from the world's big
The Most Under-Rated Relationship Skill: Suppression (Or, “Don’t Just Do Something. Stand There.”)
George Will used an apt phrase to describe the policy options toward Syria. When faced with universally bad choices, he opined, “Don’t just do something. Stand there.” Better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing just to do something.
This twist on the original phrase captures an invaluable counterpoint to the regime of disclosure, tearful confession, revelation, therapeutic declaration, and “honesty,” whatever the hell that even means. It’s time we had more “just stand there” in our lives and less “do something,” of an emotional or verbal sort. This advice is especially important in relationships.
Suppression is the most under-rated relationship skill. No, you won’t read this advice in the Self-Improvement aisle where, to my eternal shame and anger, my cultural commentary on marriage is mis-shelved. (It exceeded the imaginative, literary, and entrepreneurial capacities of commercial publishing to recognize the problem and, anyway, publishers are under a delusion that you, the reader, will only buy an actual book when you can be manipulated into believing that it actually and tangibly will give you advice and instructions on how to behave, or precisely describes your specific, personal, individual life. In other words, publishing imagines that you are a hopeless narcissist).
Self-Help literature’s generic survival depends on giving you a script, plan, action agenda, or assessment quiz for doing something to improve your relationship.
But doing nothing and just standing there is often the best course. Also, it’s free, and requires no DVD or promotional t-shirt.
In psychoanalytic theory as I understand it, repression refers to material that has never been brought into consciousness, whereas suppression refers to material that percolates to consciousness but is set aside, pushed down, or forgotten about.
In my example, suppression means, more informally, keeping an emotion, issue, or annoyance to yourself, rather than airing it. It means opting for silence over revelation, for emotional largesse and stoicism over the treadmill of “processing.”
You’re with a partner at a party. You’re mildly irritated that they’re paying too much attention to someone else. What to do. Share the feeling? Just let it go? Or, your feelings are hurt because your spouse prefers to spend time rafting or golfing with buddies than with you (I’m making this up—I know neither golfers nor rafters).
“It’s dishonest not to share that feeling,” the confession-loving partner objects. “You’re just hiding important emotions from your partner. It eats away at the relationship and kills it. The feeling festers.”
At some point, the act of not fussing about something or airing it verbally became synonymous with toxic deceit.
To argue the other side, excessive sharing is undignified, boring, often futilely circular or recursive, and etches into the relationship’s Permanent Record what are often nothing more than ephemeral, ill-formed notions or feelings that will mysteriously expand, like a Chia Pet, to monstrous, undeserved proportions if shared—and because you shared. Emotions are so fluid and permeable, like a river. They change, whether confessed to or not. The very act of sharing and articulating an emotion gives it a permanence, stature, and ever-fixed presence in the relationship archive that oftentimes, it doesn’t deserve.
Perhaps there’s a tendency to link emotional disclosure with relationship wellbeing—and to make a vice out of the arguable virtue of suppression—because having been fed a diet of memoirs, self-help and confessional literature, we’re inclined never to believe in our intimate lives that a cigar is just a cigar.
It’s not that a spouse made an innocent mistake; it’s that the action conveys deeper symbolism. The simplest micro-malfunctions or just quirks of human relations become meta-narratives. Book reviewers love “honest” memoirs. They’re always calling them “GRIPPING” and “FIERCE” (don’t believe them, by the way. Nothing is more contrived than the presentation of self in a memoir. It’s just that in the better ones, the author’s vanities and intentions manage to be so inscrutable, inoffensive, or impenetrable that the reader doesn’t notice or understand them).
Suppression’s villification has worsened with social media and a gazillion online media outlets, where people write for free about every minuscule sexual or relationship issue. If a Slate or Salon writer can make this much out of thong underwear, a family squabble, or some bizarre sexual mini-drama with their partner, then we should process things with the same avidity, too, right?
Don’t. You have to understand: There are whole enterprises of therapy, entertainment, and media, that make money off of getting you worked up over nothing, or of urging you never to accept the tribulations of love graciously and quietly.
