knowledge.

In this case, we may make an authoritative impression. Yes, they will listen to us, but they are unlikely to want to be friends. “Where are we?” – they will think.

But no less successfully you can stay alone and “go down”, underestimating yourself, demonstrating modesty, insignificance.

«Invisible Man» is perhaps the most effective defensive style of all, which guarantees complete loneliness. In fact, a person makes himself invisible to others. He:

• avoids dressing fashionably (if this is a girl, then she usually does not use cosmetics);
• speaks quietly, pronounces words illegibly for fear of saying something wrong;
• when visiting, he usually sits in the most secluded corner, hiding behind a book or newspaper;
• does not tolerate being in the spotlight, even if it is his birthday;
• inexpressive in dances, movements. At dances or discos, he will sit and watch others dance.

Having visited the company once again, the «invisible» will go home still alone, without meeting anyone.

But people who stand out too much are also often lonely. It’s like butterflies — catchy and bright colors serve as a kind of protection. And it is no coincidence. How much courage does it take to approach a fashionably dressed unfamiliar beauty! Sober and modest is clearly not on the shoulder.

The style of communication can be compared to a prism through which our feelings and our state shine through. An imperfect prism distorts and darkens the inner image. True communication is contraindicated in any distortion of the soul rays. To do this, it is probably worth trying to remove everything in yourself that interferes with our direct and sincere light. How many of them, failed friendships, only because people hid their benevolence from another, hiding behind goo, feigned fun, pretended indifference! Only by realizing your personal contribution to building your wall of loneliness, you can begin to change your life.

Our existence begins with a lonely cry in anxious expectation of an answer.

I. Yalom

Trap 10. The genius of communication — who is he?

Now there are almost no people who do not have difficulties in communication. It is clear that not every conversation can be called communication (as, by the way, not every person can be called a personality). Therefore, we will try to highlight several levels of contacts with others.

So, level one. This situation is familiar to everyone: boss — subordinate, officer — soldier, etc. Rigid, impersonal, role-playing form of contacts, defined by the word «management». With such a contact, there is someone “from above” and someone “from below”. And the “lower” performs the tasks of the “upper”. To control another means to use him in contact as a means. There is open control, and there is hidden control. And very often a person who is able to openly manage others is called a genius of communication (“Our boss will get what he wants from anyone,” they say with enthusiasm about this.) That is, a “manager” is a person who owns secrets and ways of influencing and influencing on other people. The one who perfectly sees the weaknesses and knows how to press the necessary button at the right moment.

In psychological language, this type of person is called a «manipulator». For people who want to master the technique of manipulation, there are even special manuals. For example, Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People. The only thing I would note: for all their external successes, the manipulator is often deeply unhappy. This happens because he is deprived of close relationships with people. For covert management, closed relationships are most favorable. But the opposite is also true: if we have closed communication, we unconsciously manipulate each other. When I make a “chess move”, using my friend, wife, child as a piece (no matter how noble goals I pursue), I destroy, eat up our relationship. Manipulations in communication with loved ones are never forgiven.

The second level, where the positions are more equal, is called communication. Typical situations: in the smoking room, in the kitchen, in the company at the table, in transport. The main problem with such communication is the choice of a common topic. Outwardly, this may seem like verbal hockey: the topic is thrown in (say, «department store»), and the whole company begins to «drive it in a circle.» Having exhausted one, we look for another. In communication, our personality is already manifested, but to a small extent. A sociable person will find a common language with anyone, will be accepted in every company, and will immediately find an interesting topic for conversation. Looking ahead, I will say that it is not given to everyone to be sociable, but everyone can be sociable.

The third level of our conditional division of contacts is called service. Here I no longer use the other person as a means, but I myself become one for him. A good example of this level is psychological assistance. A person comes to me with his problem, which I, as a psychologist, try to help him solve. No wonder most of the effective advice on the question «How to get out of loneliness?» summarized by a single — «Bring others out of it.» But a person who is able to give you wise advice, listen and help you understand yourself, is also too early to call a genius of communication. Following this pattern, he is more of a service genius. This level is already deeper than management or communication. However, this is not really communication.

The fourth, highest level of our contacts is communication. It’s much harder to describe. Here is one characteristic definition that explains its essence: «Communication is the relationship of equally free and equally unique subjects.» His goal is always the same — another person. This is not an exchange of information, communication concerns non-informative phenomena: the meaning of life, moral values, the orientation of the personality, its ideals and aspirations. They cannot be transferred, they can only be attached to another. The psychological mechanism of communication is an experience merged with understanding, and not purely rational transmission and reception of information.

A person capable of this should be called a communication genius. Such a type is described in the literature — Prince Myshkin from Dostoevsky’s novel «The Idiot». The strength of this man’s openness to others was so great that those with whom he had time to talk at least a little became his allies or friends.

