The Differentiation – Togetherness Concept of Counterbalancing Life Forces Michael E. Kerr, M.D

The Differentiation – Togetherness

Concept of Counterbalancing

Life Forces

Michael E. Kerr, M.D.

Relationships function as if they are governed

by two equally intense counterbalancing life forces.

Bowen family systems theory

Physicists hold that four fundamental forces exist in thephysical world: gravity, the strong force, the weak force,and the electromagnetic force. These forces govern theinteractions in physical systems that appear not to bereducible to more basic interactions.

Biologists distinguish their ideas about fundamental forcesin the living world in that they are the outcome of theprocess of natural selection.

Many Bowen theorists tend to think of the life forces ofindividuality and togetherness as extending beyond thehuman species to perhaps all other life forms. This viewis more akin to the way physicists think than biologists think.

Differentiation of self

“The world will always needdifferentiation of self.”

Murray Bowen, M.D.(Uttered on numerous occasions)

“Why hasn’t differentiationgone viral?”

David PalmerIslesboro, Maine

Differentiation (Bowen theory):

The ability to distinguish between

The intellectual process and the

Feeling process; Between objective

thinking and subjective thinking

The intellectual process and the

Feeling process; Between objective

thinking and subjective thinking

*A mind capable of observing itself*

Fact and feeling Enables people

to choose

Between them—

Fact and feeling Enables people

to choose

Between them—

When that is important to do

The degree of integration of self

An integrated response is one

informed by both objective thinking

and feelings.

An integrated response is one

informed by both objective thinking

and feelings.

It is not a merging of thinking and feeling,

but more like a cooperative team.

If there is one word that best characterizes

differentiation of self, it’s . . .

F l e x I b I l I t y

The less differentiation in a system, the less

flexibility it has

F l e x I b I l I t ya definition

The more functionally interdependent the components

of a system and the more reactive they are to one

another, the more fixed (less flexible) the patterns of

interaction in the system.

The theory postulates two opposing basic life

forces. One is a built-in life growth force

toward individuality and the

differentiation of a separate “self,” and the

other an equally intense emotional closeness. – M.

Bowen (p.424 FTCP)

Processes Governing the Development of a “Self”

LATEADOLESCENCE

Life growth force

toward

individuality

the differentiation

separate

“self”

LATEADOLESCENCE

Life growth force

toward

individuality

the differentiation

separate

“self”

Easily observed in other primatesand other mammals

LATEADOLESCENCE

Life growth force

toward

individuality

the differentiation

separate

“self”

Easily observed in other primatesand other mammals

Parents mustseparate from

the child as wellas the child from

the parents

Differentiation of self scale and themultigenerational transmission process

Emotional System:

- instinct- reproduction- autonomic nervous system- subjective states- forces governing relationship systems- in contact with cellular and somatic processes

Emotional System:

Feeling System:

- aspects of emotional functioning register on the cerebral cortex as feelings- a bridge that is in contact with superficial aspects of emotional system functioning and with the intellectual system

Emotional System:

Feeling System:

- aspects of emotional functioning register on the cerebral cortex as feelings- a bridge that is in contact with superficial aspects of emotional system functioning and with the intellectual system

Intellectual System:

- think, reason, and reflect- conscious control over automatic reactivity

“The emotional system isthe force that motivates; the relationship system isthe way it is expressed.”

Murray Bowen

Genetic Pedigree Chart

birtheducationoccupationhealthdeath

birtheducation

occupationhealthdeath

birthschoolsocialhealthdeath

The Family Diagram (Murray Bowen)

age age

ageage

geography

marriage date

birtheducation

The Family Diagram II

age age

birtheducation

occupationhealthdeathgeography

marriage date

geography

marriage date

birtheducation

geography

marriage date

birtheducoccuphealthdeath

birtheduc

occuphealthdeath

age age age age

birtheducation

The Family Diagram II

age age

birtheducation

occupationhealthdeathgeography

marriage date

geography

marriage date

birtheducation

geography

marriage date

birtheducoccuphealthdeath

birtheduc

occuphealthdeath

age age age age

Assumption:variationslinked to

emotionalfunctioning;capacity to

adapt tostressors

The Family Diagram (Bowen)The Fact of Variation

Variation in overall life adjustment

Differentiation of self is roughly

equivalent to emotional maturity.

