"With a hair-trigger reaction to any indication that you don't like them or, in fact, disagree with them or didn't do what they asked, the rejection- sensitive walk around with what seems like a perpetual chip on their shoulder. They interpret everything through the lens "You somehow disrespect or dislike me." That's difficult... because you have to walk on eggshells around them and make sure that everything you say or do doesn't push the imaginary button where they feel they're being devalued by you.
Threats lurk everywhere for these people, who are constantly scanning their environment for signs of being excluded.... The resulting drop in self esteem experienced by the rejection- sensitive begets an overwrought response to slights real and imagined- all of which are presumed intentional....
The irony is that, over time, the irritability, negativity, and self doubt of the rejection-sensitive do in fact drive others to avoid them."
-Psychology Today

Do you know someone like this? We all do. And while I love a good curve ball now and then, I simply cannot figure out how to socially interact with these people. I believe that their anxiety and anger are real. Their body language and vocal inflection suggest nothing but pure emotion. But I will never understand how someone can take almost any situation and turn it negative.

Now I am an optimist in the truest sense of the word. But even I am capable of admitting that I get screwed from time to time. So I guess I prefer realistic optimist. The difference between my worldview and that of the rejection sensitive is that I rarely approach a problem in personal terms. Sometimes they are my fault; but most of the time they are not. Either way though, I am confident that I can deal with almost anything because whats the worse that can happen, right?. "Problems" are challenges. Nothing more, nothing less. And what would life be without challenges? Monotonous- and who wants that?!

It seems as though the rejection sensitive exist in a perpetual survivalistic state. Their guard is always up and their radar always on the lookout for perceived injustice. They create this paradigm in which life is a fight to convince others that they are worthy, that they matter.

And of course they do. But they don't give off this vibe in social interaction. Though this may be their goal in ruthlessly defending themselves, they instead come across as blatantly insecure- to the point of making others uncomfortable. So interestingly, they are becoming the very thing that they are fighting against- different, awkward, unfriendly even. And this unpleasantness makes meaningful social connection with them unlikely and in some cases unwanted.

None of this means i will stop trying to engage. Some of those closest to me fall into this rejection sensitive category. But I will put space between us. Because while their behavior is meant to defensive; it feels accusatory and as if I am being attacked. And to continue in a relationship this way will inevitably put more space between us than what I have self imposed.

I don't know if its possible to find neutral ground with these people, and I've tried. When I approach them empathetically I get attacked. They don't want pity. They want praise. But not just any praise will do. It is as pointed as their insecurities which can be frustrating to figure out. And even if you try to ignore their insecurities, that becomes a problem as well. It's a lose, lose situation when you engage an individual who is rejection sensitive. This is interesting, because they share this exact outlook.

If only they would realize that they are the ones creating it...

Humans have long since understood the value of group loyalty. Every culture is built around this concept. There is definitive group authority which we are all expected to yield to. When this does not happen, an individual is disciplined (formally or otherwise) or cast out.

This hierarchical need to organize ourselves in this manner is much more interesting than us actually doing so. Are we really a lost flock in need of direction? And do these implicit authority figures ever truly hold the power that culture denotes them? We are individuals after all, with our own thoughts, ideas, flaws and secrets. It is for this reason that it is curious to me that we organize ourselves in this fashion because no one person truly has control over another. Or does he?

 In a previous blog I explored the nature of change and as such believe that most, if not all, fundamental change is outwardly inspired, if inwardly undertaken. In this vein, one wonders how much control authority figures actually have over their followers. Much in the same way people believe “you are the company you keep” it seems you become the cultural embodiment of the values and group you serve. And value judgments aside, there is more to this concept.

It begs the question, for instance, where does group identity end, and individual identity begin? Does it function like a light switch; on for group behavior, off for individual identity? Or are there simply two different kinds of people in this world?
Leaders and Followers…?

Any of these could actually be the case. Studies in Human Behavior suggest that much of our personal identity is innate. And further that our ability and desire to lead are as well. 

So what does this say of those of us who resent authority? Are we merely
leaders in training, in limbo? Do we crave chaos?

 I present to you a theory. Perhaps we recognize the hypocrisy of the pyramid system. We understand this system as one which reinforces a certain level of inequality and condescension in its membership terms. And furthermore, its a system which doesn’t actually work all that well. 

Hypocrisy aside though, well managed groups have amazing potential to do good- to gather ideas, influence others and execute projects on a grand scale. But, when the number of people involved escalates, so does the potential for deviation from the groups objective, which therefore breeds mistrust and mismanagement in the system. Case in point- the Federal Government.

 And yet, the layers of group infrastructure which are required to create
meaningful pathways to efficiency are the very ones which ensure that these
channels will have to be subjugated in an effort to actually get the job
done.

So why the charade I ask? Is it an ego thing, meant to merely validate
these so called “leader” types? Is it a necessary evil thing- in the way that a
group bonds over a common enemy (i.e. the boss)? Or is it just another one of
those timeless axioms that we never question?

 Perhaps it is just me. Maybe I just have an unnatural, supercilious disdain for authority. 
 


you can stop your laughing now............. :p

Change is an interesting concept. Is it really possible to wake up one day and decide to live your life differently? Theoretically, this sounds great, to think we have this power and the will to implement it. Reality, on the other hand, seems to tell a different story.

