The Urban Scientist

The New Female-on-Male Violence?

Paul Dobransky, M.D. — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:40:53 +0000

It's still out there as a story in the media - a new norm of "rudeness" in society - and the names Joe, Kanye, and Serena still being thrown around as starting points on discussion. From the serious (Ruben Navarette's remarkable commentary on narcissism at CNN.com comes to mind, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/18/navarrette.rudeness.narcissism/) to the humorous and satirical (for a tongue-in-cheek laugh go to www.imaletyoufinish.com), studies of rudeness, narcissism and a general lack of civility may be the rage for a little while longer.

However, like many, you may be beyond over and done with hearing about the drama of the Gosselins, of TV's Jon and Kate Plus Eight. A set of twins, and one of sextuplets, and the nasty dissolution of the marriage of their parents were broadcast to millions over the past year.

While there is a treasure-trove to learn about courtship models through their tragic situation, it's understandable why we would tire of hearing about it. Maybe it reminds people of their own failures, or is just "too much information." The gossip rags certainly did their best to fuel the fires by making the husband out to be a cheating, negligent villain in the headlines.

Which is nothing new.

So I was surprised while flipping through the news channels that I became so glued to the Jon Gosselin interview on Good Morning America the other day. He came off so clearly honest, earnest, and sincere that I immediately dropped any critical analysis, theory, or deconstruction to just be a human being - and a man - on the listening end.

See for yourself: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=8467543

Look at his face, listen to the words.

This is an abused person, and that's not just said with a psychiatrist's experience of treating it, but someone who's at times been on the receiving end of similar comments and actions. I mean, it was actually broadcast - when I first tuned in to the show I couldn't believe what I was seeing: the cuts at his identity, name-calling, subtle, resentful little barbs implying he was less than a man.

And then we see the gossip rags headline how very bad he is for being free, feeling good, or God forbid, socializing. All while striking a balance with ongoing care for his children, having changed what looked on the air to be far more than an equal share of diaper changing over the past several years.

Good for him.

It strikes one how quick the male instinct is to say, "I'm fine. I'm tough," and no not dare go near complaining as a "sissy" would. I even briefly felt embarrassed for him saying, "I was abused," then felt embarrassed for being embarrassed. Funny how that works in we men.

Some time ago, Will Smith appeared on Oprah and asked her if she had ever heard of "Man Tears." When she said no, he hammed it up for the cameras by appearing upset, then stifling out the tears with a grunt that sounded like a half-sneeze. A laugh riot, but with a bit of a sad side in other contexts.

Many years ago, I chanced across an article on Columbine by colleague Robert Galatzer-Levy, M.D., also of Chicago, in which he was comparing the impact of actual physical violence with that of "emotional violence" - taunting - among teens. It was a remarkable piece, and an insight into this very kind of violence.

Whether you trace the pain fibers of both physical pain and emotional pain right through the thalamus of the brain, or whether you get sucked into hype, and reputations, and harm that men and women do to each other - whether reading about Rihanna and Chris Brown, or the Gosselins with more outrage at one story than the other - one thing is clear:

Both men and women have a right to not be subject to abuse, the right to leave it, and need sources of healing for it.

How odd is it that we are simultaneously so different in our instincts, communication, and desires, and yet so similar in wanting to love and be loved, and not to be hurt?

At the end of that interview, I didn't really care which research studies supported Gosselin's position, and which refuted it. He talked about crying more in the past year than ever in the rest of his life. About trying to care for and love his kids while being verbally hated, and silently hating back from just inches across the couch.

Out of empathy, and shared experience, one could only see this rebuked, derided, "B-list wanna-be" as a good man - in fact a longsuffering man - trying to be healthy, trying to do right, and being about as courageous a person as any I've seen on screen in awhile.

Which, after all the talk of tears and pain, is a pretty manly trait to end with.

Never Get "Kanye'd" Again

Paul Dobransky, M.D. — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:40:13 +0000

From Joe Wilson's rude outburst, to Serena William's threat to a judge, to Kanye West's witheringly rude don't-have-any-idea-what-to-call-THAT insult to Taylor Swift at her moment to shine at the Video Music Awards, Americans are abuzz about the topic of why we have become so rude and disrespectful to each other.

It's not new, but the rapid escalation is, along with the advent of not just email, but social media which without invitation, so often forcibly introduces us to the intimate interior of people's most private thoughts.

The astounding degree of insult IS new, and our concern and learning ought not just stop at that, but go to the root causes of what is happening to the national psyche.

It's a simple lack of understanding of personal boundaries, and the defensiveness (or ego defenses) left to protect our emotions when we've had a failure of good boundaries with each other.

As recently as 2002, 79% of Americans considered general rudeness and civility not just a trifling thing but cause for great concern: http://www.publicagenda.org/press-releases/land-rude-americans-new-survey-say-lack-respect-getting-worse.

We can all remember a time only a matter of years ago when shouting down a sitting President in Congress, or rushing the stage at an awards ceremony, grabbing the mic, and in effect saying a winner shouldn't have won the award - which clearly, she has just won - was not just unforgivable, but truly inconceivable - utterly outside our wildest imaginings.

Now a new bar for rudeness and disrespect is set, and many, from school-aged kids to adults in the boardroom are saying, "Hey whatever you do, don't Kanye me."

There's a part of us that springs to action when we are "feeling defensive" or we are said to "have our guard up," and these have been called "ego defenses."

The psychoanalysts may point out that when we use immature ego defenses such as "denial" or "acting out," these happen because we are trying to walk a tricky tightrope between our urges and impulses (Id, the "devil" on one shoulder), and what we have been taught is politically appropriate and diplomatic by society (Superego, the "angel" on the other shoulder.) Our defenses negotiate between the two when they are in conflict and strike a careful bargain between the angel and the devil - lowering our anxiety.

It would be much easier to ponder whether it's possible that Kanye was acting out lingering grief, or Wilson was in denial - that yes, someone other than him or his friends are at the helm of the nation - by seeing that ego defenses are like "social habits" that operate our behavior when we are on autopilot, not paying attention to the impact we are having on others.

An insight which must be a foundation of respect, and an antidote to rudeness.

Underneath most if not all ego defenses that cause social awkwardness or rudeness is the skill of maturity we are all capable of called a personal boundary. Like ego defenses, our personal boundary can range from immature and socially ineffective to mature and socially effective.

Like ego defenses, our personal boundary also helps us be "guarded" or to "defend" against social stress, but in the most mature and healthy of ways. To use it in this adult way, however, we have to be awake, aware, and at the steering wheel of our own lives and behavior. What is left over when we are not paying attention to our conduct is "unconscious" - the reflexes and instincts, where the devil on our shoulder urges to get what we want, just because we want it.

Things like being right about who should win an award, or who should be leading the country.

When I teach about how boundaries work, I like to draw a circle for people, and note that what is inside the circle is your psychological territory - your personal opinions, beliefs, emotions, and rights to make the decisions about your life - and what is outside is the rights, emotions, thoughts, opinions, values, beliefs and autonomy to others to make their own personal choices as they see fit.

The personal boundary is also like a "tank," a container of your psychological resources to be appreciated, valued, budgeted, and held custody of by you and only you. What is in there is yours and yours alone, and nobody else in existence has the right to tell you how to feel, what to think, or what choices to make or preferences to have about your life.

It is also a shield, a suit of armor that defends you against social pressure and stress, things you know are bad for you, and ideas, opinions, and options that just don't suit you. And so when there are "chinks in the armor" - our "buttons" that people push, our "weaknesses," or "blind spots" through which others can influence or even manipulate, and where we ourselves don't even see our limits of control and ownership - these weak spots or "boundary holes" end up causing all the strife in social situations.

The less mature we are, the more "holes in our armor" we have. The more mature we are, the more solid and "psychological strength" we have. Social interactions, and life itself, go far more smoothly.

Underneath our tendency to be diplomatic or rude, there are processes much like the mode a plane is flying in when it is either being piloted by us, or is rather on "autopilot."

When we are piloting our own behavior, we are paying attention to the boundaries of others, and of our own, and can navigate through the clouds in a way that is both respectful, and self-respecting too.

