Cyber relationships
Is cyber love possible?
17/11/08 10:49 Filed in: Psychology of Love | Psychology
A few years ago, I did a very unusual work project. I was engaged by a UK government investment agency to appraise and evaluate a business run by a group of psychotherapists aiming to provide online therapy services. It was called
PsychologyOnline.
I was very sceptical at first. Cyber psychology? No way, I thought! I warmed to the idea, however, and recommended that the institution involved make their investment.
What changed my mind were discoveries I made in research at the time. One finding I made that caused me to turn the corner was the fact that people were frequently (but not always) inclined to be more open and honest when engaging in anonymous dialogue with their computer screen than they were in a face-to-face encounter with a therapist. This was a salient and important fact in treating some conditions like alcoholism and addictions. “How many drinks have you had today?” asks the therapist. “Oh just the one, doctor,” says the client swaying in his seat breathing fumes that would slay a dragon.
I was reflecting earlier about the nature and type of relationships one makes on the internet. I’ve made some very interesting friendships here, some of which I have confidence, faith and trust in. I even have a couple of friendships that have extended into other dimensions like voice communication, but that’s all for now. I’m sure I will meet one or two of the people I talk to here one day. I’ve been struck by the honesty of most of the people I speak to here on my blog.
I believe that certain forms of cyber attachment are possible. Cyber infatuation is commonplace. So what of cyber love? Is that possible?
Before I attempt to answer that question I’m going to go off on one of those doodling excursions that I’m inclined to do from time to time. Unlike some areas I write about here I don’t profess any real depth of expertise in this subject, so the doodling will take the form of an exploration of ideas.
I’m not wholly convinced that people are more inclined to be honest, or expose their true self (whatever that is) when talking to a computer screen. People in cyberspace say and do things they would not do face-to-face. They lose their inhibitions. This is called the “disinhibition” effect.
Disinhibition can cause people to be more trusting, intimate, share secrets and personal truths far more quickly and readily than they might do in face-to-face encounters in their daily lives. They can also make spontaneous acts of generosity and kindness.
In our consideration of love, therefore, we might say that cyberspace is an accelerant of intimacy.
But disinhibition can run two ways, people can be harsh, critical, rude, aggressive, blaming, angry or even hateful and threatening as easily as they can be trusting and intimate on the net.
I’m something of a cyber-veteran. I’ve had access to the internet since its creation although this is my first personal web-site. In that time, I’ve observed a number of behaviours some of which I can explain in psychoanalytic language and some I can’t.
Cyber relationships can be high on transference. The nature of cyberspace means that in social encounters we can exercise fantasy and our imagination in a way we couldn’t in-person. We can ascribe all sorts of qualities to another that we would wish or hope to exist in a friend or loved one. Transference, however, is about the transfer of a normally powerful emotion from someone in one’s past onto another in the present. It is common for people to transfer feelings from their parents to their partners or to children. For instance, one could mistrust somebody who resembles an ex-spouse in manners, voice, or external appearance; or be overly compliant to someone who resembles a childhood friend or former lover.
Transference, like disinhibition, can be positive or negative.
That’s all conventional stuff.
Also I believe that we all carry some sort of image inside us of the idealised woman or the idealised man to whom we might be attracted.
The sources of this contra-sexual image are complex. They may come from infancy, childhood, our cultures, art and literature, media and the church…from everywhere in fact. Some of these images are archetypal, they’re embedded deep in our culture (and they might differ between cultures). I feel there is no doubt that experiences in infancy and childhood have a differentially powerful influence in how we construct these images. I also believe they are, to some extent, subconscious or perhaps, unconscious. They are what we might experience as the mysteries of interpersonal attraction.
As an aside, I do believe that children who suffer abuse might internalise idealised images of the perpetrators of abuse at an early age that later in life causes them to select abusive partners.