Emotional maturity is defined by the ability to control your emotions and take full responsibility for your life along with its opportunities and dramas. A large part of being emotionally mature is having the ability to handle anger, disappointment, guilt, resentment, fear, jealousy, grief, insecurity, and a myriad of other feelings appropriately. Emotional maturity is defined when you have the ability to experience these emotions and then quickly let them go. People who are immature seem to remain stuck in these negative emotions, unable to get past them.

One definition: http://www.heartspiritmind.com/about

The Family Diagram (Bowen)The Fact of Variation

Multigenerational emotional system (organism)

Increase and decrease inemotional functioning

over generations (continua) - BFST

STRONGERWEAKER

continuum

Less functionallyinterdependent:-stable-cooperative-cohesive-productive-little polarization

Very functionallyinterdependent:-unstable-uncooperative-tends to fragment-low productivity-much polarization-helplessness

Functional interdependence (emotional fusion):

The degree to which a person’s sense of well-being

functioning are in reaction to what others say and

don’t say or do and don’t do; i.e., in automatic

reaction to how others are functioning; reflects a lack

of “self.”

Defining -

over generations (continua)

not random

“genetic-like”

not random

“genetic-like”

RELATIONSHIP TRANSMISSION

not random

“genetic-like”

(unresolved emotional attachment / emotional fusion)

not random

“genetic-like”

(unresolved emotional attachment / emotional fusion)

(not explained by attachment theory)

Basics of Relationship Transmission

non-anxiousinvestment;more matureinteractions

anxiousinvestment;less matureinteractions

Moregoal directed

More obligatoryrelationship oriented

more“self”

less“self”

People are attracted to spouses at same basic level

Thus, better differentiated spouses tend, on average,to raise somewhat more differentiated children

(with sibling variation)then do less differentiated spouses

(with sibling variation)

Differentiation of self depends on a growth force that

is anchored in a person’s biological systems, but the

basic levels developed by the members of each

generation are linked to a relationship system process.

It is not a trait that is transmitted directly from a parent

to a child.

to a child. It develops in the context of multiple people.

This raises the question of if—and how—natural selection

acts on differentiation.

Differentiation of self and evolution

BRAINSTEM

First appeared inthe fossil record500 mya.

Jaak Panksepp, Ph.D.Affective Neuroscience

The centromedial areas of the midbrain (are) an excellentcandidate for the basic integrative framework that provideda neural scaffolding for a primitive neurodynamic ofemotional SELF-awareness . . . this may have been achievedby the ability of the SELF-map to establish a characteristicresting tone within the somatic and visceral musculatures.The establishment of such a tone throughout the body andthe brain, along with a variety of reafferent processes, mayhave provided each organism with thefeeling of individuality—of “I-ness.”

Do animals have a spontaneous senseof themselves as active creatures inthe world?

Primary-process consciousness: thatineffable feeling of experiencingoneself as an active agent in theperceived events of the world.

A neural principle of self-representation emerged early inbrain evolution, and it became rooted first in brain areas aslow as those situated in ancient midbrain regions . . . Althoughthis neuropsychic function emerged early in brain evolution, itdid not remain primitive. It continued to evolve as brainsbecame increasingly encephalized, which allows us morebehavioral flexibility and the ability to have complex thoughtsand internal images.

Degrees of awareness (Panksepp):

Awareness of awareness – Humans

Self awareness – Great apes

Cognitive awareness – Primates (folded cortex)Affective awareness – Lisencephalic mammals (smooth cortex)

Reflexive behavior – Reptiles

Center for Brain and CognitionDirector

U.C. – San Diego

Center for Brain and CognitionDirector

U.C. – San Diego

“Humans are truly uniqueand special, not ‘just’another species of primate.”

“ . . . Sometime about 150,000 years ago there was anexplosive development of certain key brain structures andfunctions whose fortuitous combinations resulted in themental abilities that make us special . . .

“ . . . Sometime about 150,000 years ago there was anexplosive development of certain key brain structures andfunctions whose fortuitous combinations resulted in themental abilities that make us special . . . we went througha mental phase transition.

“ . . . Sometime about 150,000 years ago there was anexplosive development of certain key brain structures andfunctions whose fortuitous combinations resulted in themental abilities that make us special . . . we went througha mental phase transition. All the same old parts werethere, but they started working together in new ways thatwere far more than the sum of their parts.