When we are "away from the steering wheel," not paying attention and using social common sense, it is as if our autopilot has kicked in - and what's left are those ego defenses, either immature and rusty, clunky, and socially dangerous, or else more mature, tried and tested to be socially effective even when we mentally relax.

The difference is in how much work we have done on our personal boundary skill. That very act makes us more mature and socially effective, and the maturity of our boundary and our ego defenses go hand in hand.

Fixing "American Rudeness" doesn't just involve noticing that social networking sites encourage us to have poor boundaries about our lives - more uninvited access to each other's private thoughts and feelings - or that many advertising techniques encourage us to be immature, impatient or impulsive - as in "Buy now! Last day of the sale!"

Making sure you never get "Kanye'd" again doesn't just necessitate that you become more guarded, fearful and on edge socially, or that guaranteeing that you never unwittingly "Kanye" someone else means that you must become far more worried about every little thing you say or type.

All of these need the simple knowledge of what boundaries are, and how they work, that they are always good for us and for others, and that they themselves are what contain what we all call "strength" and "respect."

They operate just like the border of a nation, in which to have access to another person's opinions, emotions and decisions (including buying decisions, voting decisions, and award-granting decisions), we must first, courteously knock on the door, ask permission, and be granted a visa to enter before bursting on through.

Maybe someday they'll invent a kind of internet "customs and immigration department" we can all use to allow or disallow entry to our blogs and forums and private, inner thoughts - one where "haters" and "flamers" experience the shame they would ordinarily receive at a restaurant for doing the same ignorant behavior they do online. Then the internet could be a better teacher of personal boundaries.

Until then, simply envision a circle drawn around yourself, and around every other person you encounter. What you think, feel, believe, and decide does not belong to anyone but you, and what they think, feel, believe and decide does not belong to you. If you are going to team up, get along, work together, love each other, befriend each other, or communicate, it is going to be necessary to ask permission, find what you agree in common, feel in common, and choose in common, then enter intimate connection with each other on those terms and those alone.

Everything else, we can respect each other in agreeing to disagree.

Our time to win an award will someday come and our time to lead will arrive some day. Most often these honors in a social group come sooner not because we muscled our way in, or shouted the loudest (paying attention, talk show pundits?), but because we have shown the most strength and respect to the most people.

We can pilot the plane of our behavior with our full attention, turning off that old immature, defensive "autopilot," instead, confident in the power of our mature boundaries.

The Scientific Explanation of "Cool" (or Unexpected Lessons of Jude Law's Hamlet)

Paul Dobransky, M.D. — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:11:02 +0000

I am in London, training men and women with their dating, relationships and romance, and it's remarkable how similar the types of problems are between men and women trying to get along. Some men at the seminar are somewhat fearful to approach women they find attractive, others want to learn how to try to attract a long lost girlfriend, or at least understand why they lost their love. The women want to better understand how to encourage a man into real commitment, or how to better screen their dates for the non-committal man, the "player" or "jerk", or to use their expression, the "dodgy guy".

Unexpectedly, I've found the experience of being stripped of my home culture for a month to really tune-up some personal psychological resources in the process. I feel more accessible to clients than ever before since I have no idea what's going on in the USAToday, no day-to-day grind pressures, and often, no cell phone, texting, or Blackberry. It's all about the rawness of their personal life's experiences, cultural forces, pains and hopes.

Personally, I love books and films, and have not been much for too much stage, but here I find myself getting ready to wait in line all night for a chance at same day tickets to the Wyndham Theatre to see Jude Law perform Hamlet. Why I would endure the line and then a three and a half hour play, one knowing my tastes might wonder, but I know it is what I have to do. An adventure into Oedipal struggles I suppose, and the chance to see one of my favorite movie actors do the ultimate role cannot be resisted.

To the psychoanalyst, and any psychology author such as me, the prime, core learned skill of personal growth has got to be what is called Observing Ego. Without this skill, change and growth is all but impossible and it doesn't come easy to cultivate. Travel in general, and London - on this specific occasion - appears to have a way of accelerating its cultivation.

In fact, I submit to you that that social status, trait, feature and skill that both men and women all want - "coolness" - is scientifically explained by this psychological function called Observing Ego.

What is it?

Observing Ego is akin to stepping out of your own body as you interact with the world, looking down, asking questions and commenting on what you see, silently, in your own head, but in "real time." It's like being your own mentor and advisor, parent, brother, sister, and guide. Similar phrases to describe it are being mindful, sentient, present-minded, centered, and it's actions called, "Self-talk," immortalized in the advice of Polonius as "To thine own self, be true."

Without Observing Ego, we do not see our own boundaries with others, the impact of our beliefs, values, decisions, actions and our level of character development on them, nor can we learn what directions to grow our own character maturity through interaction with others. Without this skill, there are no lessons learned from our heart-breaks, our embarrassments, and foolish gaffes, our ill-advised dates, missed opportunities, and any manner of regrets.

In fact, one could easily say there would be no regrets in life if we were coming from a very tuned up Observing Ego most of the time. We would have done our very, most keen best, socially, and delivered our best efforts possible at life.
Which brings us to what is "Cool."

The Scientific Definition of Cool

Usually, when one does something not cool, they suffer regrets over bad behavior, awkward behavior, thoughtless behavior, missed opportunities, and opportunities taken which prove to be lesser benefits to our lives than what we "should have done." The perfectionist's unheeded desire for what could have been taunts far more than the mundane reality of what is, and is annoyingly average and dissatisfying.

The garbage men dumping bags in front of my feet with five hours to nap those tickets to Jude Law's well-reviewed performance is both annoying and dissatisfying - but only for the moment. They'll soon pass, and the Shakespearean acting courses I took in Denver so many years ago, the lessons about the Oedipus of psychiatric training, my current specialization in training men and women about the psychology of dating and relationships - much of which has somehow involved film clips of Law's various mainstream films - and the fact that it's in London itself all came together, urging me, saying, "You have to go do this, and do it now."

Thirty three standing tickets will be given away, up to two per person, and I am fifteenth in line. It will happen for me if I can endure...

This is Observing Ego - the attention and insight to the right choices, the right actions done in the right way at the right time when social, career, or any other opportunity arises - is as far as I can tell, the very scientific definition of "Cool." For in the vernacular of what is cool, people who possess it say and do the right things in the right way, at the right time to match a social situation.

How Can You Become "Cooler?" How Do You Grow Observing Ego?

As many times as I've taught this, here it is right this moment, in front of me.

• For one, I'm awake at this hour, not sleeping, unconscious. You have to be awake to use Observing Ego.

• I'm more than aware of my surroundings - the man with the odd, Freud style beard to my right, buying the first copy of the morning paper, the Bear Staff pub to the left across the street, the only building on the street I see with a stone gargoyle guarding it against evil spirits, when just hours earlier I'm sure it dispensed plenty of those, and the young British-Indian man in a suit in line with me, talking to his wife loudly, excitedly, and with a slight Hindi accent (I don't know how he could look like he just came from the drycleaners...)

• I'm "in the now." Present-minded. In fact, Observing Ego cannot be accessed by swimming in your head in either the past or future, but only by being attentive only to what's right in front of you (and to the side, behind, above and below you.)

• Which brings up the five senses - the air is a perfect room temperature out here on an early morning in August, in London, and it is now quarter of eight, the garbage smell is gone, it's bright, a shadow reaches precisely half way down the brick-walled, turreted building in front of me, and the pavement has strangely not yet started to cause my undercarriage to ache.

• Intimacy. I've gotten to know the faces, general level of friendliness, languages of origin, and some other soft impressions of the weary people sitting on either side of me. The young man to my right does not want a soda as I dash across the street for some hydration, and the family right outside the box office door for hours before me have all lit up smoking. There's a sense of small, growing intimacy in the group, feelings which perhaps are not unlike what sixteenth century peasants may have experienced for the same opportunity.

• If I hadn't made this decision, this action taken, I surely would have regretted it. I would have been not cool, disappointed in myself, and I feel more alive for having done this. When we make decisions and take actions it requires the attention to be present, or risk suffering the danger at worst and embarrassment at best, of looking left instead of right when crossing the street here.