This, in itself, is an interesting subject for me and one about which I’ll write further, but having suffered emotional child abuse I’ve been more than curious to determine what effect infantile and childhood attachments have had on my adult relationships. I subjected myself to a whole battery of psychological tests to determine the extent of their effect. I’m delighted to say that I’ve moved on to an amazing degree, and that my test results indicate a low degree of correspondence between childhood attachments and adult relationships now, although this has not always been the case. I’ve made some very big mistakes in the choice of intimate partners in the past. I’m still learning my lessons.
Coming back to cyberspace relationships, I believe that it offers great scope for something that I’ll call projective idealisation. When we cannot see, hear, touch or smell the object of our attention, we can ascribe whatever qualities we like to them. They can become the man or woman of our dreams. Our computer screen is like a blank canvas on which we can project whatever qualities we seek and desire of another at will.
There is another aspect of cyberspace interaction that I’ve observed and I believe it can be intuitive, conscious or manipulative. I’ll call it “mirroring” here. Idealisation in love generally involves taking the best qualities of ourselves and projecting them on another. Mirroring involves the rapid absorption or assimilation of another’s personality then playing it back to them as one’s own. The mirror plays back a reflection of another’s feelings, interests and values. It can feel seductive and attractive. We might say, “This person and me are so alike,” or “How well this person understands me!” Frequently, it’s the cyber-tactic of the internet Lothario or Casanova. I doubt somehow if it’s a practice that one could get away with so easily in-person. For me, body language, gestures, inflection in speech and eye contact would give the other person away.
No doubt, cyberspace has pushed our social frontiers and changed our working habits, but I don’t feel yet it offers a sensory alternative to love, nor do I believe it will ever. I believe that cyberspace has opened all sorts of wonderful possibilities as a place for making friends and, possibly, even finding lovers, but in order to experience true intimacy with another, one sooner or later has to meet.
If we consider how we bond and interact in human relationships then the limitations of cyber relationships become evident. There’s sight, sound, touch, smell and taste (Yum! Get a grip, Geoffrey!)
None of these are easily possible in the cyber world, although the defenders of internet relationships might point to communication using webcams and the internet’s to transmit and receive voice messages.
These still lack the three-dimensional qualities of human interaction. Audio and video streaming are getting better but they lack all the subtle qualities including those of body language of in-person meetings.
Something that brings this home to me is my life in France. I speak some French but it’s not that fluent nor is it good enough to engage in more complex social relationships. Most of those I know here speak English too or else we manage to communicate more deeply by speaking in Franglish, a clumsy combination of our two languages that often makes me laugh. I find that the French speak very fast too. Often they say I do the same in English. I have sat in the middle of a crowded café surrounded by French people gabbling at enormous speed where I have been unable to understand a word being spoken. Nevertheless, I have understood much of what has been going on between people by their gestures, expressions, intonation and body language. My good French accent will sometimes get me into trouble too. People will talk fast at me and I struggle to understand the odd words. Frequently though I can fill in the gaps of what’s being spoken by their facial expression and tone of voice. The complexity of human communication has so much richness and subtleties beyond language, our main means of communication in cyberspace.
Touch, I believe is a very important human need, and one that we as adults in our often reclusive technological living worlds do not give sufficient attention. Infants deprived of touch can get depressed, ill and die without touch and physical comfort. How adults interact physically with their children becomes a cornerstone in their wellbeing and their development as fully-formed human beings. Being deprived of touch and tactile sensations as an adult can cause insecurity and anxiety. Don’t whatever you do, underestimate the power of touch. A hug, a kiss or simply a pat on the back or a handshake can do so much for another. So get kissing, hugging and touching now! (There I go again!)
Smell and taste are two very powerful, primal and even primitive ways we connect intimately with others. It is through touch, smell and taste that the infant bonds with its mother. They are the stuff of loving intimacy too: The sweet smell of hair, the touch of skin against one’s cheek, the scent of another’s body. Smell and taste draw us very close to another; they stir up strong emotions. They are essential and fundamental in loving intimacy.