“ . . . Sometime about 150,000 years ago there was anexplosive development of certain key brain structures andfunctions whose fortuitous combinations resulted in themental abilities that make us special . . . we went througha mental phase transition. All the same old parts werethere, but they started working together in new ways thatwere far more than the sum of their parts. This transitionbrought us things like full-fledged human language,artistic and religious sensibilities, and consciousness andself-awareness . . .

“ . . . Sometime about 150,000 years ago there was anexplosive development of certain key brain structures andfunctions whose fortuitous combinations resulted in themental abilities that make us special . . . we went througha mental phase transition. All the same old parts werethere, but they started working together in new ways thatwere far more than the sum of their parts. This transitionbrought us things like full-fledged human language,artistic and religious sensibilities, and consciousness andself-awareness . . . A handful of brain regions that havebeen so radically elaborated that at the functional (orcognitive) level they actually can be considered novel anduseful.”

Giacomo Rizzolatti

“Mirror neurons show how strong and deeply rootedis the bond that ties us to others.”

Discovered mirror neurons in the frontal and parietalcortex of the macaque monkey. (published 1996)

Humans, unlike monkeys, can both react to themovement and understand the goal of it.

The conscious mind emerges within the history of life regulation.

NeuroscientistAntonio Damasio, Ph.D.

The conscious mind emerges within the history of life regulation. Life regulation, a dynamic process known as homeostasis for short, begins in unicellular creatures, such as a bacterial cell or a simple amoeba, which do not have a brain but are capable of adaptive behavior.

The conscious mind emerges within the history of life regulation. Life regulation, a dynamic process known as homeostasis for short, begins in unicellular creatures, such as a bacterial cell or a simple amoeba, which do not have a brain but are capable of adaptive behavior. It progresses in individuals whose

behavior is managed by simple brains, as in the case withworms, and it continues to march in individuals whose brains generate both behavior and mind (insects and fish beingexamples).

behavior is managed by simple brains, as in the case withworms, and it continues to march in individuals whose brains generate both behavior and mind (insects and fish beingexamples). I am ready to believe that whenever brains begin to generate primordial feelings—and that could be quite early in evolutionary history—organisms acquire an early form of sentience.

behavior is managed by simple brains, as in the case withworms, and it continues to march in individuals whose brains generate both behavior and mind (insects and fish beingexamples). I am ready to believe that whenever brains begin to generate primordial feelings—and that could be quite early in evolutionary history—organisms acquire an early form of sentience. From there on, an organized self process could develop and be added to the mind, thereby providing the beginning of elaborate conscious minds.

behavior is managed by simple brains, as in the case withworms, and it continues to march in individuals whose brains generate both behavior and mind (insects and fish beingexamples). I am ready to believe that whenever brains begin to generate primordial feelings—and that could be quite early in evolutionary history—organisms acquire an early form of sentience. From there on, an organized self process could develop and be added to the mind, thereby providing the beginning of elaborate conscious minds. Reptiles are contenders for this distinction, for example; birds make even stronger contenders; and mammals get the award and then some.

Antonio Damasio, Ph.D.

I hypothesize that the first and most elementary product of the protoself is primordial feelings, which occur spontaneously and continuously whenever one is awake. They provide a direct experience of one’s own living body, wordless, unadorned, and connected to nothing but sheer existence.

Self Comes to Mind (2010)

I hypothesize that the first and most elementary product of the protoself is primordial feelings, which occur spontaneously and continuously whenever one is awake. They provide a direct experience of one’s own living body, wordless, unadorned, and connected to nothing but sheer existence.

These primordial feelings reflect the current state of the body along varied dimensions, for example, along the scale that registers from pleasure to pain, and they originate at the level of the brainstem rather than the cerebral cortex. All feelings of emotions are complex, musical variations on primordial feelings.

Feeling is at the heart of what being conscious is. Emotions, such as fear or joy, can allow rapid answers to problems facing an organism; one can respond without thinking; emotions trigger behaviors that can save us by avoiding threat or endorsing the pursuit of food or sex. We emote continuously: “We are feeling machines that think.”

When we acquire minds, images can combine with emotions/feelings (the images of emotions). This makes it possible not to just respond with stock answers, animal responses, but also with reason, knowledge, and logic, thus to construct responses, therefore different than emotional ones. Human beings can have thinking with emotions, in parallel with emotions, and can even control the emotion. Despite thinking, emotions/feelings are still present.