These things, being awake, aware, present-minded, using your five senses, bothering to intimately know and commune with others, and make actionable decisions are all quick methods to cultivate your own power of Observing Ego.

Others that sum them all up would be to consider yourself your own mentor, coach, or friend, asking yourself questions in "real time," as you experience your social world.

"To thine own self, be true."

The Rewards

Many pop psychology works portray methods of getting rich quick, finding happiness, or achieving social status, sex, wealth or any other manner of human desire, but the words of Epictetus are likely more suitable and accurate substitutes for any of them:

"Character is destiny"

The more we mature, psychologically develop, the higher our level of character rises, the more rewards in life - more financial prosperity is we so choose, more friendships, opportunities, success, satisfaction, and importantly, stability in our lives despite challenging economic times. We can't even begin to work on our character maturity though, without this prime core skill of Observing Ego.

With an hour to go before guaranteeing a secure, stable opportunity to watch Hamlet unwittingly kill Polonius, Claudius, Laertes, and everybody else kill everybody else, the girl next to me asks what I think she could do to find a toilet.

I suggest ordering a coffee at the restaurant across the street right in front of us and using their toilets. She nods. She is German I think, and not well-to-do, her frayed jeans jacket tossed on the ground at my suggestion, her belongings left next to me implying that she trusts me with them, and I will allow her back in line. In kind I am sure I could do the same and trust her, as could any in our line. We have proven something to each other in our character, familiarity, and joint experience.

Just hours earlier, a disturbed man was apprehended by the police as he shouted in the street, devoid of Observing Ego, perhaps drunk, perhaps unmedicated, or both, and he most certainly would not have been welcome in the line, a place saved for his toilet visit, even if he'd had the money for a "peasant's ticket."

Hours have now passed like seconds. The three plus hours were a roller coaster ride through every passion of youth, every power struggle of the aged, and the neurotic behavior in both. The tenuous relationship between love and the passions which give life, and those compelling a death struggle were put on display to perfection by Jude Law.

The payoff, the reward to me - a poor student of Shakespeare - an insight I owe to Observing Ego once again.

It's the narrative account given by Horatio for his friend Hamlet at the very end - Horatio, the only character in which the actor cannot also play other bit parts of this same play, because he is in nearly every scene with every other character.

To him, Hamlet nearly at his dying breath says,

"If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart,
Absent thee from felicity a while,
And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain
To tell my story."

Horatio IS Hamlet's Observing Ego, his very faculty which barely keeps him sane, the common character observing not just his best friend, but ALL the characters, commenting, imploring, inviting them to do right, and coolly recalculating what ought to be done next to right the wrongs.

Horatio is the storyteller, the narrator, and the last man standing at the end of the tragedy in which all other conflicted, neurotic, confused, pained, impassioned characters have met their demise.

HORATIO

Not from his mouth,
Had it the ability of life to thank you:
He never gave commandment for their death.
But since, so jump upon this bloody question,
You from the Polack wars, and you from England,
Are here arrived give order that these bodies
High on a stage be placed to the view;
And let me speak to the yet unknowing world
How these things came about: so shall you hear
Of carnal, bloody, and unnatural acts,
Of accidental judgments, casual slaughters,
Of deaths put on by cunning and forced cause,
And, in this upshot, purposes mistook
Fall'n on the inventors' reads: all this can I
Truly deliver.

If only they had listened to this cool, wise observer as we all yet have a chance to listen to our own Observing Egos, which can equally deliver the right thing to do, in the right way at the right time.

This is "coolness." And this is "character."

The advantage we have as an audience to a tragedy is that we can learn lessons from "the whips and scorns" on others, and mindfully, observantly, patiently, make more mature choices than they have.

In his immortal eulogy, when Horatio speaks of Hamlet, we can see that the symbolism to our own lives is that what must die are the impulses of the boy, Hamlet, the girl, Ophelia, and the impatient mindlessness of immature youth in general:

"Good-night, sweet prince;
And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest."

The boyish title of Prince for those witness could same day be "King," an adult man, which Hamlet was well on his way to becoming in growing a conscience, diplomatically asking forgiveness of Laertes, and thinking more than ever before he acted - using Observing Ego.

The Bard - whoever he, she, or they were who actually penned Shakespeare's works - was well-aware of the unfortunate fact that one's chronological age does not perfectly parallel one's maturity without purposeful, mindful work on our character. Horatio's eulogy is the constant request of this most powerful of our personal growth skills.

Did Depression Double? Did Healing Double? Or Did Profit Double?

Paul Dobransky, M.D. — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:29:09 +0000

Have a look at this giant change in the number of people in America now on antidepressants:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-08-03-antidepressants_N.htm

It has now doubled in the past ten years. Some might argue that drug advertising has led to more informed consumers, and therefore more seeking help. One could also note that half of those uses are for diagnoses and problems other than depression (such as pain conditions.)
What's potentially alarming is the significant drop in those using psychotherapy during the same time period.

Where this is a problem rests in the Bio-Psycho-Social model of care used by therapists, nurses and doctors. It views overall healing and mental health as having a biological/genetic component (and cure in medication), but does not ignore the psychology component (over which we have free will to develop ourselves, with the aid of a therapist), and the social component (the importance of friends, family, supporters, work, culture and environment in our overall mental state, moods, and quality of life.)

Treating more of the "Bio" and less of the "Psychosocial" might be troubling as far as overall effectiveness at treating depression.

Does this study mean there is more awareness going on? More healing? More depression? Or is it simply more profit due to more advertising?

What do you think?

Turning Pickup Artists Into Gentlemen

Paul Dobransky, M.D. — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 07:27:52 +0000

All the talk of late on whether Modern Feminism is a good or bad thing makes me wonder why we've never heard of a "Masculinist," or "Masculinism," by analogy.

Ever think of that? Ridiculous, right?

It's actually no wonder. Men are hard-wired evolutionarily not to complain, whine, or moan about their rights being denied, or their masculine identity ignored. For the male of the species to do so didn't serve the survival of the race eons ago. Back then, daily life was likely more of a life-and-death, kill-or-be-killed existence that demanded a singular male focus on the sustenance of the tribe, not hurt feelings or fragile egos.

This masculine gender instinct survives today.

None of this is to say that men don't actually have needs, or don't suffer in silence for lack of love, career fulfillment, or friends, that they do not have a desire for a unique voice in society, or a recognition that yes - they think, feel, and act differently from women.

They ARE different. Accept it.

Men aren't even the majority of the world's population. Technically, they are a "minority," at a ratio of 100:106. They are hard-wired not to complain. It makes them look weak and feel weak.

Often they get to see media in which the "token man" in a sitcom is a bumbling idiot - a Homer Simpson or Al Bundy - but are hard-wired not to complain. It makes them look weak and feel weak.

In our culture, other than in the likes of The Daily Show and Real Time with Bill Maher, men also get to see a host of talk-shows, news/opinion shows, and usually harmless dramatic comedies like Sex and the City, where they are nevertheless, frequently labeled derogatory terms such as "commitment-phobes," or as the counterpoint to Feminists - assumed by gender and therefore, by inherent nature - to be "Anti-feminist" at best, or at worst, "profiled" as "chauvinist," rather than "just men." Again, they are hard-wired not to complain. It makes them look weak and feel weak.

Tired of dating "Commitment-phobes?" If I were to tell you there is no such thing - that this term is a myth, it might very well seem politically incorrect.

It gets worse than this illusion. There are literally millions of actual men out there training to be real (not imaginary) "pickup artists." There's no more politically incorrect issue between the genders than the legitimacy of a roving band of men who want to seduce, sleep with, or take advantage of women.

Oversensitivity to the politically incorrect, and the battle between the genders in general, likely occur not because men are more right or women are "more right" about what is socially appropriate, natural and normal, but because men and women are simultaneously both "equal," AND "different" at the same time.

Men and women are equal in the capacity to love and form friendships, to intelligently pursue career ambitions, education, artistic expression, and leadership roles of course.