Communication is not so much a technique as it is an art. And if I, a psychologist, can teach a person how to manage others or how to communicate, then in principle it is impossible to teach how to communicate. We can only prepare a person for communication, but do not guarantee that it will take place. After all, creativity cannot be guaranteed. Openly show your uniqueness and accept it in the interlocutor — this is the secret of real communication.

When we look at each other, two different worlds are reflected in the pupils of our eyes.

M. M. Bakhtin

Trap 11. How much money do you need to be happy?

What does a person need to be completely happy? Usually they give the following answers: money, home, work, health, family, etc. All these answers are correct, but at the same time incorrect. I knew people who had all of the above, but they did not feel happy. I also knew people who did not have much from this list, but who felt great.

In my opinion, a huge misconception that happiness directly depends on the outside world. For example, for one, winning the lottery will be happiness, and for another, it will be a heavy burden. There are well-known studies that have tracked the changes in the lives of people who have received big wins. It turned out that after six months, three-quarters (!) of such lucky people felt even more unhappy than before. If they tried to change their housing to a more expensive one in a prestigious area, they faced a rather cool attitude from their neighbors. At work, conflicts with colleagues began to arise more often, who began to be more critical of the “lucky ones”. But the real problems began in relationships with relatives and close friends. Someone openly envied, someone asked for money in debt, suddenly long-forgotten nephews, real and mythical relatives with complaints about fate, suddenly appeared, demanded help and participation. Instead of the expected cloudless happiness, a person began to hate his winnings and often got rid of it in the most primitive way, losing at a casino or investing in failed stocks.

There is no direct relationship between objective events and the subjective state, including the state of happiness. The events of the objective world do not automatically affect a person, like pressing a button, due to the presence of the psyche. Its essence lies in the subjective reflection of the objective world. Figuratively speaking, the psyche can be represented as a certain layer between a person and the world around him, a kind of contact boundary. Therefore, man is by nature subjective. When they offer: “Let’s look at the situation objectively,” then for a person this is basically impossible! He can see the world only through himself. Objective information simply does not exist.

By the way a person describes the world, we can conclude not about the world, but only about the psyche of the one who does it! For example, a homeless, plaintively meowing kitten was brought home from the street. A hungry person will immediately say that a furry guest wants to eat. The one who is tormented by thirst, most likely, will offer to drink the foundling. A person with health problems will assume that something hurts the baby.

This is the basis of the simplest way of self-knowledge. How can I know what is in me? You have to look at the people around you. Everything I see in them is mine. If all around me I notice only greed, coldness or aggressiveness, then this is also in me. If it wasn’t for me, I wouldn’t be able to see it in others. «Tell me who your friend (enemy) is and I’ll tell you who you are.» The main idea of ​​projective tests is based on this. A person is shown a blot and asked what it resembles. What can he talk about? Of course, only about myself. Draw a non-existent animal — and you will see your portrait. Unfortunately or fortunately, but a person cannot see objective reality as such. Everyone has their own unique and inimitable vision of the world. Therefore, any description of the world corresponds to something in it, but even all descriptions of the world taken together do not exhaust it.

Therefore, no matter how a person dramatizes the “objective” complexity and hopelessness of his life situation, you now know one important secret, namely: there are no real problems. “But what about illnesses, death of loved ones, loss of social status?” some will ask. We can do a thought experiment. Imagine that ten people fell ill with the same severe disease. Are they all going to react the same way? No. One will decide that this is something terrible and urgently needs to be treated, another will think that there are more important things to do, the third will conclude that this is a warning that you need to change your lifestyle, etc. It turns out that the same thing An event may be a problem for one person, but not for another. The so-called objective problems consist only in the way of perceiving a life situation. The emergence of a psychological problem is a consequence of a rigidly fixed view of a person on life. It is enough to change the perception of reality, look at the event from a different angle — and the problem will disappear.

Happiness is like a butterfly. The more you catch it, the more it slips away. But if you turn your attention to other things, it will come and sit quietly on your shoulder.

V. Frankl

Trap 12: Fighting yourself

Once upon a time, one of my daily activities was … fighting with myself. I diligently tried to remake myself, my character. Become different, some kind of heroic. The image from the movie or the qualities of acquaintances that were valuable to me were taken as a basis. I made plans to change myself, made forecasts of what I would be like in a year, two, three. Sometimes I felt like I was completely different. But sooner or later he returned to his original state, only he experienced it even more terrible. In general, I did not like myself.

The writer M. Bezhin has a story that made a strong impression on me. It’s called Design Master. His main character Yura, under the guidance of his new acquaintance, a communication specialist (or, as he called himself, a “master of design”), became unrecognizable in a short time: “There was no longer a shy boy, endlessly dependent on other people’s opinions and ready to despise. There was a design artist, gallant, witty, graceful.

