OCD therapists are trained on how to interact with clients, it can sometimes be difficult to be completely honest in their reactions. Having a therapist who can truly empathize with you will make all of the difference. Visit https://mosaicmindscounseling.com/pages?page=services

Myths, Mischief, and Misconceptions.
Informal misuse of psychiatric diagnoses stigmatizes those who suffer.
Reviewed by Tyler Woods

KEY POINTS-
Informal mischaracterization of psychiatric diagnoses increases stigma.
Just as we should confront racist and misogynist remarks, we should challenge misuse of psychiatric diagnoses.
Let us begin to stand up to those who use psychiatric terms that devalue others.

Medical terminology frequently drains into the non-professional population, which often adopts medical diagnoses inappropriately. Phrases like, “You’re giving me a heart attack,” or, “Don’t get psychotic about it” are usually said flippantly, without harmful intent, but can be offensive. Recognition that open acknowledgment of an illness might produce discomfort causes many people to whisper phrases like, “He has cancer.”

In particular, the invocation of psychiatric diagnoses by the lay public frequently reinforces misinformation that leads to increases in stigmatizing psychiatric patients. The term, schizophrenia, was first used by Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler over 100 years ago to describe a specific form of psychosis. Bleuler employed the word—schizo, meaning “split”; and phrenia, meaning “mind”—to describe patients’ confusion and fragmented thinking. However, the literal meaning has caused many in the general population to erroneously assume that the illness describes split (or, multiple) personality. In many cases “diagnosis epithets” are used as hurtful accusations. There are common examples:

“He acts strange; is he an Aspy, on the spectrum” implies that nonconforming behavior suggests a diagnosis of autism and devalues individuals with the disorder.

“My first wife was borderline” is code for describing the spouse as difficult to live with and subtly blames her for the failure of the marriage.

“I wish you wouldn’t get all excited and manic about this” suggests the person who may be moderately hyperactive has bipolar disorder, a very serious illness.

“Don’t be anorexic; have dessert with me” invokes the label of a serious illness to challenge the dining behavior of the companion.

“You are so OCD” accuses an individual who may be especially careful or perfectionistic of possessing pathological traits.

“When he gets angry, he goes all schizo” reflects the speaker’s attitude that this expressed anger is unreasonable, suggestive of psychosis, such as schizophrenia.

“She is so ADHD” might be a description of someone who appears disorganized, distracted, or forgetful.

“The horror movie upset him so much, it gave him nightmares and PTSD” conflates a serious and well-defined psychiatric diagnosis that usually persists for long periods with an acute, minor upset.

"Don't be antisocial, come to the party" misidentifies a person who resists socialization as a sociopath.

Examples like these usually are not meant to bestow formal psychiatric diagnoses. Most are not intended to be taken literally or even seriously. But referencing psychiatric terminology by nonprofessionals promotes misinformation and, when used in negative ways, expands stigmatization of individuals who suffer from mental illness.

These mischaracterizations trivialize the suffering endured by those disabled by the disorder. Just as many people will assertively confront others who use racist or misogynistic phrases, now, in May, which is formally designated as “Mental Health Month,” let us begin to stand up to those who use psychiatric terms that devalue others.

OCD-
Obsessive Thoughts and the Imp of the Perverse.
Intrusive thoughts can occur anytime, but they aren't insurmountable.
Reviewed by Ekua Hagan

KEY POINTS-
Obsessive thoughts often entail taboo topics that people don’t normally worry about—i.e., violence, sexual criminality, blasphemy, etc.
Those who have unwanted obsessive thoughts are still good people.
Exposure and response therapy has been a standard treatment strategy for obsessive thoughts for several decades.

…The assurance of the wrong or error of any action is often the one unconquerable force which impels us, and alone impels us to its prosecution…. We stand upon the brink of a precipice. We peer into the abyss—we grow sick and dizzy. Our first impulse is to shrink from the danger. Unaccountably we remain. (Poe, 1845/2014)

Edgar Allan Poe’s (1809-1849) inimitable imagery above describes how one can feel when haunted by uncommanded, troublesome thoughts. It can certainly feel like standing on the edge of a cliff, deciding if the intrusive thoughts one has should determine one’s actions or even individual value. In this post, we’ll consider how obsessive thoughts about taboo topics can occur for anyone and what one can do about them.