Yet they are decidedly different in the unconscious gender instincts which drive their attention and interest, their automatic, reflex social and sexual behaviors.

Clearly. Just note that the Nielsen Ratings, health statistics, and any common sociological studies cite men and women in different categories of note. If we weren't different in behavior after all, there would be just one category - "People" - and other than Harvard's Men's Center, a vast array of institutions would have to be renamed, "People's Hospital," "People's College," and the "People's Studies" section of the library.

The Pickup Artists

Perhaps you are a woman, and have been at some time, approached by a man wearing unusual clothing and jewelry - one who talks rapidly, tries to make physical contact with you after telling a charming story, and then says something that leaves you wondering whether you have just been complimented or insulted.

The person you've just met is a graduate of "pickup artist training."

Enter a group of internet marketers who have essentially taken over a giant swath of public health and become practitioners of a de facto, worldwide mental health service industry to men - the online men's dating "educators" and "pickup artist gurus."

Like the real estate agencies cropping up in the 1990's, the entrepreneurial barriers to entry in starting a business - of training men how to meet women - are minimal. No clinical training or higher education is required, one only has to be, generally, a single man who has been on a few great dates, and recorded some inspiring success stories to tell other men.

Some marketers are actually making upwards of 10-20 million dollars a year training millions of men - more than are current patients in any individual tradition of mainstream therapy. Meanwhile psychologists, social workers, nurses, therapists and psychiatrists labor away, one on one in their offices - most commonly administering gender-neutral treatments and advice.

When the media traditionally has become involved in such evergreen topics as dating and relationships, it has been very feminine-sensible coverage. Which is why men - whose two prime personal growth concerns tend to be skill with women and work - are flocking to internet marketers in droves, rather than therapists as the traditional experts.

Perhaps, in part, this has been due to the fact that advertisers must be satisfied, advertisers sell products, and women are the consumers of western society. Males may still buy condoms, Axe Deodorant Body Spray, and a few products at Best Buy, but women buy nearly everything else for America's households.

Again, men do not complain about being diminished or ignored in having unique health and psychological needs. Doing so diminishes their masculinity, depicts them as "weak" to other men. This is not a "fragile ego" situation, but an evolved instinct that served ancient tribesmen well in a singular focus on killing animals in male teams, and killing rival tribesmen in male teams.

It seems the masculine team spirit still exists, and a new public health inroad with both a blessing and a curse attached has arrived in the form of internet pickup artist trainers.

It's well known that men are notorious for not reporting the presence of depressive symptoms, perhaps even shunning mental health care in general. Internet "education" and the convenient anonymous identities called "avatars" or "handles" common in public forums have finally allowed men to retain their felt sense of masculinity, but ALSO seek mental health help - currently, and most voraciously in the area of sex, women, and dating.

With the escalation of divorce and absent fathers in young men's lives, and such recent studies as those showing that boys fare better after a divorce in the care of fathers, not mothers solely - and no textbooks, school classes, teachers, professors, or until the past decade, any accessible source of education and training in the area of dating and relationships for men and only men - all that was left for the male public to seek out was a rag-tag gang of clinically untrained, un-formally-educated, internet marketing expert pickup artists to become the de facto fathers, and mental health professionals to millions of western single men.

That's right. Millions, right under your nose, in your neighborhoods, in their houses, at their computers. One such entrepreneur alone has a client list of over 2 million men who religiously follow his teachings.

Others have even gone so far as to branch into experiential learning: a k a, taking men out on the town to train them how to pick up women.

Like it or not, there is also an upside, even though mainstream therapists are far from embracing the new "men's movement," or men's dating education, attractiveness training, and romantic success with women as more than just afterthoughts, but rather pillars of male-specific mental health.

Look at the fallout: "48 year old man mass murders female aerobics dance class. Cited gripe against the world? No success in romance with women in thirty years."

Where the Charles Atlas ads of the mid 1900's centered on laughable muscle-men and weaklings at the beach, and drum-beating poetry readings of the 1990's made men who dared indulge in masculine-issues education publicly open to ridicule, the attempt of marketers to psychologically treat men without clinical qualification has at least brought conscious, a need in married and single men of all ages, stripes, and socioeconomic backgrounds to say, "Yes, I do need to learn about romantic success with women (or one woman), and yes, it does affect my mood, my health, and my potential in life."

The First Mass Market, Practical Application of Evolutionary Psychology

Could it be that the internet pickup artists have read a few books by actual experts, then through trial-and-error learning, taken some of the principles, gone out socially, and "field tested" them to deduce some "best practices" that are socially effective?

Yes, they already have, while some therapists continue to talk to men and women as if their nature and needs are interchangeable. Pickup Artists call these, "field reports," which are not much more than war stories ranging from interesting tactics that generally appear to be attractive to women on the one hand, all the way up to unethical, egregiously manipulative sexual conquests on the other.

About ten years ago I first encountered these pickup artists in Los Angeles, was keenly aware of what, frankly, has been a looming public health crisis specific to men for many years longer, and decided right then and there that I had to throw my hat in the ring. I had to do something to both help, and steer what was going on.

Even in what appeared to me at first to be boys fathering other boys - not unlike the dynamics of urban street gangs - I saw something desperately needed by male society. At their events and seminars, there would be twenty-four year old boys teaching fifty year old men how to flirt, converse, attract and seduce women.

On talking to some of the older men, I noticed that while they were horribly annoyed by the lack of life's experience, maturity, and character in the pickup artists, they were simultaneously drawn like flies to honey to the gritty side of what they had to say - the success with women, those war stories. It was like ancient tribes of men sitting around a campfire, sharpening their spears under the stars.

There is an enduring hunger for this mental health feature of being a man, and it is not being provided in quite this way, with quite this intensity, with quite this laymen's language practicality, in any professional office in America (or anywhere else for that matter.)

It's what the Evolutionary Psychologists have called The Reptilian Brain - specifically the workings and differences between the Male Reptilian Brain and that of the female. These marketers were teaching the male public the "animal side" of being a man in search of women, the "mating dance," and while they toted around the works of Geoffrey Miller, Matt Ridley, Robin Baker and others, they soon imagined themselves equally qualified as "professionals," experts, and de facto therapists.

Which they are not, in reality, and which is why many woman can, and rightfully do fear the public impact of markeint companies with no public health oversight - in essence a Lothario Factory churning out more of precisely what they don't want in men.

Introducing the academic side, the clinical side to their culture was not easy. I was met with hostility, as one would stroll in off the street to discover a secret meeting of street gangs planning a heist. I was a foreign competitor from a scientific world they didn't understand, or care to - except insofar as it provided them some handy, marketable principles to sell to other men.

With a little time, I started speaking as a guest at their conventions, on their "products." I saw a chance to steer them away from more adolescent goals of "getting laid," having "one-night stands," or "threesomes," and into something more centered in masculinity and health, a successful dating life, respect for, and collaboration with women - neither being towed around by the ear, nor condoning "wham, bam, thank you ma'am" juvenile sexuality.

There was even the potential to do the impossible in this day and age: pave the way for successful, stable, monogamous relationships not with just any woman who comes along, but just the right one to suit their personality, lifestyle, tastes and preferences.

Ironically, it was the gender-neutral concepts of ethics, morality, personal boundaries, patience, constructiveness, and maturity itself that had to be sold to them. Character: which is not a sexy thing to sell.

Until, that is, I taught them that character maturity is decidedly sexy to women's sensibilities - even aphrodisiac in nature, because of the differences in the Male and Female Reptilian Brains.

They bought it, because it's real, and leads to real fulfillment in masculine life.

Soon, I would see the very foreign word, "character" thrown around in their circles, in marketable phrases they now use, such as "character driven game," "authenticity attraction," and "natural game."
("Game" is of course, the masculine word for sexual attraction and prowess.)

Character is Sexxxy

If it is true that deep in feminine gender instinct is a passion for security, for safety, for social stability and harmony as a survival mechanisms, then a woman unconsciously detecting high character in a prospective mate would make great sense as a driver of her passions.

