Everyday Bowen

Author: Stan Proffitt

  • Togetherness is not Fusion

    I often hear people using terms in an interchangeable way when the terms correct meaning is different and distinct.


    One example of this is the interchangeable use of togetherness and fusion. Interestingly, when it comes to fusion, there seems to be a lot of confusion.

    In Bowen Family Systems Theory, fusion and togetherness are not the same, though people often talk about them as if they are. I have often heard togetherness talked about as if it is the opposite of Differentiation of Self.


    When one views togetherness as the opposite of differentiation, one is then vulnerable to adopting an “anti-togetherness” mindset. But human beings would not have survived without togetherness. It (togetherness) is an emotional force that helps regulate behavior and temper the stress response. I have witnessed work groups that function out of a healthy, thoughtful togetherness. The synergy that emerges from people coordinating their individual work toward a shared vision makes a level of effectiveness possible that individuals working in isolation cannot achieve.


    I have also witnessed what happens when a work group functions out of an “anti-togetherness” mindset. Synergy is reduced, people become functionally isolated and the emergent properties of team effectiveness are lost. A marriage without togetherness is reduced to a roommate arrangement. A sports team without togetherness becomes a floundering group of high performing individuals who cannot coordinate with each other enough to win.


    The balancing act is not between togetherness and differentiation. The balancing act is between togetherness and individuality. Differentiation of self inherently includes both togetherness and individuality. At a higher level of differentiation, the characteristics and features of togetherness are more thoughtful, intentional and goal or purpose driven than at lower levels. At a lower level of differentiation, the form togetherness takes on is more emotionally reactive and driven by the need for anxiety reduction. But make no mistake, there can be no differentiation unless it exists in the “midst of togetherness.”

    Differentiation of self, as expressed in a relationship, (individuality amid togetherness), is foundational to deeper, more meaningful connection. Meaningful connection between two individuals simply requires the presence of two distinct individuals.


    Fusion, on the other hand, literally means that one loses individual identity and is absorbed into the identity of another. In a relationship that is rooted in emotional fusion, one appears to gain strength of self, and one appears to lose strength of self. This is deceptive, because both participants in a fusion are roughly equally lacking in a solid form of self; roughly equally lacking in differentiation. One gives up his/her individuality, and one borrows individuality, but neither is a self that can stand apart from the other.

    A cult is a good example of fusion. Cults cannot exist without members who forfeit their individuality for the sake of acceptance and approval within the cult. The structure of the cult tells them what to think, feel and do, and the cult only exists if members cooperate with the process. Many partnerships and marriages bear the same emotional process as a cult.

    Differentiation of self, then, is a state of being and something one does, moment by moment; context by context. It is an ebb and flow; a conscious dance. The dance partners are individuality and togetherness, and each requires the other in order to engage the dance. Togetherness without individuality is fusion. Individuality without togetherness is emotional and/or functional isolation.

    To define myself, I embrace opportunities to lean into togetherness, and then amid the togetherness, define my own thinking. When I do this, it is interesting to observe who then wants to join me in my thinking… more togetherness.

    Stan Proffitt

  • Operationalizing Differentiation of Self: Part 2

    A person is defined by what s/he does, not by what s/he says.

    The essence of I Positions is in the actions one takes. This seemingly simple idea presents subtle challenges. An I Position is not simply knowing what I will do or what I will not do. In fact, I personally find simply knowing what I will not do to be insufficient for truly knowing my path forward. While knowing that I will not do something is a starting point for a solid position, I am still left unclear regarding what I WILL do. For example, I could know that I am not going to solve another person’s problem when that person can and should be taking responsibility for oneself. But I still need to respond. So if I am not going to tell someone what to do, what do I do?

    This liminal point between doing and not doing begs for discernment about how far back stage to let others. Do I tell people what I am and am not going to do? Do I provide context and rationale for my decisions? How do I provide context and rationale without going down the rabbit hole of defending and justifying? How do I talk about my rationale with self-responsibility?