But it didn’t make life better for Yura: “Once he was amazed when he met an old acquaintance who had recently begun to engage in bodybuilding. There was a frail, frail boy, and now a mountain of muscles towered in front of Yura. The same thing happened to him now, only he was transformed by spiritual bodybuilding. At the end of the story, the hero regrets the lost shyness. It turned out that he lost much more than he gained.

And if the cause of the emergence of protective barriers of our loneliness is sought primarily in relation to oneself, one’s qualities? If I don’t like myself, then it seems to others and even more so. Therefore, I do not fully show myself to others, presenting them with a more pleasant, more perfect image. Why does another person need my problems? Still laugh!

It’s better to hide them away. My closeness is an expression of the fact that I do not respect myself, do not appreciate my uniqueness and uniqueness! The more I dislike myself, the more I hide myself when communicating. In addition, a “closed” person does not respect others, because he does not believe that they are able to perceive his uniqueness. The attitude towards others is always with the same sign as the attitude towards oneself.

Usually, good relationships arise easily and quickly in people with opposite characters. What about the same ones? Judge for yourself — why does a cheerful person need a merry fellow? They will tire each other very soon. It is also difficult to imagine a company consisting, for example, of melancholics alone.

Due to the fact that we do not “present” ourselves to others openly, considering real qualities not worthy of attention, unimaginable confusion begins. I, considering myself a sad person, try to look cheerful and perky. What kind of people will reach out to me? Sad. But I need funny ones! So next to us are people with whom it is difficult for us. And we are repulsed by the ones we aspire to. And here is the sad irony of fate — «foreign people are the unity and disunity of close souls.» In order not to engage in «spiritual bodybuilding», you must first of all be yourself. By accepting myself, I can really develop myself.

One example. In the practice of actors there are special classes in stage speech. A curious detail was once pointed out to me by a teacher of this subject. It turns out that each person has, as it were, two voices. One is the one he is used to, the one he usually talks to and which is actually wrong. If you speak in such a voice for a long time and loudly, it leads to illness. At the same time, everyone has a real, authentic voice, not at all like the first one.

The main difficulty of classes is not even in showing a person how he should speak, but in getting this person to allow himself to talk like that. “Terrible speech, I will never be able to speak in such a voice,” this is how the students convey their experiences. From the outside, when a person says this in a voice that is new to him, he listens much better and more understandably. This is his real, natural voice. They can speak easily, loudly and for a long time. And it is only possible to truly develop, to make strong. So it is in life. Only by finding your inner image, accepting it, you can think about how to become different. Without this, all attempts at self-change are only an escape from oneself.

Wanting to be someone else is losing yourself.

K. Cobain

Trap 13

Know yourself. The importance of this truth was understood even by the ancients. In order to successfully build relationships with others, it’s not a bad idea to first establish relationships with yourself. But remember your attempts at introspection — the more you think about yourself, the more difficult it is to answer the question: «Who am I?»

Sometimes you begin to suspect a genius in yourself, and the very next day you feel that you are the most contemptible creature in the world. Skillfully getting out of a confusing life situation, for some reason you give up in a minor street incident. Bold and uninhibited in one case, you suddenly become timid and passive in another. So who am I really?

In fact, I am «perfection» and «insignificance» at the same time. These two parts are completely equal. Real introspection is not about finding some main part of your «I» and identifying with it. For example: «I realized that I am a coward» or «I am a strong-willed person.» What a person identifies with immediately enslaves him. It is more true to accept all the qualities and manifestations of one’s personality as equally valuable.

Of course, this destroys the stereotype of dividing oneself into good and bad parts. But it should be remembered that a person is not responsible for his qualities, desires and thoughts. He is only responsible for his actions. And between the awareness of some traits in oneself, which are denied by morality, there is a distance to the act. And a lot.

There is even such a saying: «An unimportant quality or trait is just a bad name given to a useful art that you have acquired in your life.» And if you see this benefit, then you will never refuse this “disadvantage”. For example, laziness can be labeled as “not permitted but highly desirable breaks”, secrecy as “the ability to refrain from talking about yourself, even if there is a reason for this”, and irresponsibility becomes “the desire to find out what you should really do” .

The question arises: why do we reject and bury some of our parts in ourselves? Probably not only because of the bad name. There is a parable about a fox that got into a trap with its paw. To save herself, she had to bite off her paw. So are we. In some difficult life moments (especially in childhood), we are forced to give up some character traits. We are punished for them, beaten, they say how bad it is. To survive, we have to push them out. But, unlike the fox, we have the hope of getting them back. How many of our «Selves», doomed to a slow death, are in prison, giving birth to diseases of our body — a headache, a stomach ulcer, high blood pressure, and many other ailments? These parts try at least in this way to draw our attention to themselves. True, unsuccessfully. Usually we believe that we are not to blame — the head itself hurts.