A gentleman fictionalized in the archetypal form of Sex and the City's Mr. Big, or the Hugh Grant of romantic comedies, and their next generation already coming on the media scene - all these examples of men have a deep, passionate fire in them, a masculine beast, but not that alone.

These pop exemplars of modern masculinity also have a genteel nature, a refinement of manners, and a wisdom, social politics, and patience springing from maturity. Older than twenty, their ages bring experience that has afforded the opportunity for growing character itself.

All the men I have seen for a decade going to the pickup artist trainings were entranced by the one thing not provided anywhere else in the world - and certainly not a professional therapist's office. It was the raw, beastly, animal nature of being a man that is utterly absent in the sterile corporate cubicles of today's work life for men, and even in dare I say, a majority of "nice" marriages.

Which makes it no wonder that the polls are showing a mass male exodus from any interest and desire for the modern state of marriage - which is a legal state, not a psychological one.

Men are not "commitment-phobes."

There is no such thing as a commitment-phobe. There are only people who see, feel and believe a social connection will be either good for them, or will otherwise carry potential harm too great to take the risk.

The answer to the misleading label of "Commitment Phobia" is to give men a picture of marriage that promises they can still be menin relationships, that they will see a benefit in them to their lives and happiness, not put it at risk, and most of all, be a superior experience of life to that of remaining single. The same is true of any women who could be labeled, "commitment-phobes," though they seem to be less cited generally.

What men want is not the risky legal state of marriage, but - just like women - the psychological state of true commitment, which springs from a strong sexual attraction, a friendship bond, and the maturity to follow through on promises. Telling war stories to men may inspire a brief burst of more passionate, sexually attractive presence in men, but the intimate details of the dynamics of character development and the psychology of maturity are better left to those trained over many years of formal education and clinical experience with patients.

Only those of high character are capable of psychological, social, vocational, or romantic commitment.
Marriage would be a mere side effect of real, bona fide psychological commitment if men and women still had the patience and wisdom to walk through a formal courtship process together - vetting each other for fit, compatibility, and attraction on all three levels I outline in my works.

It's Up to You to Help Men Become Better Men

I never would have imagined in medical school that I would someday spend years training pickup artists. To teach them to take the raw animal masculinity of a Lothario, and redirect it at being a real and mature, masculine man - a Gentleman capable of either real commitment, or a very satisfying single life. In so doing, I will continue to seek colleagues to consider men as unique, and worth delivering care to that is spoken in their language, appealing to their needs, wants, desires and passions, and do so in a way that is not merely sterile and gender neutral, but also vigorously beneficial to women.

Women don't want "wussies" and "wimps" - the product of our gender-sensitive, fatherless, politically correct, post-feminist culture that ignores the deep identification of males with their animal, "Reptilian-brained" nature.

But they also do not want sketchy "players" and "jerks" either - the product of the pickup artist trainers who can get in touch with their animal, "Reptilian-brained" nature, tell war stories about it, and from there, liken themselves as teachers - but ignore and are not qualified to teach the cognitive-behavioral therapy of the mood, the psychodymanics or analysis of character maturity.

Women want a man, and a gentleman.

The clear, proper, safe, and effective route to that end is for professionals to take back their charge, and appeal to the men sitting at home, alone, lonely, and loveless, at their computers - treating them as they need to be treated, not merely with war stories, but sound, clinical science, even though their masculinity demands they not ask for the help.

A happy man with an identity, a healthy pride, a capacity to love, befriend, and commit is always a boon to women. Men need access to care, education and support that is neither the animal attraction advice of the pickup artist, nor the "nice," politically-correct, gender-neutral treatment of traditional therapy. Instead, they need something in between the two that's backed by clinical expertise, not mere opinions or war stories.

I've begun to do so, and I'd like to invite therapists and laypeople, male and female, far and wide, to address this unique and culturally impactful need as well.

Write me with your thoughts. I'm all ears to those who want to do something about the real reasons behind diminished marriage rates, expanding divorce rates, and rising romantic dissatisfaction among men and women.

The Ugly Truth is Beautiful

Paul Dobransky, M.D. — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:20:24 +0000

In a recent, well-researched, and superbly-crafted article in Newsweek, June 29, 2009, author Sharon Begley makes a case against the entire field of Evolutionary Psychology. Titled, "Why Do We Rape, Kill and Sleep Around?" the piece is an inflammatory damning of fundamental principles which seek to explain human instincts, drives and impulses, and even those that markedly differ between men and women.

She is actually rather convincing to a point. It would be too bad to see a body of knowledge that appears to clearly explain not only the non-verbal, hidden, illogical, and otherwise unexplainable about human behavior in general. Even the differences between men and women which in our current culture of political correctness create such a communication divide between the genders it's no wonder it's hard to find a successfully, happily married person these days.

Convincing to a point, that is, until you indulge in something as simple as a sugary-sweet romantic comedy called The Ugly Truth. Viewed intuitively, it obliterates her arguments against Evolutionary Psychology. While the "animal side" of our nature produces much harm, it is also absolutely necessary to find life's greatest gift - love.

Like many fields of psychology, one might be tempted to wrap a set of principles around each and every human behavior and experience, then come face to face with the specific exceptions it does not explain. Instead, wouldn't it be sensible to see each model that emerges as a piece of a grand puzzle, an amalgam or synthesis of all former theory which has been called "unification theory" - to this point, a patchwork or stew of models which, collected, do their best to explain as much of our inner clockworks as possible.

What if Evolutionary Psychology speaks quite accurately, and only, to the "animal nature" of human beings, to instinct, and impulses, drives and unconscious pressures and motivations that, no, are not logical in a classical sense, but only insofar as the pressures of environments through history exerted on the human species.

And even found a biological purpose for men and women to grow different habits, preferences, traits, motivators, desires and passions than the other.

Enter The Ugly Truth - a film full of expectable twists, and a formulaic, but pleasing plot. Yet, so honest, and genuine in dialogue, issues, and gender realism.

Chadwick, the ne'er-do-well host of a late night cable access show on men's psychology and gender played by Gerard Butler, meets the refined, sexually impoverished producer played by Katherine Heigl.

He is all masculine animal, full of passion and truth-telling about the real and illogical instincts that run men's and women's behavior. He is a master of "the animal" in us in fact, while Heigl's character is the mature, sophisticated, and uber-logical-to-a-fault feminine woman who is at a loss for why she cannot attract the man of her dreams.

In the end, she teaches Butler the value and potential of love and commitment, and he teaches her the humanizing power of the passions, the unconscious drives, and the primitive beauty of the animal inside us all.

"Inside" us is the key to understanding.

Perhaps you have heard of "Russian Nesting Dolls," called Matryuschka Dolls. They are the wooden, lacquered figurines which, when opened, reveal another doll, inside the doll, inside the doll.

One early precept of Evolutionary Psychology is the notion of Paul McLean's Triune Brain Theory - that in the course of evolution, the brains of species evolved from a more primitive, survivalist, "Reptilian Brain," to sprout on top of it, the emotional circuitry of social animals called mammals, with "Mammalian Brains." Then later, with the rise of the human species, the "most advanced animals," who have a well-developed neocortex capable of rational thought, abstract reasoning, and a sense of sentience, rights, responsibility, boundaries, ethics or morality. "The Moral Animal."

If these were to be seen as a kind of triple software package of the mind rather than just placed in anatomical position in the cranium, one could envision them like the Russian Dolls, the sum total of our behavior as more than the sum of its parts, with a rational mind capable of diplomacy on the surface, emotion underneath, and at the core, still there after eons, the "animal."

Begley is looking at Evolutionary Psychology and the behaviors it explains as if it espouses that "animals" are all humans are capable of being. Her rightful concern that deviants in society could cite it as an excuse for criminal or unethical behavior is well-founded.

But we are more than just animals. We must not forget the mature, moral, diplomatic, courteous "doll" of the "Higher Brained" neocortex, covering the doll of the "Mammalian Brained" emotional circuitry, covering the doll that is the Reptilian Brain - the drives, reproductive and survival instincts, passions of the unconscious.

In the common sense of a simple romantic comedy, we see and recognize something true and universal about men and women and how they behave, feel and act passionately about. We discover that we are far more than animals.
We are capable of love, maturity, commitment, teamwork, and have a natural sense of story, plot and meaning in our romances.