    As much as I believe I am defined by my actions over words, I think there are times when talking to others about my path forward is important; before I take an action. One clear “test” for whether a discussion is warranted or not is: does my path forward (my position) represent a change to an established relationship pattern? In other words, am I disrupting a pattern in which I have played a part?

    If yes, I think talking about my intended change could be useful. I can recognize and acknowledge the pattern. I can acknowledge the part I have played in the pattern. I can articulate how my thinking about the pattern is evolving and finally, what shifts I intend to make in my part. It is important to stay self-responsible and focus on what I will do without suggesting how the other person could or should respond. I positions are about clarity for self and latitude for others. It is important in this conversation to realize that when I change my part in an established pattern, it will create some level of disruption for the other(s) involved. I simply talk about my part, my shift and then respect the autonomy of the others involved.

    It is highly likely that others respond with some type of message designed to get me to bail on my path forward and revert back to the pattern. The intensity of the push back, or “change back” message as Dr. Bowen called it, will be roughly commensurate with the intensity of the emotional process that underscores the pattern. If I can calmly stand my ground without getting into an emotional debate, and without defending, justifying or blaming, it becomes more possible for the others to calm down in the process.

    One caveat is that I think it is reasonable to consider the possibility that there is wisdom in a push back. The push, for me, represents a prompt to reconsider my position. Is the push back message primarily grounded in emotional reactivity? If so, I would move forward with my position. But it is possible the push back is grounded in a more objective perspective that includes variables I did not consider. In this case, taking a second “look” at my own thought process could turn out to result in a modification to my position.

    While I do believe that action is the essence of a clear I position, there are times to talk about it first, and times when rethinking and modifying my position is warranted. Getting clear for self is a marker of growth. The capacity to observe and examine my own positions and modify them in the face of new information is, in my opinion, an even more important marker of adaptive functioning.

  • Operationalizing Differentiation of Self Part 1: From “I Statements” to “I Positions” to “My Positions”

    Over the years, I have found that experiencing life through the lens of Bowen Theory has added tremendous value in terms of the quality of my life experience.  It is not necessary to be perfectly differentiated.  If one can be less reactive to what goes on than others, one already has a leg up on having a different experience.

    However, some of the common language used to describe theoretical concepts seems lacking in precision.  The concept of “I” Positions is an example of this.  I have often heard the terms I Position and I Statement used interchangeably, though conceptually they point to very different aspects of functioning.  And for that matter, what is an I Position?  I have commonly heard the phrase, “Take an I Position.”  Am I taking something that conceptually resides out there somewhere, external to myself?  And to where am I to take this I Position?

    Following is an excerpt from Dr. Murray Bowen on I Positions:

    “This is the responsible “I”, which assumes responsibility for one’s own happiness and comfort and well-being. It avoids thinking that tends to blame one’s own unhappiness, discomfort, or failure on the other. The responsible “I” also avoids the posture of the irresponsible or narcissistic “I”, which makes demands on others with “I want or deserve” or “This is my right or my privilege.”

    Murray Bowen MD “Family Therapy in Clinical Practice.”  (Chapter 10)

    In my own effort to gain clarity and precision for myself, prompted by Dr. Bowen’s descriptions, I have come to a specific way of thinking about I Positions.  I define “I Position” in my own thinking as: 

    One’s internal clarity regarding his/her own path forward in response to any given context or situation.

    Further, I Positions must be affirmed through action (actualized).  I seek to clarify what my own I Positions mean in behavioral terms.  The primary method for communicating an I Position, then, is through action.  This brings me to a couple of important distinctions between I Statements and I Positions:

    I PositionI Statement
    Focuses on internal clarityFocuses on the words
    Communicated through action, whether spoken or notCommunicated through words, whether acted upon or not

    Additionally, there are key aspects of a solid I Position, as follows:

    • An I Position is not just a technique designed to get someone else to change or elicit a particular response from others.
    • One internally clarifies for oneself a path forward in alignment with one’s own beliefs, values, principles, goals and defined purpose, all in response to a particular context. It is a contextual application of beliefs, values, principles, goals and purpose.
    • One communicates one’s positions through actions, and maybe words also.
    • There is discernment regarding whether to verbalize one’s position or simply act on it without explanation.
    • Others are afforded the same latitude to decide for themselves how they will respond in turn.  No coercion or emotional ambush.
    • Many I Positions are provisional and subject to change in the face of new information and perspective, but not subject to change simply because of reactivity from others.