Unfortunately, not enough is known about the laws of mental life, about the soul. Although it is already possible to single out some discoveries from the life of our “Selves”:

• they are isolated from each other that is, under normal conditions, we do not allow the meeting of our «I». Our parts turn on alternately, and often one part that wants adventure finds it, and the other part pays for it;
• they speak different languages that is, it is like foreigners in one country. Special work is needed for our parts to find some common language;
• if some part of us stands out sharply (dominant), this means that the opposite part just as strongly developed in us, but pushed out. If we are shy, then a real impudent person sits inside us. One day he will find himself. The ascended slave becomes an even more powerful master. Ivanushka the Fool turns out to be the smartest of all — there are many such examples;
• those parts that we do not recognize in ourselves and do not consider ours, very well seen in others, and more often they are simply attributed. A person with suppressed aggression sees other people as very formidable (a classic example is that the behavior of others seems very immoral to an old maid). People who annoy us a lot have problems in common with us;
• due to the lack of contact between our parts they don’t know anything about each other. Therefore, they work, as they say, discordantly, and sometimes directly opposite to each other. A chained person is one whose parts of the “I” are stubbornly at enmity with each other. All the energy of such a person goes into holding them back. The secret of naturalness and charm lies in the coordinated work of all parts. I say «I love you» in text, tone, and movement. More often it happens otherwise. Words say one thing, intonation another, gestures a third;

If we talk about knowing oneself, then this is rather an expansion of the zone of accepting oneself into an integral system. To be the master of oneself means to find a use for each part of oneself, where none of our «Selves» will be discarded as harmful, useless or dangerous, but will be combined with each other.

One part of me constantly worries that I am an ordinary loser, while the other fancies himself the Lord God.

J. Lennon

Trap 14. The idea of ​​self-improvement

Often you have to listen to the numerous complaints of people … about yourself! For example, a girl sits in front of me and tells how ugly, stupid, withdrawn she is, etc. There are tears in her eyes, breathing is difficult, her fists are clenched. If you look from the side, then it’s as if some sadistic tormentor is sitting in front of her and mocking. In fact, there is no one, and she does all these bullying herself. It’s like there are two people in it. One lives the way he does. But he is constantly interfered with by his notations of the other. From his point of view, the living does not correspond to his ideas about what he should be. If you look deeper, you can find their different nature. «Living» represents the part of the person that exists in reality. This includes his body, mental and emotional abilities. There is no “scoldling” in objective reality, he is a kind of creature that has an ideal nature. Respectively, the further the “living” is from the “ideal”, the more discontent and criticism of the latter falls upon him.

Here I am reminded of the famous biblical question: “Sabbath for man or man for Sabbath?” Does the real have to conform to the ideal, or vice versa? I think that the real should take precedence, since at the level of the ideal we have no restrictions and we can fantasize about ourselves anything we want. Exaggerated ideals bring nothing but suffering. By the way, heightened idealism causes suffering not only to the person himself, but also to those around him, since it is impossible to please the idealist. The initiators of all the bloodiest revolutions in the world were idealists at heart, they wanted to bring the real world closer to the one that existed in their imagination.

Strange as it may seem at first glance, but the more a person complains about himself, shows self-criticism and self-abasement, the higher his hidden megalomania! For proof, I sometimes use the following trick. I put an object in front of such a person (for example, a vase of flowers), give a sheet of paper and ask him to draw it. Usually a person begins to refuse, says that he does not know how. “Draw as best you can,” I say. A person begins to draw, while saying that it’s crooked here, it’s not right here, it doesn’t work here. I listen silently. Then, when he finishes drawing, I ask myself to rate and, of course, sign. Some put themselves immediately deuce or triple. Less often four, and even then with a minus. An «excellent» rating is rare. And to my question: “Why didn’t you put “excellent” to yourself, the closest one?” answer that they evaluated the drawing objectively.

Then I propose to investigate whether the assessment can be objective. I take a gray notebook, put it against the wall and ask: “Which is darker, the wall or the notebook?” The man replies that the notebook. Then I put this notebook on the floor and ask the same question: “What is darker?” Now the floor is darker. Then I put the notebook against the wall and ask again, then again I put it on the floor and so on several times. Then I ask the key question: “So which notebook is dark or light?” After a minute pause, the person says that it all depends on what background she is against. On a dark notebook is light, on a light notebook is dark. Thus, we come to an agreement about the fact that objective assessments do not exist. Any evaluation is just the result of comparing something with something.

Then I return to the drawing and say: “If you gave yourself a three, then what kind of background do you have? No less than a professional artist.» It turns out that the lower a person evaluates himself, the more he has a hidden megalomania, an idealized image of how he should be. That is why if a person is not able to speak like Cicero, then he must be silent, if he does not have the beauty of Alain Delon, then it is better not to approach the girls, and, naturally, if he cannot draw like Raphael, then there is no need to depict anything.

The way out is to lower the level of the ideal, to combine the ideal with the real. Since there are no objective assessments, then always give yourself five plus. In life, there will definitely be someone who will give us a bad mark, there is no problem with this. But there must be at least one who unconditionally supports us, otherwise it will be a betrayal of ourselves.