So what else happens in potential cyber love relationships? I believe that because of the disinhibition effect that it is possible to attain a level of intimacy and trust very quickly. My question is therefore, then what? How does intimacy grow from there? I do not believe that love can grow from typed words alone.
The danger that lies in the speed of intimacy attainment is that disenchantment can set in equally quickly when intimacy has nowhere to go. You can’t go for a walk, share a meal, or hold another close in cyberspace. I believe that often unless a real life interaction takes place at some time then anxiety and disappointment will come to fill the space in which intimacy once existed. You can take steps and make moves along the way, exchanging photographs, speaking on the phone can help you on your way, but if love is the outcome you are seeking then sooner or later you will have to meet in-person.
Acknowledgements to John Suler PhD, Professor of Psychology at Rider University for his work on "The Psychology of Cyberspace"
PsychologyOnline.
I was very sceptical at first. Cyber psychology? No way, I thought! I warmed to the idea, however, and recommended that the institution involved make their investment.
What changed my mind were discoveries I made in research at the time. One finding I made that caused me to turn the corner was the fact that people were frequently (but not always) inclined to be more open and honest when engaging in anonymous dialogue with their computer screen than they were in a face-to-face encounter with a therapist. This was a salient and important fact in treating some conditions like alcoholism and addictions. “How many drinks have you had today?” asks the therapist. “Oh just the one, doctor,” says the client swaying in his seat breathing fumes that would slay a dragon.
I was reflecting earlier about the nature and type of relationships one makes on the internet. I’ve made some very interesting friendships here, some of which I have confidence, faith and trust in. I even have a couple of friendships that have extended into other dimensions like voice communication, but that’s all for now. I’m sure I will meet one or two of the people I talk to here one day. I’ve been struck by the honesty of most of the people I speak to here on my blog.
I believe that certain forms of cyber attachment are possible. Cyber infatuation is commonplace. So what of cyber love? Is that possible?
Before I attempt to answer that question I’m going to go off on one of those doodling excursions that I’m inclined to do from time to time. Unlike some areas I write about here I don’t profess any real depth of expertise in this subject, so the doodling will take the form of an exploration of ideas.
I’m not wholly convinced that people are more inclined to be honest, or expose their true self (whatever that is) when talking to a computer screen. People in cyberspace say and do things they would not do face-to-face. They lose their inhibitions. This is called the “disinhibition” effect.
Disinhibition can cause people to be more trusting, intimate, share secrets and personal truths far more quickly and readily than they might do in face-to-face encounters in their daily lives. They can also make spontaneous acts of generosity and kindness.
In our consideration of love, therefore, we might say that cyberspace is an accelerant of intimacy.
But disinhibition can run two ways, people can be harsh, critical, rude, aggressive, blaming, angry or even hateful and threatening as easily as they can be trusting and intimate on the net.
I’m something of a cyber-veteran. I’ve had access to the internet since its creation although this is my first personal web-site. In that time, I’ve observed a number of behaviours some of which I can explain in psychoanalytic language and some I can’t.
Cyber relationships can be high on transference. The nature of cyberspace means that in social encounters we can exercise fantasy and our imagination in a way we couldn’t in-person. We can ascribe all sorts of qualities to another that we would wish or hope to exist in a friend or loved one. Transference, however, is about the transfer of a normally powerful emotion from someone in one’s past onto another in the present. It is common for people to transfer feelings from their parents to their partners or to children. For instance, one could mistrust somebody who resembles an ex-spouse in manners, voice, or external appearance; or be overly compliant to someone who resembles a childhood friend or former lover.
Transference, like disinhibition, can be positive or negative.
That’s all conventional stuff.
Also I believe that we all carry some sort of image inside us of the idealised woman or the idealised man to whom we might be attracted.
