Micro Attention: How to get Appreciation With Zero Energy

I don’t have time to deal with you. You don’t have time to deal with me. Yet, instead of completely ignoring each other, we’re yelling at midnight over who has to take out the trash. The poor nuns upstairs are praying to God to forgive the profanity they’re hearing. He won’t by the way. Even He is wondering how we get so heated.

Whether it’s a roommate, sibling, or good friend, there’s something about that person I want to change. And they refuse to do it. Curse, cry, bribe, and shake my fist all I want, my friends’ slow texting, inability to say no, and obnoxious mouth breathing refuses to go away. A lot of it is communication (which we’ll get to). Some of it is not.

So what is a college-aged male to do? Write a blog post complaining about it? Never. Jerry-rig a solution that fixes my relationships with the least effort possible? That sounds better than a two-day old slice of pepperoni pizza.

Attachment Theory

I’m about to give you guys a super power. And like most discussions concerning psychology, we’re going to have to rope in our parents.

It turns out, when we were wee little tykes our parents probably made some mistakes. They argued in front of us, disagreed with us in an immature way, and maybe even *gasp* spanked us.

The effects of their behavior were twofold. Their actions were mirrored by us and simultaneously eroded our trust in them. This superhero that feeds you, gives you toys, and cleans your butt isn’t who she says she is. She has a bad side. We react in a number of ways to bring back their good side. As little kids, we wave our arms and coo. We try to initiate a game of peekaboo. Finally, we give up and wait for the storm to pass, trying to zone out as if we’re in line next to a homeless man that smells funny. (Example: Still Face Experiment)

Now, children are scared of a lot more than angry adults. There are coyotes, loud noises, the dark space under the dresser, the possessed doll in your sister’s room, and that “children’s” movie Caroline. And we tend to react to these unsavory things in one of two ways:

1. Go screaming for mom and dad to come save you
2. Do nothing

Let me repeat that. We really only have two options as kids when we perceive an external threat: let somebody know we need help, or lone wolf it. I know what some of you are thinking: my little niece/nephew throws a fit when her parents are busy preparing dinner. What gives? She’s not in any danger.

Actually, she is. Let me explain. There are external threats and internal threats that we have to deal with. Anything with really long, pointy teeth is an external threat. An internal threat is when our emotional needs aren’t being met.

In order to understand the origin of internal threats, we have to look at my favorite monkey, the Bonobo. Bonobos are a fascinating bunch, hornier than a bunch of sorority sisters at their first rave. They have sex over ten times a day, to solve almost all their social problems. They have lesbian sex after hierarchy disputes. They have sex after grooming. They have sex to say hi. And yes, they have sex to reproduce.

They do this in an attempt to alleviate tension without anybody getting their finger bit off. At the end of the day, they’re social creatures that rely on the whole group’s eyes and ears to warn about predators or spot an untouched fruit tree. The group is greater than the sum of its members, so they all pitch in to keep it running amicably.

And humans…aren’t that different. We used to be primates, and we have emotional responses to gauge our interactions and group standing. In fact, we’ve evolved such that emotional pain is often indistinguishable from physical pain in an MRI. A bunch of nerds actually recorded videos of test subjects’ mothers scolding their adult children about a sore subject, and then scanned the test subjects’ brains whilst playing the video. Punched in the gut or angry mom? Can’t tell. Lends a new meaning to the word “heartwrenching.”

It’s time to leave children behind and enter the realm of adulthood. To explain the application of attachment theory to adults, I have to lean on a book called Love Sense by Dr. Sue Johnson.

Attachment styles line up neatly with the basic way we see ourselves and others. These “mental models” shape the way we regulate our emotions, and they guide our expectations in love relationships, assigning meaning to our partners’ actions and becoming “If this, then that” templates for how to interact. Secure people see themselves as generally competent and worthy of love, and they see others as trustworthy and reliable. They tend to view their relationships as workable and are open to learning about love and loving. In contrast, anxious people tend to idealize others but have strong doubts as to their own value and their basic acceptability as partners. As a result, they obsessively seek approval and the reassurance that they are indeed lovable and not about to be rejected. Avoidant folks, meanwhile, view themselves as worthy of love — at least that is their conscious stance. Any self-doubt tends to be suppressed. They have a negative view of others as inherently unreliable and untrustworthy. Even in their stories and dreams, anxious people portray themselves as apprehensive and unloved, while avoidants see themselves as distant and unfeeling (Johnson 45). [emphasis added]

She goes on to say “ Although we have a main attachment style, we can — and do — step into alternative strategies at specific times and with specific people.” (Johnson 41–42).