My problem with this change concept is that we, as individuals, think we have some conscious choice in the matter. It seems from my personal experience that change is rather something that is forced upon us, not something we choose.

And sure, it can be argued that in response to these outside factors we do actually participate in this thing we all call change. Yet, it seems to me we are handed our new set of circumstances and we either adapt, or we don't. And we label this thing 'change' and bask in the logistical byproducts of our new personal circumstances- a new child, a new job, the opportunity to find true love... for instance.

I'm not sure there is anything to prove here. Any concept as arbitrary as truth in the nature of personal change is bound to be debated endlessly.

What fascinates me though is our society's insistence that this is possible, and advisable in almost every circumstance as if it were the 'Holy Grail' of human behavior. So you are poor?- You need to change your work ethic. Doing poorly in school?- change your study habits. Unhappy in your relationship? Change your behavior toward your partner. The list goes on and on.

This thing we so casually refer to as 'change' is instead our attempts to conform to our society's value judgements; the way others think we should live our lives. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Humans have long since evolved to understand the importance of group formation and loyalty. But this is not indicative of intrinsic change. And thats my point.

Can we truly change something about ourselves without it being influenced by outside forces? My gut is telling me no. And it rarely lies.

When I became pregnant with Zeke I sought out a new obgyn because I was not satisfied with my level of care I received with my first delivery. During this process, I found a local doctor who taught and still attended classes at EVMS. He was also a Yale graduate with a spotless legal history. My first appointment with him impressed me even more. Dr Steven Warsof and his staff were very personal and caring in their approach. So, I decided to stay under his care for the remainder of my second pregnancy.
It was his thoroughness in taking my medical history that unearthed the shoulder dystocia labor complication that I had with my first birth. And though he was unable to retrieve my previous medical records due to my previous doctors recent passing, he instead sought and was granted access to Lorelei's, in which his suspicions were confirmed. My next appointment was overshadowed by a very serious discussion of how shoulder dystocia babies are affected by the difficult birth process. This was followed by a very strong recommendation that I consider giving birth via c- section.

I was immediately offended.

How dare this doctor- and furthermore- a man, tell me that I was not likely capable of a safe full term delivery?! Sure things went a little crazy last time, but this go round I was doing everything right! I had graduated school, was eating and exercising better than ever, I was determined not to induce my labor this time and I even researched to find myself the best doctor for goodness sakes!

As offended as I was, I was equally scared. This doctor appeared professional, respectful, and even had that big Yale degree hanging in that impressive office of his. So I considered what he had said and proceeded to do my own research. Even with only sticking to medical journals, the results were frightening. The ending to my first birth story was even more amazing than I had known. How was this even possible?!!

I was so very terrified of the idea of a c- section. It was major surgery after all. And in my uneducated mind, it was elective surgery that I didn't necessarily need. I already had one child. I wasn't quite so sure it was appropriate to go risking my life to have another. Turns out, this thinking was quite flawed. The only consideration there actually was at this point was this one: to choose to not do a c-section would very possibly put my second child's life at risk and/ or put him at serious risk of mental or physical handicap.

I had no idea what to do.

So I began asking other women about their c-section experiences. My mom urged me to do it. She had three and she was fine, she argued. Several of my friends who had emergency c- sections stated that while their experiences were far from ideal, all had gone well nonetheless. And a couple women even told me a c- section was the "only way to go". Needless to say, the feedback was really positive. But it did little to suppress the fear that I had. Thankfully, my doctor presented the idea and gave me sometime to mull it over. I had several months to make the decision. But he still brought it up at every appointment, followed by his stance, and the reminder that it was still my responsibility to make this decision.

I would never say that I ever truly accepted the fact that others thought I had to do this. I was literally on the fence up to the point I had to give the doctor my decision, which ended up being around mid April and Zeke was due in June. But the date came. And I had to meet with the doctor in that intimidating office of his, still unsure of my decision.

Almost as if it were set up to happen this way, I had to pass by a hallway filled with happy, healthy baby pictures on the way to his door. I couldn't help but stop and look.

This doctor had chosen a high risk practice. They saw women with normal pregnancies too, but very few. Therefore, most of these beautiful babies were born via c- section. And it was obvious that these women had lived through the surgeries in order to present the doctors with the pictures of all these babies.

At this moment- the guilt hit me. (The condition of motherhood, as I call it...)

If I was going to bring another child into this world, then I had to do the best I could to ensure I gave him as safe a delivery as was possible. (Isn't that why I went through the trouble to find this great doctor anyway??)

So there I was, about to enter that intimidating office and my mind had been made up. I was going to give birth via c- section.

As I told Dr. Warsof my decision, I expected something in the way of "Good, that`s what I thought you should do..." type conversation. What I received instead was a 30 minute informative discussion on proper c- section prep, surgery, and recovery. He answered all of my questions and further volunteered more information than I even thought to ask about.

While I may have walked into that office guilted into what I thought had to be the right decision, I nevertheless left confident it was the only real choice I had that would ensure my son was delivered safely.