Mind + Self = Consciousness

The intellectual system(as described by Bowen theory)

The self I envision as capable of rebelliousness is a recent development, on the order of thousands of years . . . That self draws on features of the human brain likely acquired in Pleistocene(2.588 mya to 12,000 ya)

“The primary task of every organism in nature is to

regulate itself in response to the environment.

John T. Cacioppo, Ph.D.Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection (2008)

regulate itself in response to the environment. For social

animals, a highly significant part of that environment

is each other, and thus members of families, tribes, and

villages regulate themselves as individuals while also

influencing one another through what we have called

co-regulation.

regulate itself in response to the environment. For social

animals, a highly significant part of that environment

is each other, and thus members of families, tribes, and

villages regulate themselves as individuals while also

influencing one another through what we have called

co-regulation. The system of checks and balances

involves physiology as well as behavior.”

other-regulate

self-regulate

other-regulate

self-regulate

other-regulate

self-regulate

other-regulate

self-regulate

other-regulate

self-regulate

other-regulate

self-regulate

other-regulate

self-regulate

other-regulate

self-regulate other-regulate

self-regulate

other-regulate

self-regulate

other-regulate

self-regulate

other-regulate

self-regulate other-regulate

self-regulateParallels to cellular interactions

Development of a code of civility/morality

Frans de WaalEmory University

“Our ancestors began to understand how topreserve peace and order--hence how to keeptheir group united against external threatswithout sacrificing legitimate individual interests.

“Our ancestors began to understand how topreserve peace and order--hence how to keeptheir group united against external threatswithout sacrificing legitimate individual interests.They came to judge behavior that systematicallyundermined the social fabric as “wrong” andbehavior that made the community worthwhileto live in as “right.”

“Our ancestors began to understand how topreserve peace and order--hence how to keeptheir group united against external threatswithout sacrificing legitimate individual interests.They came to judge behavior that systematicallyundermined the social fabric as “wrong” andbehavior that made the community worthwhileto live in as “right.” Then they kept an eye onone another. Conscious community concern isat the heart of human morality.”

Lawrence Kohlberg, Ph.D.(1927 – 1987)

How individuals justify

their actions if placed

in a moral dilemma

Stages of Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg, Ph.D.(1927 – 1987)

Stages of Moral Development

Much based insolid self

Much based inpseudo-self

Much based inno self

A moral code describes how people should behave.

Bowen theory describes how people do behave.

Bowen theory does not say what people should do,but . . .

I would say that realization of a compelling

sense of responsibility to work at increasing

one’s basic level of differentiation emerges from

comprehending the degree of human emotional

interdependence and its positive and negative

impacts on human emotional functioning.

I would say that realization of a compelling

sense of responsibility to work at increasing

one’s basic level of differentiation emerges from

comprehending the degree of human emotional

interdependence and its positive and negative

impacts on human emotional functioning.

Primordial morality: don’t abandon? respect boundaries?

Relationships function as if they are governed bytwo equally intense counterbalancing life forces:

Individuality

“Derived from the driveto be a productive,

autonomous individual, asdefined by self ratherthan the dictates of

the group.”

Murray Bowen’s Societal Papers

INDIVIDUALITY

plead for principle

autonomy of self

staying on a predetermined

course despite anxiety

rights of the individual to

determine his own life course

How to make sense out of the following

Murray Bowen, M.D.(1913 – 1990)

“. . . a family leader with the courageto define self, who is as invested in thewelfare of the family as in self . . .”

Family Evaluation (pp. 342-343)

“Differentiation is capable of a genuine concern forothers without expecting something in return.”

Do these statements conflict with the idea of twodistinct life forces: differentiation and togetherness?

Point #1:

Point #1: The higher a person’s basic level ofdifferentiation and associated discrimination of factand feeling, the more accurate his perception ofreality, of what is required to sustain harmony andcooperation in human relationships and what isnecessary to maintain an adaptive relationship betweenhuman beings and planet Earth.

Point #1: The higher a person’s basic level ofdifferentiation and associated discrimination of factand feeling, the more accurate his perception ofreality, of what is required to sustain harmony andcooperation in human relationships and what isnecessary to maintain an adaptive relationship betweenhuman beings and planet Earth. This perspectivebecomes the basis for developing and adhering toprinciples that guide us to treating others unselfishlyand living in harmony with nature.