Some questions to consider when reading this post include:

How can people who have obsessive thoughts that are unwanted convince themselves that they are good people?
Do thoughts determine actions and moral values, or is it the opposite?
An epidemic of obsessive bad thoughts
Everyone has bad thoughts at some point in time. Sometimes, and for some people, these ideations are more intense and/or more frequent. What sets obsessive thoughts apart are their intensity, frequency, and extension beyond real-world problems (Baer, 2001). They often entail taboo topics that people don’t normally worry about—i.e., violence, sexual criminality, blasphemy, doubt, symmetry, orientation, bias, or perfectionism—to name a few. Their emotional tags can be so intense that we can question our own identity, whether we are bad for having them in the first place.

Obsessive thoughts can drive us to realms we ordinarily don’t visit, precisely because they are figments in our subconscious imaginations. In daily life, for example, I regularly maintain a modicum of control through cleaning rituals, knowledge management processes, an exercise regimen, and scheduled contemplative prayer. These help me impose a sense of predictability within my personal span of control, so I can mitigate my innate fear of uncertainty.

And yet, my intrusive thoughts have wandered into hypothetical nightmares often related to violence and sex. While the literature on obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and related conditions clearly describes the clinical landscape of such obsessive thinking (Baer, 2001; Culkin & Culkin, 2021), it does not prevent me from questioning the goodness of my nature. Am I a good person? Will I ever do what these thoughts portray?

In his “Imp of the Perverse,” Poe (1845/2014) examines the suggestive power of unwanted thoughts. He demonstrates how quality literature can delve into the experiences of those of us who endure darkness from intrusive, bad thoughts. The story describes how a person can perseverate on seemingly unwanted ideation to the extent that, ultimately, she feels compelled to act upon it. In the story, however, the main character has actually done something wrong and then, as a result of conscience-driven cognitive cycling, confesses his crimes to the police.

In this context, the critical difference between literature and obsessive thoughts is that people with such OCD exhibit no history of acting out the thoughts (Baer, 2001; Culkin & Culkin, 2021). Put another way, a psychopathic criminal would normally not think twice about the crimes he has committed, but a person with OCD worries about a myriad of taboos (e.g., murder, hit and run, opening a plane door in flight, driving over a cliff, stabbing a loved one, pushing a stranger off a cliff, etc.) she will never commit.

What to do?
The first thing to realize is that, because we all have obsessive bad thoughts at various times, having them does not mean we are bad or that we’ll act upon them. In fact, OCD literature has established that past behavior (i.e., resistance to urges) is a very reliable indicator that we won’t act upon them (Baer, 2001; Culkin & Culkin, 2021). Recognition can be the first step needed to seek professional help.

Having such intrusive thoughts means you’re human and does not necessarily indicate OCD. Usually, the frequency, intensity, and duration of such thoughts—coupled with other symptoms—help clinicians diagnose OCD. Exposure and response therapy has been a standard treatment strategy for obsessive thoughts for several decades (Abramowitz, 2021; Baer, 2001).

As a result, you and your loved ones can follow these general guidelines to cope with intrusive, bad thoughts:

Recognize you have bad thoughts; they are just thoughts and not evidence of your value.
Seek professional help if you have trouble living daily life because of your thoughts.
Accept the treatment prescribed and the grace provided by your loved ones and friends.
Learn as much as you can about obsessive thoughts and OCD to better understand the “imp of the perverse” that allegedly haunts you.
Conclusion
Obsessive thoughts about taboo topics can occur for anyone. It is what we choose to do about them that will determine how much they will affect us. Intrusive thoughts don’t have to define us.

Do intrusive thoughts confront you? What are you doing about them?

PSYCHOANALYSIS-
The Coronation on the Couch.
The psychoanalysis of the coronation: elites, rituals, and why we need to watch.
Reviewed by Jessica Schrader

KEY POINTS-
Psychoanalysis has been applied to why some societies have a monarchy.
The psychological defence mechanism of "splitting" may explain why a democracy needs a royal family in order to survive.
All rituals, like coronations, serve to provide a sense of control.
Uncovering the hidden psychological meanings that lie behind the often mysterious, elaborate, pomp and circumstance of the coronation was originally attempted by the first English-speaking practitioner of psychoanalysis, Dr. Ernest Jones.