They don’t want you to passively but tenderly embrace the flawed humanity of your beloved in its totality, but, rather, to pathologize the hell out of it, and then do a post-mortem, using their book as scalpel and saw. Equanimity is their enemy.
In this capacious therapeutic economy, which encompasses not only therapists but ancillary self-help regimes, media, and literature, things must connote. You must process. Confess. Otherwise, what fills all the millions of pages? (but try finding the adjective “vulgar” in any of these outlets).
When I was in high school I was very close to several girls in my class. Occasionally, we’d play a game in which we’d name each other’s “best and worst qualities.”
This was, of course, a profoundly stupid idea.
Eventually, we gave up on it, but not before some wretched nights in which we had to grapple with the unvarnished opinions of our very closest friends in the world. Curses were hurled, tears shed, and fragile reconciliations achieved, but usually only when the offending “honest” speaker confessed (honestly or nor) to intoxication, or “took it back,” in that great playground art, or just begged for forgiveness for having been such a fool.
The traits we revealed as bad points were better left suppressed. Obviously.
And the thing is, the critical comments weren’t in any deep or inviolable way even that honest. The deepest honesty is that we were a tribe, and we cared for each other a great deal, with all of our flaws and complexities, and there was no way to represent that reality in one conversation or gesture about a hurt feeling.
Does confession or emotional sharing bring greater intimacy? This is where suppression takes a hit. Not sharing fully creates distance. It’s a form of “emotional withdrawal.”
I’ve no doubt that such cases exist. I’ve seen, and been in, plenty of them. I’ve also seen scenarios where the remorseless airing of grievances and their subsequent processing weakens the heart of the relationship as surely as a series of minor heart attacks, over time, will cause permanent scarring and damage.
There’s no rule of relationship physics that can predict generically how the decision not to suppress a feeling or an insecurity will break. Like as not, it can bring estrangement, distance, outsized bitterness, and chronic defensiveness. It can powerfully reorient a relationship. In most cases, it lingers hard and deep in the partner’s mind.
But, we’re told, suppression is presumably bad for your health. In the 1970s they called it “gunnysacking,” and it was thought to be a cause of male heart disease. Men suppressed so much emotion that they were dying of heart disease caused by failure to disclose. Some of them started crying; others went to therapy sessions where they hit people with oblong pillows; others just spouted a new vocabulary and then secretly went back to doing what they were doing before.
Having lived through relationships with the emotionally stoic and slurry alike, it doesn’t seem to me that suppression ruined health or relationship any more often than emotional nitpicking. Rather, suppression is a gesture when—the healthy part—you notice how you’re feeling, but choose to set it aside, to put it in a little box in your head, even to push it down.
At some point, somewhere, I crossed a line. Because now I say, give me the WASP any day.
Emotional intelligence is a skill sought by many employers. Here's how to raise yours.
- Daniel Goleman's 1995 book Emotional Intelligence catapulted the term into widespread use in the business world.
- One study found that EQ (emotional intelligence) is the top predictor of performance and accounts for 58% of success across all job types.
- EQ has been found to increase annual pay by around $29,000 and be present in 90% of top performers.
Researchers hope the technology will further our understanding of the brain, but lawmakers may not be ready for the ethical challenges.
- Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine successfully restored some functions to pig brains that had been dead for hours.
- They hope the technology will advance our understanding of the brain, potentially developing new treatments for debilitating diseases and disorders.
- The research raises many ethical questions and puts to the test our current understanding of death.