    With these distinctions and operational points clarified, I want to return to my original point regarding precision of language.  A true I Position resides within me; within my capacity for thoughtful discernment based on a principled assessment.  Yet, the phrase “take an I Position”, for me, places the I Position somewhere “out there.”  The very simple language shift I use is: My Position. In situations that require a clear path forward, I simply ask myself:  What is my position?

    In Part 2 of this two-part article, I will take on the topics of discernment regarding whether to verbalize my positions, more depth on the provisional nature of many or most positions and responding to the predictable reactivity to clarity in action that comes from others.

    -Stan Proffitt

  • Nuclear Family Emotional System in Highly-Differentiated Families

    This article assumes the reader has a basic understanding of the concept known as Nuclear Family Emotional System (NFES)

    Anxiety is something none of us would survive without. Living in close-knit social systems, in particular family units, we have inherited a finely-tuned apparatus to detect signs and signals of anxiety in others. If the crowd starts running in one direction, there must be a good reason. I better start running too. Sometimes this is adaptive. Sometimes it is not. It depends on how well aligned the anxiety response is with the reality of a threat. An anxiety response when there is no reality threat, or lack of a response when there is a reality threat are two examples of how the fear and stress response can go awry. In any case, anxiety spreads through a group, a family, like a contagion, moving from one host to another.
    Bowen Theory observes the distribution and regulation of anxiety within the nuclear family through four distinct patterns. I will name the patterns, but assuming there is a basic understanding, I will not go into each pattern in depth. The patterns include:

    • Distance – creating emotional distance or separation
    • Conflict – blame without self-responsibility
    • Symptoms – physical, mental/emotional and social symptoms
    • Projection – intense focus on one or more children, onto whom parents project their own anxiety



    The intensity of these patterns can be observed as inversely proportional to the level of differentiation within the family unit. The higher the level of differentiation, the lower the intensity of the functional patterns. This point has led me to grapple with something I was observing in families but did not find clearly articulated in the description of the NFES. Namely, in my work over the years, I occasionally encountered families that displayed no clear evidence of distance, conflict, symptoms in parents, or projection onto the children. I considered these families among the highest level of differentiation of all families I encountered. I was thinking that the NFES described behavioral patterns in families at lower levels of differentiation, and if one could conceptually rate each pattern on a scale of intensity, say, from -10 at the most intense to 0 at the least intense, 0 would represent the absence of distance, conflict, symptoms and projection.

    This left me in a very curious position. If families at higher levels of differentiation are NOT distancing, conflicting, getting sick, getting into trouble and passing problems onto their kids, what DO they DO. I started paying more attention to the strengths in highly adaptive families than the problems in less adaptive families. What I realized was the patterns that I observed were implied in the theory, though not spelled out explicitly. As certain behaviors came into clearer focus, I extended my conceptual scale of intensity from -10 at the least adaptive end to 0 in the mid-range of adaptability to +10 at the highest end. In the positive range (0 – +10) I placed four patterns that sit in juxtaposition to the four patterns already outlined in the NFES. These patterns are as follows:

    • Connection: Instead of distancing when under tension, people move toward involved others when tension or disagreement arises. There is a commitment to staying in close contact and communication about issues, tension and differences, including the nature of the relationship(s).
    • Rigorous Self-Focus: Instead of conflicting, people look at and openly take responsibility for their own thoughts, feelings and behaviors. The focus is on self-responsibility and personal agency. There is an orientation toward one’s own contribution to problems. Times of disagreement are not conflictual, they are conversational.
    • Self-Care: Instead of developing symptoms, there is a striking commonality across these families in that parents make their own health, fitness and well-being a priority. In their level of movement, nutrition, restoration and how they “metabolize” their emotions, they are showing their children what it looks like to take good care of themselves. In the process, any emergent symptoms turn out to be minor inconveniences and do not prohibit normal day to day functioning. Within a framework of clearer principles and values, self-care is high in the rank order or priorities.
    • Reality-based Parenting: Instead of projecting their own anxiety onto their children, parenting decisions are based on the reality growth needs of the children, not the anxiety reduction needs of the parents. Children are afforded age-appropriate boundaries and guidelines while also being afforded age-appropriate freedom and responsibility for self. Parents tolerate their own anxiety and contain it, including showing the ability and willingness to tolerate their children’s disapproval when the child is upset with parenting decisions that make sense.