It turns out that the idea of ​​self-improvement contains a destructive idea for the individual about his own imperfection. Although if you remember the Bible again, then man is created in the image and likeness of God. How can you be more perfect? In addition, no matter how a person strives for an ideal, he also does not stand still. As soon as we reach a certain height, the ideal also grows. Every year the pressure from the ideal is getting stronger and stronger. Therefore, unconsciously, a person with overestimated ideals avoids achievements, since they do not give satisfaction, but only contribute to the further growth of the ideal due to the increase in the gap between the «I-real» and «I-ideal».

It is often said that the ideal is needed for development, that it serves as a stimulus, otherwise you can relax and do nothing. Development is possible only on the basis of what is in reality. Therefore, the first step to development is to accept yourself, which, in fact, is called love. Sometimes, when a person vigorously defends his desire to become perfect, I say that sooner or later he will become perfect. The person is interested: “And when?” “When you die,” I answer. Indeed, when we are gone, our relatives and friends will gather and say what wonderful people we were. Therefore, the desire for the ideal in practice turns out to be the desire for death. Hence the often encountered dilemma — to be good, that is, ideal, or to be happy.

Clean is dead, dirty is alive.

Sufi wisdom

Trap 15

“They parted like ships in the sea”, “They live soul to soul”, “They didn’t get along” — we constantly use such expressions about the complexities of human relations. They cannot always be replaced by strict scientific terms, since practically the ways to build ideal relationships are still poorly understood.

Remembering and analyzing my relationship, it becomes excruciatingly painful for me. What kind of people I lost, what relationships “didn’t come true”! How many times the first meeting promised to lead to a really happy relationship in the future! And at first they were just like that … I began to remember — how many relationships have I been able to maintain until today? It turns out negligible compared to their total number. If every relationship could be saved… «Rich in human relationships» — in the future this will probably be the most flattering description.

If you look more closely, the destruction of our relationship reveals one pattern. The overall picture is something like this: a successful start — the accumulation of negative stock — overflow — gap. Simultaneously with the beginning of the relationship, we seem to turn on the mechanism for their destruction. Most often, we feed on relationships, we eat the good that they give us. Then there is emptiness. Everyone, of course, has their own ways of being unhappy in a relationship. I have tried to compile some collection of such principles, based on the experience and material of psychological work. So:

1. The principle of secrecy — entering into a relationship, to have any secrets from the other. Something to keep quiet, something to keep silent about. In principle, it does not even matter whether there are serious grounds for such secrets. The mystery itself is always a ticking time bomb. When our connection is overflowing with secrets, a break is inevitable.

2. The principle of evaluation — Relationships develop until I am mature enough to give another assessment. Finally understand who this person is. Once we label it, it becomes uninteresting. Further, we are already beginning to confirm this assessment, finding more and more evidence of our “correctness”.

3. The principle of kindred spirits — communicating with another, I suddenly begin to notice how similar we are. It causes excitement and emotional rush. “Finally, I found a person who understands me in everything. What a blessing that we met!” This orientation toward the similarity of characters later serves as a strong barrier to the development of relationships. From now on, any discrepancy in views begins to be perceived painfully (even about the football team). As soon as we gain a sufficient number of divergences of views on certain things, the phrase follows: “I thought, but it turns out …”

4. The principle of creating an image — entry into the relationship is carried out through some kind of role. The one that, in our opinion, presents us in a favorable light. This may be the role of a real man, a creative person, a psychologist. Considering that we are of little interest in ourselves, communication is based on the material of this role. Relationships are maintained as long as we feel covered by this role. In fact, the image closes the relationship. With their development, our real features will begin to show through, and this is what scares us. Exposure is perceived as a signal to leave.

5. Principle of the test — when communicating with people, have a clear idea of ​​​​how they should behave in a particular case. Consider yourself the owner of a set of internal rules that other people must follow. It is mentally implied that everyone lives by the same rules (or at least they should, in order to earn my respect). Communicating with such people, you take a walk through a minefield. By the end of the walk, you already have time to make so many «mistakes»! Naturally, the rules that you must follow are not communicated to you. You have to be constantly on your guard and guess correctly. Otherwise, a break.

6. The principle of the fulfillment of desires — Feeling well what the other expects from you, justify all his expectations. Children’s logic works — if I am good (that is, I will justify the expectations of my parents), then they will love me. This childish desire to «be good» conflicts with personal desires. Not all the desires of the other are pleasing, a negative reserve accumulates.

Of course, this is not reported out loud, but one day a person who does not understand anything hears from you that you are breaking off relations with him.

The general condition for the triggering of our mechanisms of destruction is reluctance and closeness, the fear of engaging in «clarification of these relations.» These are conflicts, disputes, quarrels — brr! It is better to disperse silently and “in a good way”. I think that avoiding showdown has a well-defined purpose. With such a departure from open communication, we preserve the prevailing idea of ​​​​the world, about ourselves, about others. In this case, I can be calm and confident in my ideas, nothing hurts my inner cocoon.