But we need to not throw out the "animal nature" which fires the passions for the opposite gender, ignoring it or pretending it is not there, as did Heigl's character for so long, and to the detriment of her quality of life.

Like all genuine experiences and authentic romances, this fairy tale reminds us that what seems so complex about us, and some things in that complexity, if they were all we are, would be frightening. Yet, seen as a mosaic of behavior and needs, desires, passions, logic, personality, character, maturity, and narratives of life - we are beautiful.

Even the animal side.

What 100,000 People Really Think of You

Paul Dobransky, M.D. — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:06:22 +0000

This past weekend I was in the process of doing all my writing due for the week, and noticed that I had been inside all day. Too much of that's not good for anyone.

I stopped my work, saw that it was sunny out, and although almost nobody I knew was around, I was determined to enjoy the weather anyway. Still, with many of my friends out of town, it felt a bit lonely.

I knew full well that one of the most amazing outdoor festivals of Chicago in the summer was going on, called the Old St. Pat's festival. An old band was playing there called Collective Soul, so I dropped my work and went down to see what was going on.

When I walked onto the grounds, the sun was going down, the band had started a song called, The World I Know, and as far as the eye could see it was an ocean of people.
The space was tight, and even then it covered something like five square blocks. The crowd was endless.

They were clustered in groups of three to six, forming circles that clumped together like marbles in a jar, yet I was standing outside of any single group. By then, a friend and I were having an impossible time finding each other, even with our cell phones and texting.

I noticed, then, how often I use a computer, a blackberry, answering client questions and responding to friend's news through it on email and Facebook and Twittering - daytime, middle of the night, it doesn't matter. With modern telecommunications, we are always "connected," but the quality of the connection is something to wonder about.

Suddenly, I became aware of an idea we don't often think about: Seeing crowds - all these people in person - is a profound human experience in the sheer physicality of what other people mean to us.

I asked a staff person how many were there.

"10000" was the answer.

I looked at the crowd at first and felt like it was such a strange thing to think that not a one of them knew me personally - yet here we were, all together physically.
Really thinking on it, though, I started to doubt this.

It was actually very likely that a lot of them know my name or face socially or professionally, but through the hustle and bustle I just hadn't run into them yet.

Still further, I'd bet I've written quite a few of them - and finally, it dawned on me that in email and text, Facebook and live, in person - as patients, as friends, as clients of our services for men and women I have likely treated in my lifetime, or met, written, helped, or befriended - I must certainly "know" many multiples of this collection of people.

In my second book with Penguin, The Power of Female Friendship (2008), I cite Lisa Habib, of WebMD on the topic of friendship connections to others:

FRIENDS DWINDLE

By Lisa Habib WebMD medical News

June 23, 2006 -- How many people are you really close to? Chances are, not as many as you might have been 20 years ago.

A new survey shows that most people's circle of confidants is on average about one person smaller now. And the percentage of people who say they have no one to confide in has now reached about 25%.

Dwindling Discussion Network

Sociologists call this circle your "discussion network" -- people you reach out to for help, advice, or just as a sounding board. In the new research, they say the network is important because it shapes "the kinds of people we become."

The new conclusions come from the General Social Survey, which has been conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago since 1972. Researchers looked at results from 1985 and 2004.

Duke University and University of Arizona sociologists found the average number of people who are considered close confidants dropped by nearly one-third, from 2.94 in 1985 to 2.08 in 2004. They call this drop dramatic.

"We were surprised to see such a large change," says Miller McPherson, PhD, research professor of sociology at Duke and professor of sociology at the University of Arizona.

In a news release, McPherson says the researchers are even a bit skeptical about the results. Regardless, he says they are "confident there is a trend toward smaller, closer social networks more centered on spouses and partners."

'Not Good for Society'

Their report says there was a drop in both the number of confidants who are friends and the number of confidants who are family members. But the drop-off was greatest in the number of confidants who are friends; people are relying more on the nuclear family.

People have fewer contacts through clubs, neighbors, and organizations outside the home, the report says.

Is that so wrong?

"This change indicates something that's not good for our society. Ties with a close network of people create a safety net. These ties also lead to civic engagement and local political action," says Duke's Lynn Smith-Lovin, PhD, in the news release.

Blame the Internet?

While the survey didn't determine why there's been such a change in our discussion networks, the researchers have a few ideas.

They speculate the increase in the number of hours people work keeps them from interacting with their community.
The growth of the Internet as a communication tool also may be to blame. While the Internet might keep us connected to friends, family, and neighbors, it may diminish the need for us to actually see each other to make closer connections, the researchers say.

They also say the way survey participants answered the questions in 1985 and 2004 might be different, the researchers say. These days, people might not consider instant messaging or email true "discussion."

So, close friends and the physicality of spending time with them are dwindling, perhaps in part due to technology, while our telecommunications have been exponentially on the rise for many years.

Seeing the numbers, live, at this festival made all the difference for me - new ways of thinking about friendship connections - and it can do the same for you.

The size of the crowd was the kind of thing that makes you breathless.

Could it really be that we can affect the lives of that many people? When you see them in person, the realization is staggering. Once you do the exercise of really taking the size of a physical crowd to heart, you'll take pride in the impact you've had on people in person, and never be lonely in a crowd again. You can know that your effect is out there somewhere, in their heads, their conversations, and their ways of living - your friends.

Now, I know, as you do, that often when we do good for someone else they may not let us know how it affects them months or years down the road. We're all used to hearing more complaints from others than thanks.

But what would it do for your life if you literally knew - precisely - the end result on the lives of others you have had? Something out of It's a Wonderful Life, to be sure.

You can try this out for yourself.

I looked it up.

100,000 People Have an Opinion of You

A man named William Leat Heat Moon was driving through North Dakota. To pass the time, he did some mental calculation on the total number of other people he has encountered in his whole life - whether a wave hello, or a greeting, conversation, date or relationship, the number he arrived at taking into account who he has met so far, and those he will meet until he is ninety totaled an admittedly generous but whopping 100,000 people!

Go HERE, to see the article:
http://eclectic24.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/how-many-people-will-you-meet-in-your-lifetime/

If there are about 30,000 days in a ninety year-old life, that's about three new encounters a day.

You clearly have this opportunity just in going down the block to get a Subway sandwich for lunch five days a week. Yet, the question arises whether you will bother to smile, to say HI, to approach the men and befriend the women as sisters on your team - with a purpose to live for.

What if you touched the lives of others only once they've reached middle age, and have half way to go to the end of it all?

Then the unique way you will have affected them - the aspect of your skill, your nature, your ideas, beliefs, and care - will have led to a total of others you will have had an impact on to an incomprehensible amount - about the population of the earth itself - over 5 BILLION people!

That's all you. Literally, in your lifetime you actually have the chance to affect the lives of approximately the whole population of the earth.

You do, and that's just routine living, a flash of recognition or bothering to say hello!

The sad truth is that today - as seen in Habib's article - many cannot even count the number of close friends they have on one hand, and the number of dates and romantic encounters they can count might be that in a number of months, or years, or even longer.

There is such a large abyss between us, in our heads, behind our computer screens, and the real, live people out there to know, date, and team with.

Part of the problem may be that we don't bother to smile, or initiate, or approach FIRST, and I challenge you now to start doing that...

But the other part may very well be that we don't know how, or when, where, or are even aware that this incredible opportunity is going on around us every day.

When we cultivate the core human skill without which, no change or growth can happen in life - psychologists call it Observing Ego, and Buddhists call it "mindfulness" - we are no longer doomed to have social, career, or romantic regrets.

With Observing Ego, you are going to start being more aware of your social opportunities.

When you do, you are not surrendering the steering wheel of your life to your stresses, challenges and tyrannical work schedule anymore. You are in the driver's seat, meeting those 5+ billion people.

Some of us don't notice when our friendships dwindle or decline in quality. We stay passive in life and devoted to a career, but all around us there is opportunity to befriend others, to spread our social networks, and through those, to filter down to the closest, best friends we could imagine, narrowing the dating activity we do down to just a few, and ultimately just one right person for life if you so choose.