    These behavioral descriptions may seem elementary in juxtaposition to the four patterns outlined in the NFES. Even so, observing and explicitly naming behaviors on the more adaptive side of a conceptual valence or continuum gives me a more complete framework against which I can assess my own functional differentiation.

    Stan Proffitt

  • Forgiveness Through the Systems Looking Glass

    Forgiveness as a concept receives a lot of attention, with good reason. I think the reason is because so many people are walking around with an accumulation of blame, anger and resentment for past experiences. For someone in that position, the idea that forgiveness can free one from the grip of anger and resentment offers a way out of the cumulative effect of these emotions. I believe the body literally metabolizes emotions. These are emotions that I do not want living in my own tissues and organs. It is true; forgiveness can be transformative for the one doing the forgiving.

    However, there is cheap (not worth much) forgiveness that manifests in some version of “It’s okay. Don’t worry about it. No problem. Let bygones by bygones.” Then there is a deeper kind of forgiveness that is rooted firmly first in a conviction – or a sense of wrong-doing. This may lead to greater relief from anger and resentment by naming the wrong specifically, and consciously deciding to let it go. No matter the depth of forgiveness, there is one anchoring premise that underscores forgiveness across the full range of depth – BLAME.

    This is where Bowen Family Systems Theory becomes profoundly relevant. Blame is the opposite of systems thinking. Blame is grounded in an individualistic, cause-effect way of thinking that places some sort of pathology in the person who committed an offense (What’s wrong with you?). When one is truly looking through the lens of systems thinking, one realizes that there are multiple contributing factors that converge in a particular way, at a particular time to produce whatever outcome or set of circumstances arise. Each condition is both a contributing factor to other conditions, and an emergent condition influenced by other factors.

    This leads my own thinking to the ultimate conclusion: since blame has no place in a thought process grounded in systems theory/thinking, neither does forgiveness. I am not suggesting that someone already mired in blame, anger and resentment wouldn’t benefit from a more conventional effort toward forgiveness. But the impact that a shift toward systems thinking can have can be simply stated. With conventional thinking, one can make an effort to let go of anger and resentment…work on anger management so to speak. But with systems thinking, the notion of blame dissolves, and with it, the experience of anger and resentment, especially when one accepts the reality of whatever role oneself played in what transpired. I would rather dissolve the blame and not live with anger than just get really good at anger management.

    Certainly there are circumstances wherein one did not contribute to a bad outcome. A child in an abusive setting does not, in my opinion, have a shared responsibility. But if I am walking down a crowded street staring at my phone, oblivious to what is going on around me and I get robbed, did my lack of awareness and attention have anything to do with getting robbed? Yes. When I look deeper at the one who committed the robbery, I ask: what circumstances, family processes, opportunities or lack thereof for growth and development, for the development of a well-functioning prefrontal cortex from infancy to the current day did that individual experience. When thinking this way, am I less likely to harbor blame, anger and resentment? Yes. I don’t have to know what all the circumstances were/are. It is enough for me to know they exist, even if I don’t have all the data. I can objectively consider how I contributed to what happened and use it as a learning experience, moving toward a more adaptive mindset and behavior going forward.

    My conclusion here is that IF one can truly function through the lens of Theory, blame, and by extension forgiveness, become irrelevant. That doesn’t mean everything that others do is okay, but it is up to me to discern my path forward, learn and adapt. When you remove blame from your thinking process, where does that leave you with regard to who is ultimately responsible for adapting to the conditions and outcomes in your life? It leaves you on your own!

