Yes, exactly! These damn environmental mismatches. I could talk for hours about this. Which makes me think maybe I should start recording videos on topics such as this.
Just look at a grade school classroom in a traditional school. No.
Michael thank you so much for these affirming words. I’m a huge fan of LFB and will definitely mull this over. To me emotional congruence and regulation are hitting different points along the sequence. From generation to experience to expression to potential regulation. I’m a huge proponent of the congruence you raise - to me this is at the core of how I conceptualize psychological flexibility. To what degree does your experience operate in a given situation to get the best possible outcome?
P.S. One other thing about "ADHD" that flows from what you're saying, at least for me, is that people diagnosed as "having" "ADHD" probably would have had no "deficit" centuries or thousands of years ago when the environment matched them better. Who knows, perhaps they even had advantages. There can be many evolutionary strategies that are optimal in a population, many adaptive peaks.
In our current, modern world... "ADHD" is framed a "disorder" or even "illness", even though any problems are likely as much to do with the modern environment as with the individual (it's a match-mismatch problem, not an individual problem). I wonder what traits we see as noble now might be framed as deficits a few hundred years in the future from now? I could speculate when AI has so thoroughly taken over the world, and no one needs to work, and computers are superior at everything intellectual... people who want to better their own ability to think might be seen as crazy, or regressive, or even ill? I don't know!
Hi Todd, I love your attention to the fact that, with almost all psychological challenges, a one-size-fits-all approach is rarely optimal. I think this is often lost in a world of manualised approaches where the client / patient is subjected to a Procrustean effort to fit them into a pre-defined 'bed' (partly for ease of teaching therapists, partly for ease of research. Not because it's an optimal approach).
This is where your wonderful work on curiosity is, again, so important -- the curiosity to be open to the uniqueness of the beautiful individual we're with. The appreciation that statistical patterns never tell us what will work with someone (unless in the rare case that EVERYONE is, in deed, identical in respect to the pattern at hand). Instead, statistical patterns are mere generalisations that can be very important for guiding behaviour in the beginning -- but should be dropped immediately, as soon as an individual reveals they are different (i.e. don't fit the pattern).
I won't comment on every psychology concept I disagree with, as this is your wonderful SubStack (not mine). I will just say that I find the concept of "Emotional Regulation" to be strange. It presupposes a dualism (whom is regulating whom?). I think I may have heard or read Lisa Feldman-Barret share a similar take before (but not sure).
I, personally, prefer the idea of Congruence. Are my emotions congruent with my goals? Are my emotions congruent with my logical understanding of the situation? Etc. Yes, there is still a divide -- the metaphor of 'parts', if you will -- but I think this is highly congruent with what we know from neuroscience. There isn't a 'me' in the brain regulating my emotions... but there are many different 'neural networks' (a functional distinction, almost certainly not a clear objective distinction) that have competing 'modes' or 'goals' at a particular time, given a particular context, etc., etc. Dual process theory alludes to a simplified fraction of what is probably going on. A lot to say on this topic, and if you have any thoughts, I'd be so curious. Thanks again. You have the best Substack. It's a joy reading it, and I love your brilliant mind.
Yes, exactly! These damn environmental mismatches. I could talk for hours about this. Which makes me think maybe I should start recording videos on topics such as this.
Just look at a grade school classroom in a traditional school. No.
Michael thank you so much for these affirming words. I’m a huge fan of LFB and will definitely mull this over. To me emotional congruence and regulation are hitting different points along the sequence. From generation to experience to expression to potential regulation. I’m a huge proponent of the congruence you raise - to me this is at the core of how I conceptualize psychological flexibility. To what degree does your experience operate in a given situation to get the best possible outcome?
You’re fueling me. Keep it going.
P.S. One other thing about "ADHD" that flows from what you're saying, at least for me, is that people diagnosed as "having" "ADHD" probably would have had no "deficit" centuries or thousands of years ago when the environment matched them better. Who knows, perhaps they even had advantages. There can be many evolutionary strategies that are optimal in a population, many adaptive peaks.
In our current, modern world... "ADHD" is framed a "disorder" or even "illness", even though any problems are likely as much to do with the modern environment as with the individual (it's a match-mismatch problem, not an individual problem). I wonder what traits we see as noble now might be framed as deficits a few hundred years in the future from now? I could speculate when AI has so thoroughly taken over the world, and no one needs to work, and computers are superior at everything intellectual... people who want to better their own ability to think might be seen as crazy, or regressive, or even ill? I don't know!
Hi Todd, I love your attention to the fact that, with almost all psychological challenges, a one-size-fits-all approach is rarely optimal. I think this is often lost in a world of manualised approaches where the client / patient is subjected to a Procrustean effort to fit them into a pre-defined 'bed' (partly for ease of teaching therapists, partly for ease of research. Not because it's an optimal approach).
This is where your wonderful work on curiosity is, again, so important -- the curiosity to be open to the uniqueness of the beautiful individual we're with. The appreciation that statistical patterns never tell us what will work with someone (unless in the rare case that EVERYONE is, in deed, identical in respect to the pattern at hand). Instead, statistical patterns are mere generalisations that can be very important for guiding behaviour in the beginning -- but should be dropped immediately, as soon as an individual reveals they are different (i.e. don't fit the pattern).
I won't comment on every psychology concept I disagree with, as this is your wonderful SubStack (not mine). I will just say that I find the concept of "Emotional Regulation" to be strange. It presupposes a dualism (whom is regulating whom?). I think I may have heard or read Lisa Feldman-Barret share a similar take before (but not sure).
I, personally, prefer the idea of Congruence. Are my emotions congruent with my goals? Are my emotions congruent with my logical understanding of the situation? Etc. Yes, there is still a divide -- the metaphor of 'parts', if you will -- but I think this is highly congruent with what we know from neuroscience. There isn't a 'me' in the brain regulating my emotions... but there are many different 'neural networks' (a functional distinction, almost certainly not a clear objective distinction) that have competing 'modes' or 'goals' at a particular time, given a particular context, etc., etc. Dual process theory alludes to a simplified fraction of what is probably going on. A lot to say on this topic, and if you have any thoughts, I'd be so curious. Thanks again. You have the best Substack. It's a joy reading it, and I love your brilliant mind.