Finding out the relationship, I must correlate my views on life together with those that my partner has. What if everything is not so right with me and I need to live differently? And not he, but I should reconsider myself? Any restructuring is always painful. It is much easier to part with this person, retaining your life stereotype. This is a natural psychological defense that works purely automatically. What can be opposed to her? There are a number of rules to prevent the showdown from turning into a quarrel.

1. Do not accumulate negative experiences. As they arise, process them in a collaborative conversation. You can ignore a light rain, but a cloud that has accumulated a lightning charge can sweep away a lot in its path: this is how a broken cup becomes a source of disaster. Only a bitter thought remains: “Is everything upset because of some trifle?”

2. Clarification should take place here and now. Determining what to do in a particular situation. Forget the common phrases: “You always do this”, “You did it again”, driving the interlocutor into a dead end and causing a feeling of guilt.

3. Speak the language of feelings and experiences, and not attacking value judgments (for «fool» I will always get «fool himself»). It is easier to accept if you talk not about a person, but about your feelings about him (“When you did that, it hurt me”). There is nothing to object. Don’t say, «You don’t feel that way.» The main condition for effective communication is respect for the individual in the form of acceptance of its uniqueness and dissimilarity to us. As one psychologist correctly noted, the meaning of any quarrel is that we say to each other: “You are not the way I would like you to be.”

But what if there is a gap? Let us be saved by the understanding that relationships are not a network of mutual obligations, but a free connection of people. If we feel good with others today, it does not mean that we will always feel good with them. “The soul is high freedom, which is called friendship …” — remember this Pushkin line? Keep in your soul the feeling that each of your meetings can be the last. It is absurd to be offended or even to scold a person just because he did not live up to your eternal expectations. Imagine that you found a hundred dollars on the street. Not bad at all, but it would never occur to you to demand this every day. In a relationship, such a request is considered natural: “I want you to always be good for me.” The surest way out of a breakup is gratitude for what was, which no one will take away from you.

Any relationship develops in waves. In difficult periods of cooling feelings, you just need to know what it should be. The only thing that can be done here is to make tactful attempts at rapprochement.

In ancient Russian marriage, not couples were selected according to ready-made feelings and characters, but characters and feelings were developed according to matched pairs.

V. Klyuchevsky

Trap 16. Victim and offender: who is to blame?

I remember one after the other stories in which, regardless of age and social status, the same destructive interaction took place for both. This most often happened against the background of words about love. We are talking about a situation where the polarization of such roles as victim and offender arises and intensifies in a couple. From the side of others, the offender is perceived negatively, and we feel sympathy for the victim, she has many defenders. Thus, this role alignment is also reinforced by the external environment.

Oddly enough, but the role of the poor and unfortunate victim is not psychologically vulnerable. In addition, feeling like a victim allows you to feel a sense of righteous anger (“How dare he do this to me?”) And treat the offender cruelly. Often the victim’s response is more destructive.

Although this is only an external form of such interaction. Victim-offender relationships are unnatural, artificial. In them, in whatever role the partners find themselves, potentially everyone has a tendency to play the opposite role. Everyone is both a victim and a perpetrator at the same time, and these explicit roles can very quickly turn into their opposite. For example, one man complained about the jealousy and persecution of his wife. It got to the point that he simply did not want to go home, because it was unbearable for him there. After he made the decision to part with his wife, their roles, as if by magic, reversed. Now she began to suffer that he was leaving her, and he began to feel like a scoundrel, leaving her «to the mercy of fate.» Involving in the “victim-offender” relationship, we fall into the power of transpersonal, systemic laws, which each time unwind the depth of their struggle.

The way out of the vicious circle is to take responsibility for one’s behavior, to discover one’s interest in being the victim. There is even a whole science called victimology (from the word “victimity”, that is, sacrifice), which is based on the fact that some people subconsciously want to be victims. To rebuild from being a victim, first consider how you are unwittingly reinforcing the abuser’s behavior. If a person behaves this way with us, then we allow him to do this, having a hidden interest (once again experience a feeling of oppression and depression). Start changing your behavior, there can be a lot of creativity here. I remember one example. A man, coming home in a state of intoxication, sometimes allowed himself to beat his wife. At the same time, he was a great patriot of his country, and his wife knew about it. And so, when he once again became aggressive, his wife suddenly took out the national flag and wrapped herself in it. This behavior completely destroyed the husband’s anger.

Victims almost always refuse to name their executioners.

M. Welbeck

Trap 17. I want to be like everyone else.

Once during a consultation, I had a very interesting conversation with a girl. She described the essence of her problem as follows: she compared herself with the rest and believed that she was worse than others. Her desire was to become like everyone else.