Point #1: The higher a person’s basic level ofdifferentiation and associated discrimination of factand feeling, the more accurate his perception ofreality, of what is required to sustain harmony andcooperation in human relationships and what isnecessary to maintain an adaptive relationship betweenhuman beings and planet Earth. This perspectivebecomes the basis for developing and adhering toprinciples that guide us to treating others unselfishlyand living in harmony with nature. Principles anchoredin solid self and feeling-driven togetherness urges canfunction as a working team.

Point #2:

Point #2: The higher a person’s basic level of

differentiation, the less threatened he feels about the

needs, upsets, and expectations of others.

needs, upsets, and expectations of others. He is clear

about his realistic dependence on others and vice

versa, and clear about his responsibilities to self and

others.

others. This allows for expression of the feeling/

togetherness process with its associated investment in

the welfare of others along side an equal investment

in one’s own welfare.

others. This allows for expression of the feeling/

togetherness process with its associated investment in

the welfare of others along side an equal investment

in one’s own welfare. A high level of “self” permits

action for oneself without being selfish and action for

others without being selfless.

Speculation on the Evolution of Differentiation of Self

Self-regulation Other-regulation

Individuality Togetherness

(DOS)Individuality Togetherness

Likely a gradual developmentin the phylogenetic line toHomo sapiens, but a strikingadvance in human beings.

Many more cognitive elementsin Homo sapiens, stronglylinked to the feeling system.

Togetherness force / process

The theory postulates two opposing basic life forces.

One is a built-in life growth force toward individuality

and the differentiation of a separate “self,” and the

other an equally intense emotional

closeness. – M. Bowen (p.424 FTCP)

Relationships function as if they are governed bytwo equally intense counterbalancing life forces:

Individuality

“Derived from the driveto be a productive,

autonomous individual, asdefined by self ratherthan the dictates of

the group.”

Togetherness

“Derived from theuniversal need for love,

approval, emotionalcloseness, andagreement.”

oneness, sameness, agreement

Murray Bowen’s Societal Papers

INDIVIDUALITY TOGETHERNESS

harmony

togetherness

caring for others

more rights

humanitarian

responsive

sensitive

plead for principle

autonomy of self

staying on a predetermined

course despite anxiety

rights of the individual to

determine his own life course

“Even when we are alone, how often do we think with

pain and pleasure of what others think of us, or their

imagined approbation or disapprobation; and this all

follows from sympathy, a fundamental element of the

social instincts.

p.117 (Quote from Charles Darwin)

Darwin: Probable steps to capacity for team players:

Social instincts (safety in groups)

Reciprocity (golden rule)

Passionate concern with praise and blame of our fellow- men. (manifestation of the togetherness force)

The capacity to treat duties and principles as sacred, which he saw as part of our religious nature. (Can range from pseudoself to solid self)

Is the togetherness life force more akin to

theories in physics or theories in biology?

Is the togetherness life force more akin to

theories in physics or theories in biology?

Has a togetherness force guided life since its

earliest origins or is it an outcome of

convergent evolution? In other words, has it

been selected for in some species but not all

species based on the nature of the context in

which they lived?

Porifera (Sponge)

Multicellular organimsUnspecialized cells that can transform into other typesNo nervous, digestive, or circulatory systemsProteins involved in cell-cell and cell tissue interaction

Oldest metazoan phylumStill extant today.

Fit the loose critera of having self-regulatory andother-regulatory processes that counterbalance each other.

Are we looking at an ancient manifestation of thetogetherness force, albeit less sophisticated?

Ropalidia marginata

Raghavendra Gadagkar, Ph.D.

We-TheyRegression

• Aggressive bite• Attack (dom-sub)• Peck• Chase• Aggressive mutual atennation• Nibble• Crash• Falling fight• Avoiding• Soliciting• Mutual approach with withdrawal• Approach I: the other witdraws• Approach II: the other does not withdraw• Attennation• Mutual attennation Indian paper wasp

(primitively eusocial)

Are there yet to be defined natural laws

that govern both the sponges and the

social wasps or can it all be explained

by natural selection? In other words,

social species in different phylogenetic

lines would reflect convergent evolution.

Eusocial Naked mole rats

Solitary Cape mole rat

Kerr, Michael. 1998.” Bowen Theory and Evolutionary Theory.” Family Systems 4(2): 119-179.