This analysis suggested that democracies, paradoxically, need royal families in order to survive in the longest term. This contention has ominous implications for republics like the USA. One interpretation of his argument could relate to the violent invasion on Capitol Hill that erupted in the USA following an election result that some refused to accept—a kind of political upheaval that has not flared up during the modern era in the U.K.

Ernest Jones was not just a lifelong friend of the founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, but he was also his official biographer. The Welsh neurologist and psychoanalyst became perhaps the most influential figure in the establishment of this particular form of therapy outside of continental Europe.

Jones, who died in 1958, published an essay in 1936 entitled "The Psychology of Constitutional Monarchy," which applied psychoanalysis to the royal family.

The disciple of Freud argued that once you understand the true role of kings and queens in our collective unconscious, you will begin to grasp that royalty and rituals, such as coronations, are hugely politically and emotionally significant.

The unexpected twist in the argument from Ernest Jones is that the monarchy—despite being associated with dictatorship—in fact, in a democracy, provides a necessary psychological stabilising framework. A society that would otherwise be tormented by division, so remains united, without falling into anarchy and civil unrest.

The electorate inevitably experience ambivalence or doubt over figures of authority. The benefits of being ruled are that we feel protected, and are given a direction imposed by a ruler. Yet we all also resent being ordered about, aggrieved by restrictions placed upon our freedom.

This means any form of governing can’t escape from a basic yet serious predicament: How do you get any unruly electorate to accept the sacrifices involved in being ruled, without the inevitable resentment spilling out into disobedience and law-breaking?

In a famous essay of 1937, “Analysis Terminable and Interminable,'' Freud asserts that “government, education, and analysis” constitute three impossible professions, the results of which are doomed to “failure."

However, Jones argues, the British constitutional arrangement gets around this fundamental problem by resolving its governing body into two separate elements. On the one side stands Parliament, with its rival factions and its political disputes. This receives the brunt of the electorate’s hostility and resentment over being governed.

But on the other side stands the crown, symbolizing ancient tradition, continuity, and the wider social and political order, and which therefore basks in the glow of respect and admiration.

Ernest Jones was invoking the psychological defence mechanism of "splitting," which helps us deal with unresolved conflict. The royal family and the coronation assist with "splitting." Splitting was first described by Freud, where he referred to a mental process by which two separate and contradictory versions of reality could co-exist.

Splitting as a defence mechanism allows us to handle a contradiction, the presence of a beloved royal family at the top, and allows us to accept a hated government.

Dr. Nassir Ghaemi, professor of psychiatry at Tufts Medical Center in Boston and clinical lecturer at Harvard Medical School, recently echoed this argument when he speculated that one reason the violent storming of Capitol Hill occurred in the U.S., with no equivalent event in the monarchist U.K., may be linked to the absence of a unifying constitutional figure, in the form of a king, in North America.

Precisely because you can’t vote a king or queen out, they hang around for much longer periods than voters tolerate presidents or prime ministers, so a unique constitutional continuity is provided by someone like Queen Elizabeth, who reigned for 70 years. The next longest reign in U.K. history is that of Queen Victoria (63 years), who, intriguingly, given Ernest Jones’ and Nassir Ghaemi’s argument, presided over the establishment of the largest empire the world has ever seen.

Professor Ghaemi’s article, entitled "Society Without the Mother—Lessons from Queen Elizabeth," argues that North Americans are raised on the assumption that a democratic republic is the best form of government, but one clear defect is that leaders change every few years. There is no consistent father or mother figure to pull a nation together. We all need an upwardly directed relationship with someone we look up to who helps us repress our child-like impulsive urges to wreak havoc, and throw our toys out of the pram, when we don’t get our way.

Nassir Ghaemi argues that while the U.S. has a written constitution, which is supposed to unify it, there is no living long-term unifying leader; the U.K. has a uniting parental figure in the monarch, and so survives with no written document.