The sources of this contra-sexual image are complex. They may come from infancy, childhood, our cultures, art and literature, media and the church…from everywhere in fact. Some of these images are archetypal, they’re embedded deep in our culture (and they might differ between cultures). I feel there is no doubt that experiences in infancy and childhood have a differentially powerful influence in how we construct these images. I also believe they are, to some extent, subconscious or perhaps, unconscious. They are what we might experience as the mysteries of interpersonal attraction.
As an aside, I do believe that children who suffer abuse might internalise idealised images of the perpetrators of abuse at an early age that later in life causes them to select abusive partners.
This, in itself, is an interesting subject for me and one about which I’ll write further, but having suffered emotional child abuse I’ve been more than curious to determine what effect infantile and childhood attachments have had on my adult relationships. I subjected myself to a whole battery of psychological tests to determine the extent of their effect. I’m delighted to say that I’ve moved on to an amazing degree, and that my test results indicate a low degree of correspondence between childhood attachments and adult relationships now, although this has not always been the case. I’ve made some very big mistakes in the choice of intimate partners in the past. I’m still learning my lessons.
Coming back to cyberspace relationships, I believe that it offers great scope for something that I’ll call projective idealisation. When we cannot see, hear, touch or smell the object of our attention, we can ascribe whatever qualities we like to them. They can become the man or woman of our dreams. Our computer screen is like a blank canvas on which we can project whatever qualities we seek and desire of another at will.
There is another aspect of cyberspace interaction that I’ve observed and I believe it can be intuitive, conscious or manipulative. I’ll call it “mirroring” here. Idealisation in love generally involves taking the best qualities of ourselves and projecting them on another. Mirroring involves the rapid absorption or assimilation of another’s personality then playing it back to them as one’s own. The mirror plays back a reflection of another’s feelings, interests and values. It can feel seductive and attractive. We might say, “This person and me are so alike,” or “How well this person understands me!” Frequently, it’s the cyber-tactic of the internet Lothario or Casanova. I doubt somehow if it’s a practice that one could get away with so easily in-person. For me, body language, gestures, inflection in speech and eye contact would give the other person away.
No doubt, cyberspace has pushed our social frontiers and changed our working habits, but I don’t feel yet it offers a sensory alternative to love, nor do I believe it will ever. I believe that cyberspace has opened all sorts of wonderful possibilities as a place for making friends and, possibly, even finding lovers, but in order to experience true intimacy with another, one sooner or later has to meet.
If we consider how we bond and interact in human relationships then the limitations of cyber relationships become evident. There’s sight, sound, touch, smell and taste (Yum! Get a grip, Geoffrey!)
None of these are easily possible in the cyber world, although the defenders of internet relationships might point to communication using webcams and the internet’s to transmit and receive voice messages.
These still lack the three-dimensional qualities of human interaction. Audio and video streaming are getting better but they lack all the subtle qualities including those of body language of in-person meetings.
Something that brings this home to me is my life in France. I speak some French but it’s not that fluent nor is it good enough to engage in more complex social relationships. Most of those I know here speak English too or else we manage to communicate more deeply by speaking in Franglish, a clumsy combination of our two languages that often makes me laugh. I find that the French speak very fast too. Often they say I do the same in English. I have sat in the middle of a crowded café surrounded by French people gabbling at enormous speed where I have been unable to understand a word being spoken. Nevertheless, I have understood much of what has been going on between people by their gestures, expressions, intonation and body language. My good French accent will sometimes get me into trouble too. People will talk fast at me and I struggle to understand the odd words. Frequently though I can fill in the gaps of what’s being spoken by their facial expression and tone of voice. The complexity of human communication has so much richness and subtleties beyond language, our main means of communication in cyberspace.
Touch, I believe is a very important human need, and one that we as adults in our often reclusive technological living worlds do not give sufficient attention. Infants deprived of touch can get depressed, ill and die without touch and physical comfort. How adults interact physically with their children becomes a cornerstone in their wellbeing and their development as fully-formed human beings. Being deprived of touch and tactile sensations as an adult can cause insecurity and anxiety. Don’t whatever you do, underestimate the power of touch. A hug, a kiss or simply a pat on the back or a handshake can do so much for another. So get kissing, hugging and touching now! (There I go again!)