What's dead may never die, it seems<p>The researchers did not hail from House Greyjoy — "What is dead may never die" — but came largely from the Yale School of Medicine. They connected 32 pig brains to a system called Brain<em>Ex</em>. Brain<em>Ex </em>is an artificial perfusion system — that is, a system that takes over the functions normally regulated by the organ. The pigs had been killed four hours earlier at a U.S. Department of Agriculture slaughterhouse; their brains completely removed from the skulls.</p><p>Brain<em>Ex</em> pumped an experiment solution into the brain that essentially mimic blood flow. It brought oxygen and nutrients to the tissues, giving brain cells the resources to begin many normal functions. The cells began consuming and metabolizing sugars. The brains' immune systems kicked in. Neuron samples could carry an electrical signal. Some brain cells even responded to drugs.</p><p>The researchers have managed to keep some brains alive for up to 36 hours, and currently do not know if Brain<em>Ex</em> can have sustained the brains longer. "It is conceivable we are just preventing the inevitable, and the brain won't be able to recover," said Nenad Sestan, Yale neuroscientist and the lead researcher.</p><p>As a control, other brains received either a fake solution or no solution at all. None revived brain activity and deteriorated as normal.</p><p>The researchers hope the technology can enhance our ability to study the brain and its cellular functions. One of the main avenues of such studies would be brain disorders and diseases. This could point the way to developing new of treatments for the likes of brain injuries, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and neurodegenerative conditions.</p><p>"This is an extraordinary and very promising breakthrough for neuroscience. It immediately offers a much better model for studying the human brain, which is extraordinarily important, given the vast amount of human suffering from diseases of the mind [and] brain," Nita Farahany, the bioethicists at the Duke University School of Law who wrote the study's commentary, told <em><a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/pig-brains-partially-revived-what-it-means-for-medicine-death-ethics/" target="_blank">National Geographic</a>.</em></p>
An ethical gray matter<p>Before anyone gets an <em>Island of Dr. Moreau</em> vibe, it's worth noting that the brains did not approach neural activity anywhere near consciousness.</p><p>The Brain<em>Ex</em> solution contained chemicals that prevented neurons from firing. To be extra cautious, the researchers also monitored the brains for any such activity and were prepared to administer an anesthetic should they have seen signs of consciousness. </p><p>Even so, the research signals a massive debate to come regarding medical ethics and our definition of death. </p><p>Most countries define death, clinically speaking, as the irreversible loss of brain or circulatory function. This definition was already at odds with some folk- and value-centric understandings, but where do we go if it becomes possible to reverse clinical death with artificial perfusion?</p><p>"This is wild," Jonathan Moreno, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/science/brain-dead-pigs.html" target="_blank">the <em>New York Times</em></a>. "If ever there was an issue that merited big public deliberation on the ethics of science and medicine, this is one."</p><p>One possible consequence involves organ donations. Some European countries require emergency responders to use a process that preserves organs when they cannot resuscitate a person. They continue to pump blood throughout the body, but use a "thoracic aortic occlusion balloon" to prevent that blood from reaching the brain.</p><p>The system is already controversial because it raises concerns about what caused the patient's death. But what happens when brain death becomes readily reversible? Stuart Younger, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01216-4#ref-CR2" target="_blank">told <em>Nature</em></a> that if Brain<em>Ex</em> were to become widely available, it could shrink the pool of eligible donors.</p><p>"There's a potential conflict here between the interests of potential donors — who might not even be donors — and people who are waiting for organs," he said.</p><p>It will be a while before such experiments go anywhere near human subjects. A more immediate ethical question relates to how such experiments harm animal subjects.</p><p>Ethical review boards evaluate research protocols and can reject any that causes undue pain, suffering, or distress. Since dead animals feel no pain, suffer no trauma, they are typically approved as subjects. But how do such boards make a judgement regarding the suffering of a "cellularly active" brain? <a href="https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/after-death-youre-aware-that-youve-died-scientists-claim" target="_blank">The distress of a partially alive brain</a>? </p><p>The dilemma is unprecedented.</p>
Setting new boundaries<p>Another science fiction story that comes to mind when discussing this story is, of course, <em>Frankenstein</em>. As Farahany told <em>National Geographic</em>: "It is definitely has [sic] a good science-fiction element to it, and it is restoring cellular function where we previously thought impossible. But to have <em>Frankenstein</em>, you need some degree of consciousness, some 'there' there. [The researchers] did not recover any form of consciousness in this study, and it is still unclear if we ever could. But we are one step closer to that possibility."</p><p>She's right. The researchers undertook their research for the betterment of humanity, and we may one day reap some unimaginable medical benefits from it. The ethical questions, however, remain as unsettling as the stories they remind us of.</p>
A study published Friday tested how well 14 commonly available face masks blocked the emission of respiratory droplets as people were speaking.