And then:

Secure and anxiously attached people tend to reach for those they love for comfort while avoidant people tend to withdraw. But…[there is] a wrinkle. That finding is true only when the threat comes from outside the relationship…when it comes from inside, the responses are different. Both secure and avoidant people can stay on topic and keep their emotions in check when discussing internal conflicts — say the fact that one partner wants more sex than the other — although secure folks are still better at constructing solutions and acting warmly towards their partner. But in the face of internal conflict, anxious partners do not reach out; they go completely off the rails. They catastrophize, bring in irrelevant issues, and become angry and confrontational, even when their partner refrains from being reciprocally hostile. Anxious partners are generally uneasy about their lover’s commitment to begin with and thus are primed to view anything he or she says or does more negatively. Haunted by the specter of abandonment, they try to control the lover (Johnson 48). [emphasis added]

Every time I read this passage I mentally kick myself for not discovering Dr. Johnson earlier. I recommend buying Love Sense, and reading it from cover to cover, as I simply don’t have the time to recount all of Dr. Johnson’s insights.

After reading Love Sense, I worked hard to understand the nuances of attachment theory. My communication with loved ones and friends improved significantly. Yet my loved ones still do things I don’t like. They perform unsavory actions that don’t sit right in my belly, and despite my attempts to lead them into a dance that builds trust better, they keep stepping on my toes.

Trust and Puzzle Pieces

To give my aching feet a break, we have to define trust. Trust at its core is consistency: are you there? Are you still the person I thought you were? We get uncomfortable when we don’t know the answer to that question.

In a Harvard Business Review article by Sandra J. Sucher and Shalene Gupta called The Trust Crisis they highlight common myths about trust. Although they’re meant to apply to companies, they fit the bill for people too.

1. Myth: Trust has no boundaries. Reality: Trust is limited. Example: I trust my prison pen pal to write me back in a timely manner, but not with my bank account information.
2. Myth: Trust is objective. Reality: Trust is subjective. Example: Cynthia complains to Jacques (her gorgeous French boyfriend) that one of his friends always makes fun of Americans’ poor manners. While eating dinner with those friends later that night James points out that Cynthia has salad between her teeth. Cynthia is hurt and shocked that he could be so insensitive. Jacques thinks he’s helping shield her from their judgemental friends.
3. Myth: Trust is managed via PR. Reality: Trust is managed by running a good business. Example: James always says he wants to grab coffee with Bill, but never follows through. Bill tries not to chuckle during a chance encounter when James dives into the coffee spiel again.
4. Myth: You’re judged solely on some event. Reality: You’re also judged on how you respond to the event. Example: Sheila promises Harry that she’ll help him move out his stupid couch. She oversleeps, causing Harry significant stress and delaying his move. If Sheila insists it wasn’t a big deal, she further erodes his trust. If she apologizes and makes up for it in a thoughtful way, she’s repairing the tear.
5. Myth: Trust is fragile. Reality: Trust waxes/wanes. Example: Sarah convinces her wife, Jessica, that they can travel the world after she completes an important real estate project. In the short run, this actually increases Jessica’s admiration and trust (“She’s so driven.”). After three more product cycles and two promotions with no travel, Jessica’s ready to give up on the relationship.

The above myths/truths in mind reveal that trust building is an ongoing process. Loved ones make invisible mistakes that wound us. They wound us with cynical laughter. With poisonous compliments. With tactlessness. By stonewalling. By crying when we wound them. By refusing to let us help their pain.

Getting into a good relationship is like buying my dream house. Even though it’s everything I ever wanted, I still have to fix the room, clean the gutters, and put up the Christmas lights. I’ve replaced my housing problem with a housing maintenance problem. Worth it? Definitely. But is it amazing all the time to everyone involved? Nope.