Eusocial Naked mole rats

Solitary Cape mole ratKerr, Michael. 1998.” Bowen Theory and Evolutionary Theory.” Family Systems 4(2): 119-179.

Does the potential to be socialreside in a dormant state withinthe Cape mole-rat or wouldrandom mutations and selectionpressures be necessary. Couldspeciation involve epigenetic orsome other processes? More akinto a natural law?

INDIVIDUALITY TOGETHERNESS

The next two species are a fascinating puzzlement:switch hitters

James A. Shapiro, Ph.D.University of Chicago

Chromobacterium violaceum

“Bacteria have sophisticated signal transduction networks for integrating intercellular signals with other information to make decisions about gene expression and cellular differentiation.

James A. Shapiro, Ph.D.University of Chicago

Chromobacterium violaceum

“Bacteria have sophisticated signal transduction networks for integrating intercellular signals with other information to make decisions about gene expression and cellular differentiation. Bacteria benefit from multicellular organization by using cellular division of labor, accessing resources that cannot effectively be utilized by single cells, collectively defending against antagonists, and optimizingpopulation survival by differentiating into distinct cell types.”

Slime mold

Both bacteria and the slime mold retainthe ability to live relatively autonomouslives AND highly social lives that are akinto multicellular organisms.

Do all these types of adaptations have yetunidentified common denominators; i.e.,follow some sort of natural laws?Individuality and togetherness could be inthe mix on such an issue.

Both bacteria and the slime mold retainthe ability to live relatively autonomouslives AND highly social lives that are akinto multicellular organisms.

Do all these types of adaptations have yetunidentified common denominators; i.e.,follow some sort of natural laws?individuality and togetherness could be inthe mix on such an issue.

I think it is an open question.

Finally, my conundrum

Edward O. Wilson, Ph.D.(1929 - )

To play the game the human way, it was necessary

for the evolving populations to acquire an ever higher

degree of intelligence. They had to feel empathy for

others, to measure the emotions of friend and enemy

alike, to judge the intentions of all of them, and to

plan a strategy for personal social interactions. As a

result the human brain became highly intelligent and

intensely social. It had to build mental scenarios of

personal relationships rapidly, both short-term and

long-term. Its memories had to travel far into the past

to summon old scenarios and far into the future to

imagine the consequences of every relationship.

The pathway to human eusociality (p. 17):

Wilson’s controversial multilevel selection idea

The dilemma of good and evil was created by multilevelselection, in which individual selection and group selection act together on the same individual but largely in opposition to each other.

The dilemma of good and evil was created by multilevelselection, in which individual selection and group selection act together on the same individual but largely in opposition to each other. Individual selection is the result of competition for survival and reproduction among members of the same group.

The dilemma of good and evil was created by multilevelselection, in which individual selection and group selection act together on the same individual but largely in opposition to each other. Individual selection is the result of competition for survival and reproduction among members of the same group. It shapes instincts in each member that are fundamentally selfish with reference to other members.

The dilemma of good and evil was created by multilevelselection, in which individual selection and group selection act together on the same individual but largely in opposition to each other. Individual selection is the result of competition for survival and reproduction among members of the same group. It shapes instincts in each member that are fundamentally selfish with reference to other members. In contrast, group selection consists of competition between societies, through both direct conflict and differential competence in exploiting the environment.

The dilemma of good and evil was created by multilevelselection, in which individual selection and group selection act together on the same individual but largely in opposition to each other. Individual selection is the result of competition for survival and reproduction among members of the same group. It shapes instincts in each member that are fundamentally selfish with reference to other members. In contrast, group selection consists of competition between societies, through both direct conflict and differential competence in exploiting the environment. Group selection shapes instincts that tend to make individuals altruistic towards one another (but not towards members of other groups). (p. 241)

“We and They,” by Rudyard Kipling (first stanza)

Father, Mother, and Me

Sister and Auntie say

All people like us are We

And every one else is They

And They live over the sea

While We live over the way

But—would you believe it?—They look upon us We

As only a sort of They!

“Reasoning has evolved not to help us find truth, but to help

us engage in arguments, persuasion, and manipulation in the

context of discussions with others. Confirmation bias is a

built-in feature of the argumentative mind.”

Jonathan Haidt, Ph.D.

“Human nature is mostly selfish, but with a groupish

overlay that resulted from natural selection working at

multiple levels simultaneously.”