    –Stan Proffitt

  • Bowen and Bridges Part 2 – Defining Differences

    In Bowen and Bridges Part 1, I talked about ways in which science, Bowen Theory and Spiritual (contemplative and meditative) traditions seem to converge. While I believe there are points of convergence, I think a view that penetrates the surface also needs to “see” ways in which they diverge.

    At the proverbial 30,000 foot level, one might say science attempts to answer the question, what is reality? Bowen Theory attempts to understand how that reality operates in an emotional system (as distinct from general systems theory) and spiritual traditions are more concerned with the nature of consciousness and its connection to a greater whole. Already, at this high level without detail, the difference in focus is visible. I will attend here more to the ways in which I believe Bowen Theory diverges from spiritual disciplines, as I do believe the theory and its methods are closer to science than spirituality.

    While Bowen Theory promotes self-observation without judgement, I think there is an important distinction to be made between moral judgement and functional assessment. Moral judgement is more about one’s identity and worth. I believe this is what Swami Kripalu is referencing (see Bowen and Bridges Part 1). In an effort toward operationalizing Bowen Theory, there is in fact a move toward greater objectivity and a reduction of this type of judgement. However, Bowen Theory does promote a different kind of judgement: Functional Assessment. I do not believe that Bowen Theory promotes detached observers of self who never reach any kind of conclusions. But the functional assessments focus more on understanding patterns, processes, reciprocal effects and outcomes and adaptation.

    Some important distinctions between moral judgement and functional assessment can be made as follows:

    • Judgement is concerned with worth; assessment is concerned with adaptive function and impact on differentiation
    • Judgement asks who is right; assessment asks what is happening and under what conditions does it change
    • Judgement often seeks to assign blame; assessment seeks to understand
    • Judgement focuses on individuals; assessment (in Bowen Theory) is focused on process and the system
    • Judgement is usually emotionally reactive; assessment is intellectually and observationally curious
    • Judgement puts people in categories; assessment (in Bowen Theory) describes patterns

      Additionally, to move toward a mature (fully developed) application of Theory, I think one eventually must ask:

      Which behaviors/patterns are more adaptive?

      Which behaviors/patterns lead to greater freedom from automatic emotional functioning?

      Which behaviors/patterns do I want to pass on to my children?

      When one starts asking these types of questions, an evaluative process enters the picture. Without this kind of evaluation, how would one know who to marry, where to raise children, how to raise children, what school to send children to, where and with/for whom to work, what to eat, who to hang around with socially, and on and on? Life requires decision making. An effort to move toward differentiation of self requires curiosity about self, patterns and multi-generational emotional systems. It requires the capacity for self-observation with greater objectivity, without moral judgement. Yes, it includes all of these aspects of observation. It also includes defining of beliefs, values, principles and life goals. Once one has defined and continuously refines beliefs, values, principles and goals, assessment and evaluation must be part of the process toward differentiation of self. Without assessment and evaluation, beliefs, values, principles and goals are just conceptual notions that have no meaning in everyday life. It takes great effort (for me) to stay in the domain of functional assessment with objectivity and not slip into the reactive domain of moral judgement. But when I can do it, my life experience is just better.

      – Stan Proffitt

  • Bowen and Bridges Part 1 – Bridging the Gap Between Science, Theory and Spirituality

    “The highest form of spiritual practice is self-observation without judgement,”
    – Swami Kripalu

    The word science has its origin in the Latin Scientia, which literally means knowledge or knowing. Historically, it did not refer to what we interpret as science today. Today, the term science conjures up thoughts of laboratory research in vitro, experiments that test hypotheses or seek to answer questions using technology-based methods of data collection and analysis, or field research studying some non-human species in vivo. But in its original sense, science referred more simply to an organized system of knowledge acquired by experimentation through direct experience and observation. Today, if the method of inquiry does not include controlled experimentation designed to isolate certain variables and control for others, we consider it non-science, or at best, ascientific.