Does a king or a queen help stand against the violence of the mob?

The German psychoanalyst, Alexander Mitscherlich, published an influential 1963 book explaining the Nazi experience, titled Society without the Father.

In a pure democracy, there is no father or parental figure; in an autocracy, the father has too much power; and a constitutional monarchy gets it just right.

But, many of us instinctively object to kings and coronations because it seems we are submissive bystanders merely witnessing an elite celebrating its dominance. Yet we also seem to crave an upwardly-directed relationship, perhaps an overhang of our childhood experience of needing parents to look up to.

By definition, elites conceal what it is like to be in the inner circle, so we become driven by a need to pry into what is forbidden.

A coronation fills our psychological need for a glimpse of the inner sanctum of the elite. This is the same need that is being filled by the voyeur who is beset by a conviction that no matter how much they peep, something is forever being hidden from them.

This may be the same emotional need that drives the enormous popularity of TV shows like The Kardashians or Succession.

Unlike those series, the royal family is a serial that’s been running for centuries, and the rituals of the coronation remind us of a sense of continuity we all crave.

Because we all want to know where we came from.

Even if we don’t know what the future holds, all rituals, like coronations, serve to provide a sense of control, which is helpful when everything around us begins to feel out of control.

This is exactly why sufferers of anxiety disorders like obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) perform rituals.

If watching the coronation stirs up strong emotions, yet also, strangely, calms you down, now you know why.

OCD-
I Thought I Had a Superpower Until I Was Diagnosed With OCD.
A Personal Perspective: I was both shocked and relieved by my diagnosis.
Reviewed by Lybi Ma

KEY POINTS-
How OCD shows up through obsessions and compulsions.
Why it is important to tell somebody if you feel that repetitive thought patterns are taking up mental space.
Addressing mental health concerns at an early age is crucial.
Tap Tap Tap. The sound of my fingers tapping on specific items, surfaces, or the ground (exactly three times). I tried to be subtle. I did not want others to know about my superpowers. My powers were special, and only I had them. The voice in my head told me that I must tap this object three times, or my dad would die in a plane crash. I obeyed each rule that this voice dictated. From tapping the book I was reading, the desk I was sitting in, the door I was opening. No matter if I was in class, in the car, or at a friend’s house. Sometimes, I would be instructed by the voice in my head to turn on and off a light switch three times in a row or count specific items to make sure they were in multiples of three. It spoke and told me the tics to perform, and I always did.

I absolutely idolize my father, he is warm, energetic, and always believes in me. When I was a child, I was attached to him. He has a positive spirit that made me feel extremely safe when I was younger. He had to travel a lot for work throughout my childhood and teenage years. I had an immense fear that became instilled in me from an early age, which was that he would die in a plane crash. This fear was constantly on my mind. It was overbearing at times. I am the eldest of three girls and felt that it was my duty to protect them and my mother from this event occurring. What would our family do without his positivity that filled our house with joy? I needed him to be safe, and I thought that it was my responsibility and absolutely in my control to prevent a plane crash from happening.

Little did I know at the time, I was experiencing obsessive-compulsive disorder. OCD is an anxiety disorder, that affects people of all ages. It causes an individual to have both obsessions and compulsions. Obsessions are characterized by unwanted, intrusive, disturbing thoughts that are repetitive (International OCD Foundation). The strong fear that my father would die in a plane crash was an obsession. The tapping and other repetitive behaviors I had can best be described as compulsions. Compulsions are behaviors or rituals that an individual engages in to negate unwanted thoughts (International OCD Foundation). About one in 40 adults, and one in 100 children have OCD (Anxiety and Depression Association of America).

Now, as a licensed therapist, I think back to my younger self and wish that I had the courage to share my experiences with my family. I had convinced myself that it would be unsafe if I told anyone about my superpowers. I did not share them with anyone. I still enjoyed my childhood, but remember feeling stuck, isolated, and overpowered by my ritualistic behaviors whenever my obsessive thoughts came to the surface. When I was 16, I remember having a panic attack for the first time. The anxiety I was experiencing had been building up for so long, that I could not control it anymore. I cried for hours in my bedroom by myself uncontrollably. I knew that I had to talk to my parents about this.