What Wilson does not address:

Wilson explains with multilevel natural selection how a selfish/selfless dichotomy could evolve in our species.

Wilson explains with multilevel natural selection how a selfish/selfless dichotomy could evolve in our species. He does not address how variation has come to exist in how individuals manage this dynamic.

Wilson explains with multilevel natural selection how a selfish/selfless dichotomy could evolve in our species. He does not address how variation has come to exist in how individuals manage this dynamic. Better differentiated people are more able to regulate both selfish and selfless urges than are poorly differentiated people.

Wilson explains with multilevel natural selection how

a selfish/selfless dichotomy could evolve in our

species. He does not address how variation has come

to exist in how individuals manage this dynamic.

Better differentiated people are more able to regulate

both selfish and selfless urges than are poorly

differentiated people. My view is that differentiation

of self results from an emergent process.

Wilson explains with multilevel natural selection how

a selfish/selfless dichotomy could evolve in our

species. He does not address how variation has come

to exist in how individuals manage this dynamic.

Better differentiated people are more able to regulate

both selfish and selfless urges than are poorly

differentiated people. My view is that differentiation

of self results from an emergent process. Natural

selection has presumably acted only on many of the

components that makes differentiation of self

possible.

Emergence:

. . . is generally defined by saying ‘the whole is greaterthan the sum of the parts’.

Emergence:

The real world is full of the sorts of context dependent,non-linear interactions that tend to generate emergentproperties.

Emergence:

The real world is full of the sorts of context dependent,non-linear interactions that tend to generate emergentproperties.

Emergent evolution is the hypothesis that, in the course ofevolution, some entirely new properties, such as mind andconsciousness, appear at certain critical points, usuallybecause of unpredictable rearrangement of the alreadyexisting entities.

The conundrum arises because the continuum of basic levels of differentiation for our species seems to be a bell-shaped curve. (This is an estimate based on clinical observation.)

My conundrum:

“With increasing experience with a wide range of people,there is evidence that most of the population is below 50 onthe differentiation of self scale.” – Murray Bowen

My conundrum:

“With increasing experience with a wide range of people,there is evidence that most of the population is below 50 onthe differentiation of self scale.” – Murray Bowen

5075-100 hypothetical

My conundrum:

Perhaps gene-culture coevolution can shift the bell-shaped curve towards the right, indicating a majority of the humanpopulation being over 50 on the differentiation of self scale,some even at 95.

My conundrum:

**However, I predict that the bell-shaped curve ofdistribution will likely continue to exist.

This is because, as described earlier, every

multigenerational family produces a range of people in

each generation at many points along the continuum

or scale of differentiation based on the outcome of a

relationship system process. This system process may

be grounded in life forces, natural laws, that natural

selection does not affect.

My conundrum:

Summary: fundamental aspects of human nature

Powerful need foremotional closeness

Allergic to toomuch of it

Makes a two-person system inherently unstable

“Solved” with the triangle: two insiders andan outsider. (We-They)

The higher the basic levels of differentiation,the more adaptive people are to managing

this instinctually-rooted dilemma.

The higher the basic levels of differentiation,the more adaptive people are in managing

this instinctually-rooted dilemma.

The lower the basic levels of differentiation,the greater the likelihood of polarization,

conflict, and clinical dysfunction.

“The more an individual’s team affiliation

resonated for them, the less empathy they

were likely to express for members of the

rival team.”

Emile Bruneau, Ph.D.Neuroscientist, M.I.T.

Togetherness trumpsindividuality.

I guess we’re allsituational psychopaths

Another way of saying it:

Differentiation iscounter-intuitive

Summary of Major Points

Differentiation of self and togetherness forces are distinct, but at their best constitute a working team.

Differentiation of self and togetherness forces are distinct, but at their best constitute a working team. Bowen theory may be tapping into natural laws that govern all forms of life.

Differentiation of self and togetherness forces are distinct, but at their best constitute a working team. Bowen theory may be tapping into natural laws that govern all forms of life. Differentiation of self is on a continuum with individuality and is distinct from the togetherness process.

Differentiation of self and togetherness forces are distinct, but at their best constitute a working team. Bowen theory may be tapping into natural laws that govern all forms of life. Differentiation of self is on a continuum with individuality and is distinct from the togetherness process. Differentiation is not a trait that a parent transmits directly to an offspring, but develops “anew” in each generation in the context of multiple people.