If you were to even become slightly aware of the sheer number of men and women - not that you already know - but whom you could meet if you were the one to initiate friendly contact, it would cause you embarrassment and regret to know what you have been missing.

As many as 100,000 people could know you and have fond emotionsabout the memory, even if they never got your name.

As many as 5 billion could potentially have some small improvement in life because of you.

That's staggering.

What if you don't do anything from here forward, and not many of those people at all will give you a second thought when you're gone?

If you don't start acting now, awake and aware of the sheer numbers of people you could affect or help, the people who could be your allies, and the people you could attract and befriend, you will have massive regrets when you realize what you will have lost.

You will never have given yourself the chance to make impact on between 100,000 and 5 billion people.

You may at times think that friends have forgotten you, or that you don't know nearly as many people as you used to, or that your life did not measure up to what you thought it would be when you were young.

All that thinking is wrong, because you don't have the bird's eye view. You are only one opinion of you, out of many thousands, most likely.

In fact, 100,000 people can't possibly be wrong about you.

That many people could actually admire, appreciate, and have better lives because of you at this very moment - and you don't need to be a star, a celebrity or politician to enjoy this likelihood.

You can just be the ordinary, but unique you - of all the people in the world, the only you that could possibly have touched others in the specific way that you do.

Go into a crowd today and consider how many people it really is.

The Definition of Friendship

A definition of friendship I devised, that's always been helpful for me, is:

Consistent, mutual, shared positive emotion.
By consistency, we are being mature, have good boundaries, and keep our promises.

Being mutual, we do lean on friends, but also give back, as 50-50 as possible.

Being positive, having good emotions to give away is the core of friendship. We shy away from negative emotion and are attracted to the positive. Being depressed or anxious actually harms our friendship ability, whether we choose to accept that or not.

The aspect of sharing is the one so affected by technology. For eons we have been hard-wired for in-person communication and friendship, yet today we try at times to do it almost entirely electronically.

The sharing of friendship suffers.

But that's what really feeling the effect of the crowd did for me, and it could do the same for you - experiencing the physicality in the massive number of people you have a chance to know.

Time to smile more, wave more, and be the one with the responsibility to initiate, approach, befriend, and continue to maintenance your connection to other people.

Your life's destiny is depending on it, and - you never know - perhaps the destinies of over 100,000 others.

The Bridges of Sanford County, Part II (Or "The Devil in the Details")

Paul Dobransky, M.D. — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:40:29 +0000

" I realized love won't obey our expectations, its mystery is pure and absolute." - Francesca, Bridges of Madison County

Some who cheat cite, "the Devil made me do it," but it would be far more useful to say, "I did it because I'm trapped with very normal needs I cannot possibly get met." They thought they would always be met - the partnership of commitment, the bond of love, and the passion of sex, erroneously assumed to be guaranteed by a legal document: the marriage contract.

The truth is that the only guarantee of our needs being met in a relationship is the slow, careful vetting of another which used to be called courtship. Or what biologists call a "mating sequence." Either way it is described, a conscious attention to this ancient social process has relatively fallen to the wayside in modern western cultures - the very first portion of it, the passion of sexual attraction, never understood as the illogical, irrational, chaotic process it has always, and will always be.

Keeping passion for another cannot be memorialized as a contract, a conscious promise, because this attraction is not a choice.

What if "the Devil" of the saying, "the Devil made me do it," isn't literally out there somewhere in the physical environment to fight, resist, reject, or "defeat," but is rather more "the Devil inside" - a metaphorical feature of our animal instincts we have no conscious choice about, to which some Evolutionary Psychologists attribute just two prime functions:

• To survive (which implies, to kill if necessary, or be killed.)
• To reproduce (not within proper social conventions, or with consideration and ethics, but simply to pass on our genes - not randomly or sloppily, but according to specific masculine and feminine instinctual strategies.)

Males have billions of sex cells over a lifetime and women have hundreds of viable eggs by comparison that could become fertilized and grow as a fetus. It might then make sense why men always seem to get "caught with their pants down," literally, while pursuing woman after woman in secret. It makes sense why women who vest such care, wise judgment, and discrimination in selecting the best possible mate can become indignant at this natural, instinctual difference.

Still, as with the fictional Francesca of Bridges of Madison County, and the real, female author, Sandra Tsing Loh, featured in the recent Atlantic Monthly - http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/divorce - women do in fact, also cheat, perhaps in equal numbers, but in a very different pattern and with a different, underlying, instinctual - and therefore often unconscious - genetic strategy.

This "Devil inside" cannot be "defeated," extinguished, or pretended to not exist - your instincts and drives are inside you, all men, all women, and aren't going anywhere.

Neither is infidelity. As a recent blog comment states, there's not disappointment, but power in this knowledge, and answers to living happy lives regardless of our dark sides.

Whether male or female committing the act, we call it at best, "juvenile" or "adolescent," and at worst, "evil." All of which are accurate if you were to see the aggressive drives of a kindergarten toddler wrenching a toy away from another - resembling in many ways, an adult withholding love from a partner who won't comply with their every wish - or the savage instincts of a death-struggle between two animals that ends in one eating the other - so easily felt in the spirit of the modern human struggle of divorce. You could call it all either juvenile or even evil.

When people cheat, they don't literally attack each other physically, though the trauma on the emotions may feel just as painful, and outright be as thoughtless as the words and actions of a child. In divorce, people don't literally kill each other, though they likely do kill the dreams of another, slaying the image of what the couple could have been, and draining the lifeblood of their work-efforts from their bank accounts.

At the root of such conflicts is the drive to survive at all costs, and to reproduce whatever it takes. If you were to find just one word representing them both in this area of the mind once called by Evolutionary Psychologists, "the Reptilian Brain," that word must certainly be "passion" - such a powerful force of behavior that it is automatically played out by the body, in action - devoid of judgment, impulsive, and ignoring what may very well be a long history of character and civility.

One mistake does not negate a lifetime of cultivating character and maturity any more than one home-run ball thrown by a Major League pitcher keeps him out of the Hall of Fame, or one episode of forgetting to hand your child their lunchbox as they run out the door somehow makes you a globally bad mother.

We are so quick to demand perfection of each other while being so lacking in understanding of the simplest needs and ways of the other gender - which must have been at least partially mastered by every single one of our forebears...

...or we wouldn't be here today.

They didn't know about Evolutionary Psychology, but they must have known passion when they saw it in the eyes of their other, felt it when they provided what the other's instincts needed, and when that other understood their needs in return.

There are passionate, sexy love stories, but also "crimes of passion," not at all romantic. In every case of its use, the word passion keys into - that's right - either the life-and-death struggle to survive, or to the animal drive to mate, to reproduce.

Passion equals instinct. Passion lives exclusively in "the Reptilian Brain."

Let's take the Triune Brain Model of Paul McLean into practical application - where the Reptilian Brain is the center of the instincts, the unconscious, the Mammalian Brain is the center of emotion (and love), and the "Higher Brain" is in the neocortex full of the intellect, wisdom, abstract thought, ethics and boundaries that allow us to truly commit and partner (as well as set humans apart from other higher animal species.)

Because of the emotional bonding of the Mammalian Brained area of the mind, we love and form friendships.

Because of the maturity, ethics, and boundaries of the Higher Brain, we become capable of true commitment and keeping (most) promises.

Yet the Reptilian Brain is the difficult child, the troubling one, the devil in the details of romance.
It is about only lust and desire. It is not love, not partnership or teamwork, or contracts, agreements or promises.

This Reptilian Brain is raw passion only.

It does not steer us to "love, honor and cherish," but to mate - thoughtlessly by its very nature, in poor judgment that is irrelevant to its purposes, and sometimes with great regret which is an insignificant casualty of its war on anything in the path of survival and reproduction.

The impulsiveness of the Reptilian Brain ignores at times and often offends our high character, our mature sense of ourselves, and our healthy pride in being good people, which is how those who do cheat often also describe their own actions as self-traumatizing.