At 16, I was clinically diagnosed with OCD by a psychiatrist. She explained to me about the disorder. This was the first time I understood that what I thought was a superpower and a special part of myself was actually a mental illness. I was both shocked and relieved. The voice in my head making me perform certain behaviors was actually just a voice. It was not actually a legitimate way to protect my father? I also understood that a lot of the events that happen in life are out of my control, I could not control whether or not my dad would be safe in an airplane. Life is full of ups and downs, it is learning how to feel safe and secure within our own selves, and regulating our emotions that prepare us for challenges.

As a therapist that works with children, teens, and adolescents. I am very passionate about the work I do. Mostly impart because of my personal experience throughout my childhood and adolescence with OCD. If I had a therapist earlier, it would have helped me with a lot of internal suffering and anxiety I experienced. I want to support youth in their journeys to believing in themselves, understanding themselves, and most importantly accepting themselves. I believe in the power of therapy and addressing mental health concerns from an early age.

PEDOPHILIA OCD-
Can Sex Dolls Prevent Criminal Sexual Behavior?
The limitations of research prevent us from drawing conclusions at this time.
Reviewed by Lybi Ma

KEY POINTS-
Many countries and states are passing laws to criminalize ownership of child sex dolls.
Pedophilic men with child sex dolls often report non-sexual motivation for ownership, and develop relationships with the dolls.
Men who own such dolls self-report less interest in real-world criminal sexual behaviors.

For several years, a complex social debate has raged regarding the effects and potential risks of ownership of silicon sex dolls, made to look like human children. Beyond the simple reaction of revulsion that many people feel to such behavior, there are real questions as to what impact these dolls may have on their owners, and specifically their risk of engaging in sexual abuse of real human children or participating in the consumption or distribution of child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

Everyone involved in these debates wants to protect children from sexual exploitation. Finally, the ethics of such experimentation has been challenged, with arguments that such dolls or robots should be banned.

Across the world, numerous men have been prosecuted for purchasing these dolls, typically from manufacturers in China. In many cases, the dolls were intercepted by authorities before delivery. And in many of these cases, further investigation by authorities found that the men had CSAM on their devices or computers, and the men were prosecuted for possessing such material.

In a few early cases, esoteric laws against importing prohibited materials were used to prosecute the men, and in some cases, the skin of the doll was argued in court to reflect the nude, sexualized image of a child and the man prosecuted for possession.

Currently, numerous states in the United States have passed or are currently enacting laws prohibiting the importation, sale, or ownership of such dolls, as have several other countries around the world. Unfortunately, at this point, we know rather little about the impact that such dolls may have. Based on past research with individuals who possess CSAM, it is likely that the effect is complicated, and that there may be little clear connection to contact sexual offending. Past research has indicated that factors of antisocial personality, low empathy, impaired impulse control, and substance abuse have a greater likelihood to increase risk of sexual abuse of children, compared to possessing CSAM.

In August of 2022, researchers Harper and Lievesley published in The Archives of Sexual Behavior, after comparing the psychology of persons sexually attracted to children who owned child sex dolls, to those who did not. The researchers recruited online and found 85 individuals who owned such dolls, whose results they then compared to 120 individuals who did not. All of these individuals self-reported sexual interest in children. About 80 percent of the individuals who did not own such dolls reported interest in having one. Surprisingly, sexual reasons for ownership were not the primary reported motivations – emotional intimacy, companionship and fantasy play were endorsed as frequently as sexual interests. The owners of such dolls did report that they were sexual with the dolls more frequently than with adult human partners, compared to non-owners.

But, surprisingly, the owners of such dolls were found to be less antisocial and reported less arousal at the idea of actually sexually abusing a child, compared to those who did not own such dolls. Given that antisocial traits are a high predictor of contact sex offending against children, and that the owners of such dolls appear to have a high level of emotional and relational connection to the dolls, it suggests that owning such dolls may not significantly predict a higher risk of offending against children. Child doll owners were more likely to have odd personality types, which might interfere in them having normal human relationships, and create greater loneliness, perhaps motivating ownership of dolls with whom they can have one-sided fantasy relationships. When researchers examined the intentions, and past offending behaviors of the child doll owners, they found no results suggesting such individuals were at higher risk of future sexual offending against children.