Smell and taste are two very powerful, primal and even primitive ways we connect intimately with others. It is through touch, smell and taste that the infant bonds with its mother. They are the stuff of loving intimacy too: The sweet smell of hair, the touch of skin against one’s cheek, the scent of another’s body. Smell and taste draw us very close to another; they stir up strong emotions. They are essential and fundamental in loving intimacy.
So what else happens in potential cyber love relationships? I believe that because of the disinhibition effect that it is possible to attain a level of intimacy and trust very quickly. My question is therefore, then what? How does intimacy grow from there? I do not believe that love can grow from typed words alone.
The danger that lies in the speed of intimacy attainment is that disenchantment can set in equally quickly when intimacy has nowhere to go. You can’t go for a walk, share a meal, or hold another close in cyberspace. I believe that often unless a real life interaction takes place at some time then anxiety and disappointment will come to fill the space in which intimacy once existed. You can take steps and make moves along the way, exchanging photographs, speaking on the phone can help you on your way, but if love is the outcome you are seeking then sooner or later you will have to meet in-person.
Acknowledgements to John Suler PhD, Professor of Psychology at Rider University for his work on "The Psychology of Cyberspace"
|
Transference and Projection - What are they?
16/05/08 12:37 Filed in: Psychology | Transference and Projection
I use the words transference and projection a lot in trying to explain interpersonal dynamics in relationships. It has become clear to me of late that they evoke a lot of confusion so I am going to try and explain them here in simple terms. They are not, however, that simple and whole books have been written about them, so if you are an informed reader, do please excuse my crude explanations here.
Transference is the unconscious redirection of one’s feelings from one person onto another. For example, we might redirect feelings for say, a past spouse or past lover, onto a person in one’s life because of something they say, a mannerism, tone of voice or aspect of their appearance. In therapy, transference may occur when the client redirects a feeling from a significant person in their life onto the therapist.
Transference is very common. We all do it.
Projection is different. It’s where we attribute (project) our own unwanted, difficult, shameful or unacceptable thoughts and/or emotions unconsciously onto another person.
For example, Doris does not like Jack. Doris for whatever reason is unable to face that she does not like Jack. Her unconscious mind prevents her from admitting her feelings towards him. Her conscious thought is not “I don’t like Jack” but “Jack doesn’t like me”. In a way this projection is similar to denial.
The reasons and motivations for projection can be complex and specific (to individuals) so I cannot cover them here.
Ahah! That was easy, wasn’t it? Next there’s projective identification. I know I’ve confused some friends with this one! I have felt this one happen to me too in personal relationships.
This is a really tricky one! It’s where a person engages with another and projects a false belief onto another in such a way that the other person alters their behaviour to make the belief true. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Clear as mud? I’ll try one or two examples:
Doris and Jack are lovers. Doris has become disappointed with Jack whom she unconsciously feels is not the man she wants. Her desire for Jack is waning fast. Unable to face how she feels for Jack, she projects on Jack that he has no desire for her anymore. Night after night, she flounces into bed and says to Jack, “You do not desire me anymore” or “I know you no longer want me.” What she feels about Jack, she attributes to Jack through projection. Jack has always wanted and loved Doris and he does not understand her behaviour. Doris makes these assertions repeatedly in bed at night, then turns her back on Jack, pulls away from him then goes to sleep. Jack, however, experiences Doris’s behaviour as an outright (sexual and emotional) rejection of him and starts to pull back from Doris to avoid being hurt. Doris now has proof positive. Jack is moving away from her. She can now say, “I told you so!”
Was that complicated? Another example might be a paranoid man who develops a delusion that he is being persecuted by the police. Fearing the police, he starts to behave in a way that is uneasy, anxious and furtive when he is around police officers. The police officers observing what they construe as “suspicious” behaviour perceive that he might be involved in some criminal activity and start to look for reasons to arrest him, thus reinforcing his paranoid notion that he is being persecuted.