In a nutshell, trust is the stable isotope of vulnerability. The fundamental elements for a successful relationship exist. But as any chemist can attest to, the outside environment breaks bonds. Repairing the “relationship molecule” is an energy-intensive process, a myriad of petty, unsexy labors of love. As the “molecule” reshapes itself through various isomers, it always has to answer the question: are you there for me? When I’m alone and in the dark and cold, are you there?

Jigsaw puzzle

Now we’re ready to answer the question: why can’t I trust some people? The answer lies in a Scottish stand up comedian.

Daniel Sloss is the son of two scientists. He jokes about his failed attempts to become the black sheep of the family during his rebel years, complaining that his parents frustratingly loved and supported him no matter what his career path, even comedy.

Daniel is not a normal comedian. He intends to change somebody’s life with every show. In his second Netflix special, Jigsaw, Daniel describes how a failed romantic relationship temporarily derailed his life in an attempt to get couples to break up with each other.

It all started when he was young and asked his father what was the meaning of life. His father explained that life is like a jigsaw puzzle, with everybody searching for the right pieces. The corners of the board, he explains, are your friends, family, hobbies, and work. The center is Daniel’s mom (i.e. true love).

From that experience, young Daniel inferred that life is not complete unless you have a partner who loves you. That something was wrong with him if he wasn’t collaborating with somebody else to make a puzzle board together. Old Daniel realized that that’s horseshit and the center can be any activity that sufficiently stokes his passions.

I offer to you the same conclusion Daniel came to: “if somebody doesn’t love my puzzle board 100% as is, then they don’t love me.” The ability to use attachment theory to reduce conflict and build trust should not be confused with the ability to make any relationship work. When there is a divergence in fundamental values, it is impossible to build a trusting, lasting relationship.

Note that this claim refers to inner circle relationships. With constant vigilance and hard work, I’ve formed many functional (read: outer circle) relationships. They are transactional in nature, and tend to crumble after the project ends or function fades.

It is normal and healthy to have a large outer circle. Only the psychologically ill dump their emotional baggage on some poor soul who asked for the time. I think America in particular encourages the development of a broad outer circle by emphasizing optimism, networking, and diversity. An outer circle becomes stifling when people can’t drop the mask and whine, hug, laugh, and cry.

The inner circle doesn’t have to be family or a lover. Scratch that, peoples’ inner circles shouldn’t be composed solely of family and S.O.’s. Everybody knows the saying that it takes a village to raise a child. Few realize they’re the child. Embedding themselves in broader communities reduces everyone’s workload and insures somebody is thereto help them through the excruciating lows.

For example, I had two grandparents die one year after the other. Understandably, everybody in my family was bummed out like me. My dojo was a beacon of light during that period, because my training partners had perfectly healthy loved ones. Being around positive people I trusted helped me turn a corner that I probably wouldn’t have discovered in my family.

One omission (really the only missing piece) in Daniel’s act was that he didn’t recommend good places to look for solutions to one’s puzzle. This makes sense given he’s a comedian and not a self-help guru. Ironically, the best insight I found my answer to this question by listening to Adam Robinson’s critique of self-help books:

One of the problems with self-help books is they rivet your attention on
exactly the one thing it ought not to be focused on: yourself. You look at any of the great religious traditions, and the great philosophers, and the great poets, they all had the same message of focusing on others, and being of service to others.That sounds like one is abdicating oneself in that, but in fact, that’s the way to find yourself, is through others (Adam Robinson, TKP Podcast)

The answer to our personal puzzle will never have ourselves at the center. David Foster Wallace elaborates:

Here’s something else that’s weird but true: in the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship–be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles–is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness.

Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they’re evil or sinful, it’s that they’re unconscious. They are default settings.

They’re the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day, getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure value without ever being fully aware that that’s what you’re doing.

…. The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day.

That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing. (This is Water)

Takeaway

In conclusion, to get appreciation with zero energy:

1. Have the skills to communicate how you feel
2. Be around people with similar values
3. Base your values on a selfless narrative

It’s simple, but gooood. Who said Medium articles have to find a whole new way to look at the world? Fuck that. Grandma was right: cookies and a gentle hug go a long way, especially when you both like chocolate chip.

I’m leery of having the last word in anything, since everything I write is an incremental riff on the ideas of the giants who came before me.

There are two ways to change someone’s thinking: change the questions they ask or provide them with more inspired answers.

-Adam Robinson