    Is Bowen Theory a science of human functioning? Based on the original understanding of science, I conclude that it is, given that the deeper meaning of science from an etymological perspective refers to a disciplined method of acquiring knowledge. The processes and methods that led to the development of Bowen Family Systems Theory surely meet that criteria.


    Spiritual disciplines (Not religious doctrines) have arisen out of experimentation and observation, testing conceptual notions and direct experience wherein the laboratory was the practitioner. As such, these “experiments” are repeatable. What is particularly striking about Swami Kripalu’s statement, “The highest form of spiritual practice is self-observation without judgement,” is that it bears a striking similarity to what Bowen Theory advocates. A key difference I see is that Dr. Bowen embedded the observation of self in a multi-generational emotional system as opposed to looking at oneself as an individual in relationship with the rest of nature. Bowen Theory views the family as an emotional unit.


    Bowen Theory also offers a framework that more precisely grounds observation of self. That said, the questions one might ask oneself through the lens of Bowen Theory closely mirror questions for self that might arise out of meditative and contemplative disciplines.


    • What am I feeling?
    • What am I thinking?
    • How do I distinguish between thoughts and feelings?
    • What part of my functioning is emotionally-driven and automatic?
    • What part of my functioning is conscious and principle-based?
    • What do I stand for?
    • What part do I play in the relationship processes that I criticize?
    • Where and with whom in the emotional system am I fused? Reactive? Distant or cut-off? (Spiritual/contemplative traditions would say, To what am I attached? To what do I have an aversion?)
    • How does my physical body metabolize emotions?


    I could go on with examples of questions. The main distinction I see is that contemplative frameworks for self inquiry are typically inquiring about the nature of self and the relationship between self and the rest of nature. Bowen Theory focuses that inquiry on the nature of the relationship between self and the multi-generational emotional system, and by extension, one’s level of differentiation arising out of the family of origin and its impact on functioning across a range of life dimensions.

    Bowen Theory and Spiritual inquiry are not the same, but they are not entirely different either. Dr. Bowen talked about the potential for the development of a ninth concept dealing with spirituality. I believe the development of a conceptual framework addressing spirituality is a viable direction for the development of theory. Would it focus on bridging the gap more precisely between the multi-generational emotional system, self and the rest of nature?
    What the biological sciences, including evolutionary biology, primatology, neuroscience, epigenetics, to mention a few, lend to the scrutiny and testing of Bowen Theory has been invaluable. These disciplines provide a connection between Bowen Theory and the broader scientific community. That connection has been instrumental in advancing our understanding of how multi-generational processes influence human functioning, strengthening the validity of Dr. Bowen’s observation of what happens.


    To bridge the gap between science and spirituality, the effort, in my opinion, will have to distance itself from the typical overly-emotional selling of spiritual or contemplative frameworks for self-inquiry. By overly-emotionally sold, I mean the propagation of benefits such as:
    • Find your bliss
    • Manifest abundance in your life
    • Live your life from your highest self


    Bowen Theory would argue that emotional comfort (anxiety reduction) is not a reliable marker of growth. You could put your head in the sand and find your bliss while everything else around you is falling apart. That said, Bowen Theory and contemplative/meditative traditions share a common theme; that growth begins when one can become less governed by emotional reactivity. Dr. Bowen called this differentiation.


    There are methods to work on one’s capacity to down-regulate reactivity. Meditation and breath work, biofeedback, neurofeedback, being in contact with the multi-generational emotional field in one’s family and observing one’s own reactivity to that field. These are all viable ways to work toward advancing differentiation, as defined in the previous paragraph. They are all anchored in self-observation without judgement. I think the important, and very personal task, is to engage multiple methods and find your own path. To be stuck on any one method as “the only way” to work toward differentiation seems suspect to me. To rule out every other possibility, one would have to have a direct experience with practice and observation with every other possibility.

    I leave you with a question:
    Given that whether one’s effort is anchored in science and Theory or a spiritual discipline, both paths are concerned with developing a clearer perceptual lens, greater self-responsibility and greater freedom from automatic emotional processes, can working toward differentiation of self be understood as both, a science-backed endeavor AND a spiritual endeavor?