In order to help her orient herself, I suggested considering two psychological spaces (two ways of defining oneself in this world). In one of them there are good and bad people, evil and kind, smart and stupid. It has people better and worse, higher and lower, interesting and not. Everyone has their own step on the stairs. Here they understand their development as a gradual ascent along it higher and higher, better and better. Here people are divided into those with whom it is worth communicating, and those with whom you can only spend time. Here friends are chosen, and love is sought. People are compared with each other, valued.

«Isn’t that the world you live in?» I asked her. Then he added: “Isn’t this the kind of concepts you use when talking about yourself and others? According to the words — it seems to be in this. The same comparisons with others, the desire to be different, better than it really is, attempts to evaluate yourself. The problems she talked about fit into this world. But here is the secret: in fact, this world, all its values ​​are a set of delusions, prejudices that have accumulated about human relations in general. Those who live in such a world, who obey its laws, are losers. Living in this world is very difficult. Everyone strives to give themselves a five, and others — a deuce. Everyone wants to be at the top and put you below. They try to overtake each other and take a prize. And if you make a mistake, if you don’t live up to the expectations of others, you begin to feel guilty.

Fortunately, there is another way of life, more human, more in line with reality. His law says: every person is interesting. In fact, the same person can be brave in one situation and timid in another. In one case, to be wise, and in the other, to look not very smart. Here people are located as if horizontally. And each (you hear, each — both you and me) person is unique and does not look like another. In this they are equal. And everyone here is valuable. Therefore, it is worth communicating with everyone. In another person, you can always see only his qualities, unique. And these qualities are not divided into good and bad. There are just human qualities, everyone has different proportions. There are no scores here (if everyone is equal), and therefore there are no comparisons. They become friends here (though this takes a lot of time). Love is created. Development is understood as accepting yourself as you are (without any judgments) and the subsequent disclosure of your uniqueness. Your only purpose in this life.

Here, no one overtakes anyone. Everyone does his own thing, which no one else can do instead of him. Everyone can express thoughts that only come to his mind. Yes, these are my thoughts. Why shouldn’t I express them? More often people would express their «wrong» thoughts. Why should everyone say the right, but well-known words? It is not interesting.

Which way will give happiness? At first, I think it is unattainable. No matter how high I climb, there will always be someone higher. No matter how good I am, someone will still be better. The second way, I think, is closer to happiness, but also more difficult. There are many things you can do right now. Stop judging yourself and others. Compare, be afraid to be different. Not who you are. «Striving to be like everyone else» — in fact, these are meaningless words. This goal is unattainable, because all people are inherently different. Each person is unique and unrepeatable in their own way. We can appreciate, say, cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, artist Vladimir Vysotsky, but you can’t all be like him. Imagine how boring it would be in a world where everyone is the same!

If you ever want to find such a person who can overcome any, even the most difficult, misfortune and make you happy when no one else can, you just look in the mirror and say: “Hello!”

R. Bach

Trap 18 You don’t understand me

One of the strong desires in love life is that the partner always understands us. Lack of understanding hurts us. When we don’t feel it from the side of a loved one, we sadly exclaim: “Why don’t you understand me?” Interestingly, a long period of living together does not always lead to a greater and better understanding of each other. Instead, a stable mask of mutual understanding emerges. It seems to us that we understand the other, but how true is this? Very often during consultations I have to deal with the fact that spouses who have lived with each other for many years seem to speak completely different languages. This «parallel communication» leads to feelings of powerlessness and loneliness. Even my suggestion of a simple repetition of what one spouse said to another does not always work out. People really don’t seem to hear each other. In such cases, the psychologist has to act as a translator, interpreting from “Russian into Russian”. Eli Bar-Yaalom has an excellent text on the possibilities of such a dialogue:

The high-ranking contracting parties sat down at both ends of the table, and between them an inconspicuous shadow perched an interpreter. Everyone was silent.

He started first:

— I love you.

She shuddered, but the interpreter made a sign to Her and said:

— He says: «I have patience, I am ready to listen and try to understand you.»

She chuckled and answered bitterly:

— You always knew how to say beautiful words, but I will probably never wait for deeds from you.

The interpreter turned to Him and said:

She says, “I love you too. Only love helped me to endure all this.

He spoke, and there was anguish in His voice:

— I can not go on. Everything I do, you don’t like it. You criticize all the time.

The interpreter turned to Her again and said:

“He says, ‘I have an overgrown, vulnerable ego. It makes me perceive all your words as attacks, and against my will I begin to see you as an enemy.

She looked at Him — no longer hatred. Already with that pity, from which to love is one and a half steps:

“I’ll try to remember that, but you have to stop being a child too. It’s time to grow up in your forties!

The translator turned to Him…

… They left together, shoulder to shoulder, almost hand in hand. On the threshold He stopped, ran up to the interpreter, slapped him on the back and exclaimed:

— Yes, you, brother, are a pro! Where is this taught, huh?