Differentiation of self and togetherness forces are distinct, but at their best constitute a working team. Bowen theory may be tapping into natural laws that govern all forms of life. Differentiation of self is on a continuum with individuality and is distinct from the togetherness process. Differentiation is not a trait that a parent transmits directly to an offspring, but develops “anew” in each generation in the context of multiple people. Both individuality and togetherness have ancient roots.

Differentiation of self and togetherness forces are distinct, but at their best constitute a working team. Bowen theory may be tapping into natural laws that govern all forms of life. Differentiation of self is on a continuum with individuality and is distinct from the togetherness process. Differentiation is not a trait that a parent transmits directly to an offspring, but develops “anew” in each generation in the context of multiple people. Both individuality and togetherness have ancient roots. Human differentiation of self is unique compared to other species with the addition of guiding principles and other new brain functions.

Differentiation of self and togetherness forces are distinct, but at their best constitute a working team. Bowen theory may be tapping into natural laws that govern all forms of life. Differentiation of self is on a continuum with individuality and is distinct from the togetherness process. Differentiation is not a trait that a parent transmits directly to an offspring, but develops “anew” in each generation in the context of multiple people. Both individuality and togetherness have ancient roots. Human differentiation of self is unique compared to other species with the addition of guiding principles and other new brain functions. Differentiation of self is an emergent process that gene- culture coevolution could potentially influence in the future.

Addendum: increasing solid self

“It’s possible to decoupleemotion from thinking!”

David PalmerIslesboro, Maine

One tried and true pathway:

Serious engagement with Bowen theory.

Serious engagement with Bowen theory.Objectivity about the emotional process in one’s own life.

Serious engagement with Bowen theory.Objectivity about the emotional process in one’s own life.Consequent emotional neutrality: beyond blame.

Serious engagement with Bowen theory.Objectivity about the emotional process in one’s own life.Consequent emotional neutrality: beyond blame.Action for self that does not disrupt relationships.

Serious engagement with Bowen theory.Objectivity about the emotional process in one’s own life.Consequent emotional neutrality: beyond blame.Action for self that does not disrupt relationships.Repeating this many times in important relationships.

Emotions appear to be coupled to most of our viewpoints andopinions.

Emotions appear to be coupled to most of our viewpoints andopinions. This makes it difficult to think in new ways and thuschange one’s automatic reactions and behaviors.

Emotions appear to be coupled to most of our viewpoints andopinions. This makes it difficult to think in new ways and thuschange one’s automatic reactions and behaviors. Exposure tonatural systems thinking offers an alternative lens for examiningrelationship systems.

Emotions appear to be coupled to most of our viewpoints andopinions. This makes it difficult to think in new ways and thuschange one’s automatic reactions and behaviors. Exposure tonatural systems thinking offers an alternative lens for examiningrelationship systems. This provides the possibility for decouplingemotion from thinking/perception, but a person must make newobservations that enable a new understanding of what is unfolding.

The Differentiation – Togetherness Concept of Counterbalancing Life Forces Michael E. Kerr, M.D

Documents

Interactive Art Installation for Togetherness

CPD Togetherness 2011

counterbalancing distorted incentives in supreme court pro bono

Senior Loneliness and CareMore’s Togetherness Program

Endovascular repair of AAA(EVAR): counterbalancing the ... Giannoukas.pdf · Endovascular repair of AAA(EVAR): counterbalancing the benefits with the costs Athanasios D. Giannoukas

Togetherness: volume2 issue9

Togetherness Issue 4

Managing Yards and Togetherness

Togetherness Summer Issue 2011

KINDLING TOGETHERNESS

The Gift of Togetherness - Abbott Nutrition

FP Togetherness TESOL in the DR

Letsemot, “Togetherness”: Exploring How Connection to Land,

Togetherness Issue 2 Spring 2011

ISA China’s Counterbalancing $oft power 3-25 Hui

TOGETHERNESS AG CHURCHES essiah aior mmanue TOGETHERNESS

Counterbalancing daylighting, glare and view out: …heraclitus.uth.gr/main/sites/default/files/phd_public...Counterbalancing daylighting, glare and view out: the role of an external

Paper Indonesians doing togetherness in Japan

Celebrating 20 Years of Togetherness

Communication: From Togetherness to Isolation