One more: Identification. This one is simple. It’s also a normal stage in human and emotional development but it’s here for another reason. Identification is the state or process of merging with another through imitation. Why I mention this is that occurred to me in talking with another blogging friend earlier that identification and transference happens frequently in cyber relationships. For example, I have known people who, when engaging in internet relationships, shroud their identity and instead present in a process of “mirroring” (imitating) the other person. This distorts the relationship since the other person starts to believe that the “mirror” that is reflecting back at them is, not surprisingly, very similar in personality and interests to themselves. They are not. It’s a psychological device of which the “mirror” may be conscious or not. We all do identification to adapt to different social circumstances. But in the context of this virtual world I find it scary sometimes. It can be a form of dangerous manipulative behaviour too.
Transference is the unconscious redirection of one’s feelings from one person onto another. For example, we might redirect feelings for say, a past spouse or past lover, onto a person in one’s life because of something they say, a mannerism, tone of voice or aspect of their appearance. In therapy, transference may occur when the client redirects a feeling from a significant person in their life onto the therapist.
Transference is very common. We all do it.
Projection is different. It’s where we attribute (project) our own unwanted, difficult, shameful or unacceptable thoughts and/or emotions unconsciously onto another person.
For example, Doris does not like Jack. Doris for whatever reason is unable to face that she does not like Jack. Her unconscious mind prevents her from admitting her feelings towards him. Her conscious thought is not “I don’t like Jack” but “Jack doesn’t like me”. In a way this projection is similar to denial.
The reasons and motivations for projection can be complex and specific (to individuals) so I cannot cover them here.
Ahah! That was easy, wasn’t it? Next there’s projective identification. I know I’ve confused some friends with this one! I have felt this one happen to me too in personal relationships.
This is a really tricky one! It’s where a person engages with another and projects a false belief onto another in such a way that the other person alters their behaviour to make the belief true. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Clear as mud? I’ll try one or two examples:
Doris and Jack are lovers. Doris has become disappointed with Jack whom she unconsciously feels is not the man she wants. Her desire for Jack is waning fast. Unable to face how she feels for Jack, she projects on Jack that he has no desire for her anymore. Night after night, she flounces into bed and says to Jack, “You do not desire me anymore” or “I know you no longer want me.” What she feels about Jack, she attributes to Jack through projection. Jack has always wanted and loved Doris and he does not understand her behaviour. Doris makes these assertions repeatedly in bed at night, then turns her back on Jack, pulls away from him then goes to sleep. Jack, however, experiences Doris’s behaviour as an outright (sexual and emotional) rejection of him and starts to pull back from Doris to avoid being hurt. Doris now has proof positive. Jack is moving away from her. She can now say, “I told you so!”
Was that complicated? Another example might be a paranoid man who develops a delusion that he is being persecuted by the police. Fearing the police, he starts to behave in a way that is uneasy, anxious and furtive when he is around police officers. The police officers observing what they construe as “suspicious” behaviour perceive that he might be involved in some criminal activity and start to look for reasons to arrest him, thus reinforcing his paranoid notion that he is being persecuted.
One more: Identification. This one is simple. It’s also a normal stage in human and emotional development but it’s here for another reason. Identification is the state or process of merging with another through imitation. Why I mention this is that occurred to me in talking with another blogging friend earlier that identification and transference happens frequently in cyber relationships. For example, I have known people who, when engaging in internet relationships, shroud their identity and instead present in a process of “mirroring” (imitating) the other person. This distorts the relationship since the other person starts to believe that the “mirror” that is reflecting back at them is, not surprisingly, very similar in personality and interests to themselves. They are not. It’s a psychological device of which the “mirror” may be conscious or not. We all do identification to adapt to different social circumstances. But in the context of this virtual world I find it scary sometimes. It can be a form of dangerous manipulative behaviour too.