Category: Self-Focus

In Bowen Family Systems Theory, unresolved emotional attachment to parents is one of the most practical ways to understand a person’s level of differentiation of self, or perhaps the level of undifferentiation. The issue is not whether an adult loves, respects, or maintains connection with parents. The main question is how much the adult’s emotional stability still depends on parental approval, praise, acceptance, agreement, or affirmation—and how reactive the adult becomes in response to parental criticism, disappointment, rejection, worry, or disapproval. In one sense, a meaningful inquiry becomes, “to what extent is a person governed by the need for parental approval, praise, acceptance and/or affirmation?”

Put simply, a person’s degree of emotional fusion is roughly equal to the degree of unresolved emotional attachment. The more a person’s sense of self rises and falls with the emotional signals of the parent, the more the person is functioning from attachment rather than from a solid self. Differentiation is not coldness, distance, rebellion, or indifference. It is the ability to remain emotionally connected while becoming less needy, less reactive, and more thoughtful.

Unresolved Attachment Is Not the Same as Love

A common misunderstanding is to equate emotional attachment with affection. In Bowen theory, however, unresolved emotional attachment does not mean that a person cares too much about parents. It means that the person’s functioning is overly regulated by the parent-child emotional bond. The adult may be physically independent, financially independent, and living far away, while still emotionally organized around parental reactions.

For example, an adult daughter may be competent in her career but feel unusually unsettled after a brief phone call in which her mother sounds disappointed. An adult son may manage complex responsibilities at work but feel compelled to explain, defend, or justify a personal decision when his father questions it. In both cases, the problem is not the existence of parental influence. The problem is the degree to which the adult self loses steadiness in response to the parent’s emotional cues.

How Unresolved Emotional Attachment Shows Up

Unresolved attachment becomes visible in patterns of neediness and reactivity. Neediness is the pull to obtain approval, praise, and affirmation from the parent. Reactivity is the automatic response to the parent’s disapproval, criticism, and invalidation. These patterns can be subtle, but they are often easy to see once a person begins paying attention. Some practical examples include:

·       Seeking approval before making decisions that one can and should make independently.

·       Feeling lifted by praise and deflated by criticism to a degree that seems disproportionate.

·       Scanning a parent’s tone, facial expression, silence, or mood for signs of acceptance or rejection.

·       Over-explaining choices to reduce a parent’s disappointment or anxiety.

·       Agreeing outwardly while feeling resentful inwardly.

·       Avoiding topics, visits, or phone calls because contact feels too emotionally charged.

·       Cutting off or distancing in order to manage an attachment that still feels too intense.

These reactions are not moral failures. They are evidence of an emotional process. Bowen theory is not about blaming parents or adult children. Rather, theory focuses on observing how emotional dependence and sensitivity operate in the family system. The question is not, “Who is at fault?” The better question is, “How am I still regulated by this relationship, and what would it mean to function with more self?”

The Link Between Differentiation and Unresolved Attachment

Differentiation of self refers to the capacity to stay connected to important others while maintaining one’s own thinking, principles, and direction. A more differentiated person can be emotionally present without being automatically governed by the emotional climate. A less differentiated person is more likely to absorb the anxiety, approval, disapproval, or expectations of the relationship system.

This is why unresolved emotional attachment to parents is so central. Parents are typically the original and most formative attachment figures. The adult’s reactions to them often reveal the basic level of fusion more clearly than reactions in less significant relationships. If a person can speak calmly with coworkers but becomes defensive, compliant, childish, or avoidant with a parent, the parent relationship more reveals the basic level of differentiation, or solid self, while the functioning with coworkers is more indicative of functional self.

As Bowen Theory embeds observation of self in a multi-generational emotional system, it is important to understand that the intensity of emotional attachment an adult child has with his/her parents develops in reciprocal fashion in response to the intensity of attachment (need for approval, etc.) the parent has for the child. This process is largely shaped by the intensity of lingering attachment that parent had with his/her own parents, and so it goes, back through multiple generations of nuclear families.

A Practical Example: The Need for Approval

Consider an adult who is deciding whether to change careers. The person has done research, considered finances, spoken with mentors, and reached a thoughtful decision. Still, before acting, the person feels a strong need to hear a parent say, “I think that is a good idea.” If the parent approves, the person feels calm and confident. If the parent hesitates, asks anxious questions, or expresses doubt, the person suddenly feels uncertain, guilty, or defensive.

The work of differentiation is not to stop caring what the parent thinks. Nor is it to reject the parent’s input automatically. The work is to become more aware of the emotional dependency: “I notice that I need or want my parent’s approval in order to feel settled. Can I listen respectfully without handing over responsibility for my decision?” That question marks the beginning of a more solid self.

A Practical Example: Reactivity to Criticism

Another person may feel reasonably secure until a parent criticizes a choice: “You are making this too hard on yourself,” or “I would not do it that way.” The adult immediately feels flooded. One automatic response is to argue and prove the parent wrong. Another is to collapse and doubt oneself. A third is to withdraw and avoid future contact. Though these responses look different, each may indicate that the parent’s criticism still carries more emotional power than the adult can manage.