- The study tested the efficacy of popular types of face masks, including N95 respirators, bandanas, cotton-polypropylene masks, gaiters, and others.
- The results showed that N95 respirators were most effective, while wearing a neck fleece (aka gaiter) actually produced more respiratory droplets than wearing no mask at all.
- Certain types of homemade masks seem to be effective at blocking the spread of COVID-19.
Fischer et al.<p>A smartphone camera recorded video of the participants, and a computer algorithm counted the number of droplets they emitted. To establish a control trial, the participants spoke into the box both with and without a mask. And to make sure that the droplets weren't in fact dust from the masks, the team conducted more tests by "repeatedly puffing air from a bulb through the masks."</p>
Fischer et al.<p>The results, published Friday in <a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/08/07/sciadv.abd3083" target="_blank">Science Advances</a>, showed that some masks are pretty much useless. In particular, neck fleeces (also called gaiters) actually produced more respiratory droplets compared to the control trial — likely because the fabric breaks down big droplets into smaller ones.</p><p>The top three most effective masks were N95 respirators, surgical masks, and polypropylene-cotton masks. Bandanas performed the worst, but were slightly better than wearing no mask at all.</p>
Fischer et al.<p>Research on mask efficacy is still emerging. But the new results seem to generally align with <a href="https://newsroom.wakehealth.edu/News-Releases/2020/04/Testing-Shows-Type-of-Cloth-Used-in-Homemade-Masks-Makes-a-Difference" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">prior tests</a>. For example, a study from June published in <a href="https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0016018" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">Physics of Fluid</a> found that bandanas (followed by folded handkerchiefs) were least effective at blocking respiratory droplets. That same study also found, as <a href="https://newsroom.wakehealth.edu/News-Releases/2020/04/Testing-Shows-Type-of-Cloth-Used-in-Homemade-Masks-Makes-a-Difference" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">others have</a>, that masks made from multiple layers of quilter's fabric were especially effective at blocking droplets.</p><p>The researchers hope other institutions will conduct similar experiments so the public can see how well different masks can block the spread of COVID-19.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"This is a very powerful visual tool to raise awareness that a very simple masks, like these homemade cotton masks, do really well to stop the majority of these respiratory droplets," Fischer told CNN. "Companies and manufacturers can set this up and test their mask designs before producing them, which would also be very useful."</p>
Sharing QAnon disinformation is harming the children devotees purport to help.
- The conspiracy theory, QAnon, is doing more harm than good in the battle to end child trafficking.
- Foster youth expert, Regan Williams, says there are 25-29k missing children every year, not 800k, as marketed by QAnon.
- Real ways to help abused children include donating to nonprofits, taking educational workshops, and becoming a foster parent.
Real ways you can help stop child trafficking<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="21fc2dc85391501eec28c4bf46d7db15"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AXL0q9jNZGU?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Williams is the founder and CEO of <a href="http://www.seenandheard.org/" target="_blank">Seen and Heard</a>, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit that helps foster youth develop character through the performing arts. She's been involved with foster youth for years; I <a href="https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/child-sex-trafficking" target="_self">wrote about her work</a> in child trafficking just over a year ago. Tragically, since that time, the situation for these children has only gotten worse, in large part because of QAnon.</p><p>Williams says child trafficking is an easy cause to rally people together. Fear is also a powerful unifying force, one that QAnon believers are already primed for via the news they consume. Almost every parent cares about their children, making them the ideal target to solidify groups. </p><p>The real problem, she says, is that the youth she works with are falling for these conspiracy theories. Trauma is a particularly powerful tool for indoctrination. If you're a teenager that's been abducted or abused, your trust level is already extremely low. Then you read about a global cabal of powerful men (and a few women) secretly abusing children, and the narrative seems ready-made for your personal history.</p><p>When Williams tried to "lovingly and kindly correct" the youth she was working with after learning about the Wayfair conspiracy, the girls' response was, "well, who owns the media?" </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"She goes from this small little thing to a QAnon talking point. I've been thinking about why she would believe such a preposterous idea—and there are others; it's not just one student, and they're in in deep. I think that when something horrific happens to you as a child, it's a lot easier to distance yourself from the immediate reality that it was an uncle or a parent or a sibling that hurt you. By detaching from that immediate person, they project it onto Bill Gates or Chrissy Teigen. Then it's not so personal, it's global." </p>
A man wear a shirt with the words Q Anon as he attends a rally for President Donald Trump at the Make America Great Again Rally being held in the Florida State Fair Grounds Expo Hall on July 31, 2018 in Tampa, Florida.
Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images<p>As Williams mentions, there are over 30,000 kids in foster care in the Los Angeles area alone. It's easy to fall through the cracks. The systems in place aren't perfect; they're certainly underfunded. When you're in a system trying to support you yet isn't capable of doing so, viewing the world as imperfect, and even harmful, becomes the lens through which you see reality. Again, this makes for a perfect indoctrination tool.</p><p>One popular QAnon talking point is that 800,000 children are missing. As Williams says, child trafficking experts "don't buy this for a minute." The number makes for a good meme but a poor representation of the problem. </p><p>To source better data, Williams turns to the <a href="https://www.missingkids.org/" target="_blank">National Center for Missing and Exploited Children</a> (NCMEC) and the <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ncic" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">National Crime Information Center</a> (NCIC). An important factor when reading data: if a teacher <em>and</em> a caregiver report a missing child to NCIC, that counts as two children, not one, which accounts for some of the fluctuations in numbers. In total, between 25,000 and 29,000 kids go missing every year. Importantly, 94 percent of those children are recovered within four to six weeks. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"They're not documenting the recovery rate. It's not like these numbers are perpetually hanging out there. So this 800,000 number is just ludicrous." </p><p>Williams compares what's going on to Black Lives Matter. Blacking out your Instagram profile picture is performative. It signals that you actually care, which is great, but if you're not supporting Black-owned businesses, for example, there are no teeth to your activism. </p><p>Of course, blacking out your profile doesn't cause the real-world harm the QAnon virus does. Sharing misinformation is ultimately harmful to the children in need of help. Williams offers the resources below—ranging from donations to nonprofits to educational trainings to becoming a foster parent—for people that actually want to do something to help victims of sexual and physical abuse. They might not make a great Twitter meme, but in the actual world, this support makes all the difference. </p><p><strong>To report abuse/neglect, call the child abuse hotline: 800.540.4000 (LA county) / 800.422.4453 (National)</strong></p><ul><li>Support anti-trafficking organizations by donating to <a rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow" href="http://savinginnocence.org/" target="_blank">Saving Innocence</a>, which runs the continuum of care from rescue to recovery, <a href="http://gozoe.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">Zoe</a>, a reputable faith-based organization, and <a rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow" href="https://withtwowings.org/" target="_blank">Two Wings</a>, which helps to rehabilitate female survivors</li><li><a rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow" href="http://www.nolabrantleyspeaks.org/" target="_blank">Nola Brantley</a> offers in-person and online trainings to help combat the commercial sexual exploitation of children</li><li><a rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow" href="http://instagram.com/imrebeccabender" target="_blank">Rebecca Bender</a> is a trafficking survivor that runs "Myth Busters," which combats conspiracy theory disinformation</li><li>The <a href="https://www.instagram.com/missingkids/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">National Center</a> of Missing and Exploited Children</li><li>Operation <a href="https://www.instagram.com/ourrescue/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">Underground Railroad </a></li><li><a href="https://www.instagram.com/defendinnocence/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">Defend Innocence</a> offers tips for parents and caregivers to keep kids safe</li></ul><p><span></span>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://derekberes.substack.com/" target="_blank">Substack</a>. His next book is</em> "<em>Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."</em></p>