    – Stan Proffitt

  • News Media Impact Study

    A SELF-OBSERVATION OF METABOLIC FUNCTIONING AND EMOTIONAL TONE PATTERNS IN RESPONSE TO NEWS MEDIA CONSUMPTION

    Recently, I noticed that while watching the broadcast news media, I was getting reactive to stories being presented. I started thinking about the intersection of differentiation of self and societal anxiety, and how a higher level of differentiation would respond to negativity in the media versus a lower level. I decided to study this phenomenon in myself, so I constructed a research protocol and created a framework for data collection. The study was to focus specifically on the impact of consumption of broadcast news media. Written and other forms of media (i.e.-podcasts, etc.) were considered out of scope, since I already curated those forms of media based on usefulness and tone. One anchoring premise for the study is that from an evolutionary perspective, humans evolved to be tuned into and respond to threats and opportunities in their close knit communities and their regional environment, not be constantly tuned into events and circumstances from all around the globe. As such, my hypothesis is that the nervous system responds to information from around the globe “as if” it is related to one’s regional or immediate environment.

    The data would include both information about the news stories I was exposed to, including geographic focus (local, regional, national, international); topic (a range of topics from geopolitics to STEM, entertainment & pop culture, health and wellness, economy, law and order, weather, etc.); Usefulness (useful meant the story would materially impact some decision or action that day); as well as data about my own functioning. The data regarding my functioning included biometrics (resting HR, HR variability, breathing rate, sleep architecture); and quality of life markers, including: rating of joint pain on a scale of 1 (absence of pain) – 10 (pain that prohibited normal or planned activity), a daily global nervous system rating (1-calm to 10-overactivated), and for each story tracked – an emotional valence that ranged from -2 = anxiety provoking, 0 = neutral, +2 = calming.

    The study outlined three phases that lasted two weeks each. The first phase was to establish baseline. The control included keeping all routines, including news exposure habits, as stable as possible for the duration of the study. News consumption did not change and exercise habits, nutrition, bedtime, alcohol use and degree of social commitments were all maintained at the same weekly level/intensity throughout the study. I simply collected biometric data and joint pain and global nervous system data for two weeks.

    Phase two was an observational phase. During phase two, I continued tracking the biometric, joint pain and nervous system data and added daily observation of the news story categories and an emotional valence rating for each story. Phase two was purely observational, with no attempt to change the impact of any variable on my functioning.

    Phase three included two weeks of selective reduction in exposure to categories of news stories rated as “Not Useful”and/or “Anxiety Provoking’. There were stories (very few) that were rated as “Useful” and “Anxiety Provoking.” Selective reduction meant that as I had established a trend that certain types of stories were consistently not useful, I eliminated my exposure to those types of stories. At times I was not clear about the tone and focus of the story and as the story was starting to be presented, but as the story began to unfold, I knew from observation that it was heading toward a not useful rating. I also selectively eliminated my attention to these stories. The integrity of the study protocol was that once the study began, the protocol would not be modified. The goal was clarity of comparison across phases rather than incremental optimization of the study.

    What did I observe and conclude?

    First, 21% of stories I tracked were rated as Useful. 79% were Not Useful. As phase two progressed, wherein I was now observing my own response to the media in the form of assigning an emotional valence to my response, there was a noteworthy downgrading of the global nervous system activation rating and reduction in the negative emotional tone pattern. Also, during phase two, heart rate variability showed an increase over the two week period,, a positive change. Phase three, with selective reduction in exposure, yielded less change to any biometric or qualitative marker than merely observing my response.

    My conclusion at the end of the study was that the observation of my own response had a greater impact on my response than any change in exposure to external stimuli. I interpret this observation to be consistent with my own understanding of Differentiation of Self, as a process first as an intra-brain process, operationalized in relationship to others and one’s environment. The act of self-observation, what I refer to as Meta-Awareness, is a key functional feature of differentiation of self. This study appears to confirm the validity of that theoretical understanding.

    –Stan Proffitt