A differentiated response would be less automatic. The person might say, “I understand you see it differently. I am still thinking it through. This is the direction I am choosing for now.” The content of the sentence matters less than the functioning behind it. The goal is to remain in contact, represent oneself clearly, and avoid being pulled into compliance, counterattack, defending, justifying or debate.

Five Practical Steps Toward Resolving Emotional Attachment

1. Observe before trying to change

The first step is careful observation. Notice what happens in your body, thoughts, and behavior before, during, and after contact with a parent. Do you anticipate criticism? Do you rehearse what to say? Do you feel unusually young, guilty, angry, or helpless? Do you become preoccupied with whether the parent is pleased or upset?

Observation reduces automatic emotional functioning. Instead of simply reacting, a person begins to see the emotional process in motion. This shift from reaction to observation is a practical move toward differentiation.

2. See the approval-seeking pattern

Ask yourself where you still look to a parent to stabilize your sense of self. Do you share accomplishments mainly to hear praise? Do you hide decisions that might disappoint? Do you feel compelled to make your choices sound acceptable? Do you become anxious when a parent does not affirm you?

This does not mean approval is bad. Human beings naturally enjoy affirmation from important others. The question is whether approval has become necessary for emotional steadiness. When approval becomes a requirement, the adult self is still leaning heavily on the parent relationship for regulation.

3.  Clarify and define principles, beliefs, values, goals, and purposes

Resolving attachment requires internal clarity. If one is to become less regulated by the emotional process between self and the parent(s), one must have a principled, thoughtful position that governs what one does. The “I” Position represents one’s path forward, as expressed in actions and sometimes words. Defining oneself while in contact with parents, without overly explaining, defending, justifying, debating, or running away from the parental relationship is something one can observe in self. Also, a major marker of growth is the capacity to listen to a parent, consider whether the parent’s perspective has discernment and/or wisdom behind it, yet, not become governed by or thrown off balance by what the parent thinks, feels or wants.

4. Stay in contact without automatically adapting

One of the most difficult parts of this work is staying in meaningful contact while reducing automatic adaptation. Some people manage anxiety by cutting off: fewer calls, shorter visits, emotional distance, or avoiding difficult topics entirely. Cutoff may reduce immediate discomfort, but it does not necessarily resolve attachment. In many cases, distance simply hides how reactive the person still is.

Practice involves maintaining meaningful contact while changing one’s part in the pattern. This might mean visiting without surrendering one’s schedule, talking without fishing for praise, listening without defending, or allowing a parent to be disappointed without rushing to fix the disappointment. The adult becomes more able to be present without being absorbed.

5. Assess progress by seeing reduced neediness and reduced reactivity

Progress is not assessed by whether parents change. It is assessed by one’s own functioning. Can you make a thoughtful decision without needing parental approval? Can you hear concern or criticism without collapsing, attacking, or over-explaining? Can you remain connected without becoming responsible for the parent’s emotional state? Can you recover more quickly after a difficult interaction?

These are small but significant indicators of growth toward a more solid self. The person is not becoming less caring. The person is becoming less governed by old emotional dependencies.

What Resolution Does and Does Not Mean

Resolving emotional attachment does not mean eliminating affection, loyalty, gratitude, or grief. It does not mean becoming invulnerable to a parent’s opinion. It does not mean forcing closeness or pretending that family history was not painful. Rather, resolution means that the adult is less emotionally dependent on the parent for a sense of worth, less reactive to the parent’s cues, and more able to act from a thoughtful and principled self.

A person with greater resolution can care about a parent’s view without being controlled by it. They can remain connected without excessive compliance. They can disagree without attacking. They can allow the parent to be anxious, disappointed, or critical without allowing that reaction to become the driver of their own functioning.

Conclusion: From Emotional Dependence to a More Solid Self

Bowen theory becomes practical when a person begins to study his/her own functioning in the family rather than simply analyze the family. Unresolved emotional attachment to parents is not an abstract concept. It can be observed in the need for approval, sensitivity to criticism, fear of disappointing, compulsion to explain, tendency to comply, urge to rebel, and temptation to cut off.

Resolving that attachment is slow, steady work. It begins with observing reactivity, seeing emotional dependence in action, developing internal clarity of principles, staying connected without over-adapting, and assessing progress by one’s own reduced neediness and reactivity. The work toward differentiation in this regard is not about changing parents. It is about becoming more governed by principle while in contact with the emotional process between oneself and parents.

If one can gain some freedom from automatic emotional functioning in the relationship with one’s parents, it predictably becomes easier to do so in other relationships as well.

As a final footnote here: if you are a parent, and you want to help your own children mature in solid self, one of the most important steps you can take is to work on your unresolved emotional attachment to your own parents.

Stan Proffitt

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.

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 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

“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

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