A recently published study in The Journal of Sex Research by Desbuleux and Fuss went further, exploring how owning either an adult or a child sex doll impacted the owners’ sexual fantasies, behaviors, and preoccupations, especially in regard to criminal sexual behaviors. A total of 224 men were studied, with about 23 of them being individuals who possessed child sex dolls and had pedophilic sexual interests.

In this study, owners of sex dolls reported a general decrease in potentially problematic sex behaviors at large, including watching pornography or visiting sex workers, though men who had adult human intimate relationships experienced less of such effect. Men with pedophilic tendencies reported the greatest decrease in compulsive or problematic sexual behaviors, from owning a child sex doll.

Consistent with Harper and Lievesley, the current research found that men who owned and used child sex dolls reported decreased interest in real-world sexual offending against children and greater likelihood of exploring their illegal fantasies with the doll.

Unfortunately, all current studies of the impact of child sex doll ownership share significant limitations. All are self-report, in terms of both ownership of dolls, as well as real-world sexual and criminal behaviors. They are correlational and do not include longitudinal data that follows these individuals over time, to best minimize the effects of retrospective reports. Finally, they are based only on those individuals who actually possess such dolls, and, given the significant expense of such dolls (over $2000), this population seems unlikely to be a true reflection of men at risk for sexual offending.

Finally, given that many arrests of individuals with child sex dolls appear to have also found that such men are at risk of possessing illegal recordings of child sexual abuse material, future research may need to explore this behavior as well, and attempt to sort out the effects of the doll, from the effects or impact of illegal pornography. As a result, we simply cannot draw any real conclusions about the impact of these dolls at this time.

However, combined, these two studies do raise potential challenges to social and legal concerns that these dolls may increase the likelihood of engaging in sexual abuse of real children. The dolls may decrease feelings of loneliness and provide an outlet for fantasies of illegal sexual behaviors, where no child is harmed. Attempts to regulate and prohibit such behaviors appear, at this time, to be primarily driven by feelings of disgust and anger at those who hold such desires, with the intent to punish, ostracize and eradicate those who have such pedophilic interests.

Everyone wants to protect children. But sadly, such social attitudes do not appear to suppress such behaviors but may increase feelings of loneliness and anger in such individuals, paradoxically increasing the risk of them acting in harmful ways toward real children. We may at some point face the challenging dilemma of choosing between our disgust versus actually reducing the risk of children being harmed.

STRESS-
The Illusion of Control.
Paradoxically the more control we exert, the less control we're likely to have.
Reviewed by Kaja Perina

KEY POINTS-
Viewing our scheduled activities rigidly--as if carved in stone--can lead to unnecessary stress when our expectations are not met.
Trying to control others without their consent is likely to lead to underlying resentment, passive-aggression, or overtly aggressive behavior
Regarding each day as a gift with unexpected benefits and challenges is a healthy mind-set.

How much control do we really have over our lives and the people in it? Are we masters of the universe free to chart our own destiny or creatures carried along by myriad forces? While the possible answers to these questions would probably cover a wide range, the issue of control is central to many current psychological disorders, such as narcissism and OCD, for example, and to the overscheduled way many people structure their lives. The anger of the narcissist when life doesn’t go his way and the compulsions of the OCD individual are manifestations of the illusion of control.

When I worked as a clinical psychologist on an adolescent psychiatric unit, the issue of control came up dramatically during one testing session. I had been asked to evaluate a teenager accused of accidentally shooting and killing his brother. An important part of the determination of his sentence was the psychological evaluation, including the results of the battery of tests.

From the moment the young man entered the testing room, it was apparent that he was in no mood to talk to me. He sat down on the floor, folded his arms across his chest, and stared angrily at the floor. Realizing how important the evaluation was to his sentencing, I tried everything I knew to gain his cooperation but to no avail. So, after 45 minutes of fruitless interpretations and idle comments on my part, I gave up. I started to pack up all my testing paraphernalia, saying emphatically, “It is clear that I can’t make you talk to me” and got ready to leave. I had exhausted all my interventions and was frustrated and discouraged that I couldn’t complete the assignment.