The interpreter did not answer; he caught her gaze with his eyes and translated with his lips:

— He says to me: «I want to learn to understand it myself.»

, everyone would like to have such a qualified translator, but the metaphorical text shows the ability to listen and hear what is hidden behind the words. For this you need quite a bit. First, try to imagine, to realize that the other person is really different. May it always be a mystery to me, a mystery. How he will behave at one time or another, I do not know and do not try to guess. I accept whatever he does. I don’t provoke, I don’t push him in a direction I understand. The important point is not to limit your manifestations. We need to understand that we know little about ourselves, that we are also a mystery to ourselves. Usually, if something in our feelings contradicts our ideas about ourselves, we immediately try to drive it out of ourselves, somehow to force it out. And open communication requires both trust in the other and trust in oneself. Of course, it is easiest to blame others for the fact that communication does not work out. But both are always responsible for it, not only they, but you yourself. Try to see another in another person — and the world of people will become many times richer for you.

Only one heart is vigilant. You can’t see the most important thing with your eyes.

A. Saint-Exupery

Trap 19

At the expense of the possibilities of understanding, there is even a folk proverb: “Another’s soul is darkness”, which in a concentrated form shows all the hopelessness of a deep understanding of each other. Is it so? Yes and no.

If we consider that the main thing in understanding is words, then the situation is really hopeless. Words themselves are only “signifying”, but who puts what into their words, what is “signified”, one can only guess. This is the eternal problem of verbal, that is, verbal, communication. I wonder how much one person can understand another person at the verbal level? Sometimes I conduct an experiment on this topic in group classes, the essence of which is as follows. I put three toys in an opaque bag. Then I invite anyone who wants to describe these items, putting their hands in the bag. The rest of the participants should draw as they understood his words. Then the one who described should look at their drawings and determine how much they correspond to reality. How many percent do you think it turns out — 90, 70, 50? No, the average is no more than 15-30 percent.

In such a visual exercise, it is clearly seen that it is absolutely impossible to achieve a complete understanding between people. Even at the level of describing such simple objects as toys! What to say about the description of life situations or people? Therefore, loneliness is inevitable, since no one will understand us 100 percent. A part of our inner world will always remain with us, which no one will ever know about. It may seem that I finally understood the other person, but then it turns out that this is just an illusion of understanding. On this occasion, a well-known psychologist once said: «Understanding is a prize for fools.» It turns out that the proverb about «darkness» is right?

Fortunately, humans have two ways of knowing. The first, described above, I conditionally designate as understanding with the head, where understanding is considered as a rational consideration of verbal information. It is indeed very limited. But there is another, much less common way of knowing a person by a person — when we rely on the language of joint experiences. A person has a special organ for this, which has many names: heart, soul, psycho-emotional sphere. It is interesting that in the Old Russian language it was called «sentimental». With its help, you can even know that which is not intended for understanding at all. For example, how to understand the smell of freshly cut hay in a forest clearing? And the sunrise in the mountains? The depth of the starry night sky above the quiet sea? It is impossible to fully express this in words, they will always be insufficient. But if we enter into emotional resonance with each other, then due to the emerging empathy, we can really feel, feel and see what lies behind the words.

Indeed, when our loved one sadly exclaims that we do not understand him, most likely he complains that we do not feel him! The language of understanding divides people and creates a barrier in communication. We cannot always fully understand a person of a different nationality, his manner of behavior, terminology, etc. The language of experiences is universal for all people and at all times. Sorrow is felt by everyone in the same way, as well as joy and passion. The “head” can be deceived and confused, but at the level of feelings it is impossible to lead another person, the true attitude cannot be hidden. It is no coincidence that spiritual mystics called this view from an emotional level the «eye of the heart.»

Small children, not yet able to speak, without any special training, unmistakably understand the attitude of adults towards themselves. No matter what good words the “big uncle” says, but if he is internally unfriendly, the child will immediately understand this. Unfortunately, as we grow older, we begin to rely more on the text of words than on our soul indicators. I once read a story about a four-year-old kid. He saw that the neighbor, whose wife had recently died, was crying bitterly. The child went into his yard, climbed onto his knees and sat there until the man felt better. When his mother asked what he said to the neighbor, the boy replied: “Nothing. I just helped him cry.»

Words are created for the convenience of activities in social reality. In the space of love, where subjectivity comes first, words have a very limited use. In order to see and touch another soul, it is important to be able to go beyond the boundaries of words, to enter into a dialogue through joint empathy. In this case, the words are completely unimportant, and sometimes even interfere with the emotional resonance. We can communicate our feelings to each other with a look, a touch, or even simple silence. Silent empathy can convey much more and faster than trying to put everything into words. I remember the story of one of my friends. One of her strongest love memories of her youth, how they stood at the window with a young man at night in a rushing train and just held hands. Alien soul — darkness?

He who does not understand your silence will not understand your words!

E. Lec