When I got up to leave, he shifted his posture, looked at me for the first time, and asked, “What do you want to know?” From that moment on, he was fully cooperative with the examination and testing procedures.

What changed his mind? Apparently, it was his realization that I couldn’t make him do anything and that it was up to him. When I gave up, he was probably feeling less pressure to perform, and so, he relinquished his stubborn resistance. He was in control.

What is within our control?
To some degree, we can control our words and actions. We can control what we eat, drink, and how we behave most of the time, but even with ourselves, we can’t immediately control our sleep quality, stress level, or the state of our health with precision. Our nighttime dreams are not under our control nor are many of the thoughts streaming through our minds during the day.

When it comes to others, we have even less control. We have little control over how others, except for small children, will react to our words, manner, and behavior. Like us, other people have their own lens for seeing and interpreting the world. Even with positive utterances such as “I love you,” the recipient of those endearing words can reject them outright, deny them partially, e.g. “You only love me when I’m happy,” or accept them at face value and wind up feeling beloved.

Because we all want to be autonomous, that is, pursue our own desires and make our own decisions, we develop passive-aggressive strategies and resistance maneuvers when there is too much external control. We ignore the commands, engage in subterfuge fantasies, or rebel outright.

To wholeheartedly endorse external directives, adults need to see their value for themselves. Because of this, forcing older children, teenagers, or other adults to do something viewed by them as negative or nonessential is likely to be resisted.

Even in cases of physical punishment of children and military torture, the results are mixed. For example, spanking children, while temporarily effective in suppressing undesirable behavior, is likely to increase children’s aggressiveness when they’re older. As for torture, some military interrogators have testified that the information gained from torture is often inaccurate or just as accessible using more humane methods.

So, why do we try to control others?
To compensate for the present (or past) lack of control in our lives. Also, predictability reduces anxiety. Adults who grew up in volatile, unpredictable families often develop a strong need to control others and themselves. In a family with an alcoholic, drug-abusing, violent or sexually abusing parent, for example, children grow to fear the unpredictable parent. Not certain how that parent will behave on a particular day, these children are frequently frightened when that parent is around. Because the triggers for their parent’s disturbed behavior are not always clear, there is no way to discern when it’s safe.

In counseling, one woman reported being knocked down as a child and kicked in the head by her drunken father because she slammed the door. Coming into the house excitedly after a happy afternoon with her friends, she was devastated by the blow. After that, she never felt safe around her father, avoiding him whenever possible, and developed a controlling stance about her own life.

In other instances where the need for control develops, children adopt the same excessively controlling stance as their parents and wind up as frustrated with noncompliant behavior as their parents were.

What is an alternative to excessive control?
Being open to experience rather than closed-off is a worthwhile option. Openness to Experience, one of five basic personality factors comprising the Five-Factor Model, is similar to mindfulness in its focus on present attentiveness, that is, paying attention to the person or object right in front of you.

An open person is flexible, curious, non-dogmatic, and tolerant of ambiguity, whereas a controlling person is defensive, rigid, dogmatic, and resistant to novelty. In contrast to the closed off person, an open person is receptive to new ideas and generally comfortable with the unfamiliar, provided it doesn’t conflict with his/her moral sense. Openness to experience does not imply a readiness to adopt unhealthy, illegal, or fringe behavior. Rather, openness at its best relates to the merging of different incorporated experiences, thereby creating new ideas, designs, or models.

To develop openness, children need to be exposed to cultural differences that are experienced positively, and their natural curiosity about life’s variability needs to be nurtured.

For those adults with a controlling interpersonal style, developing a different mindset when obstacles disrupt their plans is important in reducing frustration. The mantra, “I can’t control the world nor anyone in it,” or a "Let It Be” attitude can be helpful along with prayers for patience.

Horace’s advice, “Take as a Gift Whatever the Day Brings Forth!” and other positive, pithy sayings repeated regularly can go a long way in developing openness, calmness, and equanimity in handling life’s daily detours and disruptions. In addition, understanding the need for control and its origins can free us of its rigid constraints.