Following one's "Reptilian Brained" passions then has both a light and dark side. When following them to the detriment of others, we certainly hurt them and may even hurt ourselves, our pride in character and ethics. But in not following them, we harm ourselves just the same - and those attached to us - by feeling less alive and happy, less real and fully present, less genuine, and in some cases, no more than an empty shell of "niceness."

Tennessee Williams told us he feared that if his devils were to flee, his angels would leave him too. If so, we'd best be cautioned - in always seeking to prevent or minimize the pain infidelity causes ourselves - that ignoring, shaming, or attempting to extinguish the desire and passion of the other is not the way to steer it back toward us.

Sexual attraction is not logical, is not a choice, not a conscious agreement.

It can't be effectively policed or restricted by mere words and policies any more than wars can. It arises for reasons we are unaware of, and can be just as mysteriously fleeting. It must be enticed, appealed to, and cleverly influenced by our body language, our insinuations and flirtation - not logical argument, promises in a marriage contract we demand be fulfilled, or abet our wish for, or illusion of control.

When we have made promises to others, and they have made them in return, it is exceedingly uncomfortable to see their passions not in alignment with the promises.

We are "losing them."

It's even more uncomfortable to admit that they are following a straying path that makes them feel more alive - which is not, well, involving us. They have committed an error of judgment, letting the passions have their way, but somehow feel more real and alive for so doing.

We hate them for doing this, and we hate strangers for reminding us that it's real and has happened to us too.

Most uncomfortable of all, we know that somehow we have made an error of omission - we've failed to do the mysterious, invisible, enticing things that would have impassioned them and kept us from losing them.

The media offer us a temporary but unsatisfying solution for our anxiety - a Gladiator contest of heroes and villains, good and evil, right and wrong - in which we can see our own conflicts, struggles with passion, and the "Devil inside" instead projected back out there, where he is safer by being imagined as somehow not a part of ourselves.

The "Reptilian Brain" carries a striking symbolic similarity to "the serpent" which traditionally represents "the Devil," but to the biologist, is simply a form of life nearly entirely run by instinct alone.

We call that cheating guy, "a snake" because he seems incapable of emotion, empathy, and maturity of character.

The Media, and "Projection"

Story after story of infidelity such as Governor Mark Sanford's might make us wonder if infidelity is "on the rise" rather than simply being due to ever-increasing public access to the personal lives of prominent office-holders, celebrities, and others in public service, entertainment or communications.

Clearly cheating is a moral wrong, a broken promise of the greatest proportions - those both male and female commit it, and are "bad" for doing so, and receive consequences. This doesn't make them more passionate for us though.

We have a need to fill in the details of stories for which we only have partial details, and half-plot-lines, and only barely a clue about the real lives of only one or two of the entire cast of characters. Absent the full details, we have a tendency to project our own good and bad onto the story. This means that there must be a hero and a villain, or it doesn't make sense to us.

All people have some good and some bad in them. In the case of cheating, we can identify our own good side with the goodness of the victim, and feel all the better for being like someone so widely discussed and sympathized with. We can project our own bad onto the bad person who committed the ethical wrong, and in so doing also feel better - after all, also widely discussed, but demonized, they must then be far more bad than us.

In truth, they are a couple equally responsible for the outcome of their relationship through communicating, attracting, loving, negotiating, compromising, policing, forgiving, limit-setting, collaborating, maintenance, and what is so very often forgotten in the earliest stages of dating today - courting with wisdom in the first place.

That is to say, being patient enough to assure sexual chemistry, friendship, compatibility, values, beliefs, goals and maturity are all in alignment before ever even vaguely entertaining "I do," and walking away if it is not right.

We are all just as good and as bad as those we see in the media, just as tempted, just as imperfect, and fallible, and as at risk of being hurt and hurting others. This is precisely why the plight and passion of the very ordinary, non-celebrity, non-politician characters of Bridges are so touching. They are us.

It's also uncomfortable to know we are capable of both good and bad - precisely why the plight and passion of the celebrity, the politician, and those in the public eye are unforgivable. They are our convenient screens on which to project. We cling to their dramas in order to feel better.

We need them to be perfect icons, not normal like us.

The Animal Mating Sequence

What is "normal" on one end of the scale, and what is "perfect" on the other end? If we were to take a bow to Evolutionary Psychology and also define "normal" as what is biologically natural, then infidelity for both males and females would be quite normal. It's rampant, and always has been - animal behavior that, like war, no public policy, religion, moral or civilizing force has ever extinguished, or barely even suppressed.

In The Bridges of Madison County, Francesca says, "And in that moment, everything I knew to be true about myself up until then was gone. I was acting like another woman, yet I was more myself than ever before."

What if we are both normal and natural biologically, yet occasionally (or even often) morally wrong at the same time? What if we can be both "bad," and also full of passion - and at once feel fully alive? What if we can also be both "good," and also passionless, "on the wrong path," as far as personal fulfillment, and therefore feeling something less than alive? Perhaps Mark Sanford, like Francesca, like Jenny Sanford, or like any of the rest of us, have occasionally felt these passions and the conflicts they give rise to.

These dilemmas could be bypassed if we dropped the moralizing, politicizing, and special interest group agendas for a minute - the "good/bad" distinction - and looked at them instead in terms of biologically "in error." In this light, there are errors of commission, and errors of omission - what we do that causes us an unhappy result, versus what we fail to do that does so.

Lucky for us, as members of the animal kingdom, nature has provided a way to instinctively know "what's right," from "what's wrong and in error" - the mating sequence, or "mating dance," in which the male does one seductive action, the female does one flirtatious action in return, and the cycle continues until the passions of both are trained on each other intensely.

In pair bonding - coupling up - both parties are also capable of making an error that stops the whole process, but if both do the steps of the dance right, and in order, it generally goes fine.

The "Devil inside" can be tamed and steered in our favor, to our benefit and that of our eventual exclusive other.

This human mating sequence - through an understanding of the subtleties of dating and mating behavior that can actually be brought out and learned in live social situations - is being taught by seminar companies that are starting to pop up around the world. It is what amounts to the first "practical applications" of Evolutionary Psychology to modern dating. (Unfortunately, nearly none are conducted or administered by actual scientists, but if you want to know how, write me.)

Across species, males and females have differing roles springing from differing instincts in the mating sequence - like puzzle pieces, dancers, and DNA itself, we make a complementary fit for each other.

The Governor's instincts were doing exactly what they are programmed to do, and his wife's instincts are reacting just as they are designed to - to be enraged, betrayed and beyond turned off at a display of low character in a male. Both are passion-driven, just as what drives animals to kill, humans to cheat and revile the cheating of others, and whole nations to wage war on each other.

Yet both members of any couple will have a role in healing each other after infidelity - preventing errors of commission by fixing errors of omission in the ongoing courtship - stopping what we do to cause harm, and starting what, if forgotten or ignored, also causes harm.

In this way a couple returns again and again to the steps of courtship, the human mating sequence, to refurbish its biologically required dance steps like one may throw a second and third wedding celebration to renew the vows.

If we were to look at most cases of cheating and compare the personalities, the attraction, the ways of being with the other vis a vis the affair partner, we'd most often come away seeing that what the spouse lacks, the affair partner has, and what the affair partner lacks, the spouse has. This might explain the excruciating difficulty in leaving one for the arms of another, or returning to a mate without thinking of the affair partner ever again.

In this way, we may be building a "perfect courtship" with a "perfect mate" out of more than one individual, rather than knowing the biology of courtship in the first place well enough to select a mate that is going to be all we will ever need or have passion for in one person.

When the Governor says he will strive to "fall in love with his wife again," he likely doesn't need to. Like Francesca, he already loves his spouse, and is committed to both her and the children - commitment being a long term effort of character maturity, not perfect, or capable of preventing every lapse of reason. But was temporarily hijacked by the irrational passions of the Reptilian Brain. Passion, sexual attraction, is not a choice.

Our problem is that desire (or passion), love, and commitment are not the same. They are three different features of romance, operating in three separate areas of the mind - the Reptilian, Mammalian, and Higher Brains of the Triune Brain model - connected but distinct. And need to be attended to as individual building blocks of a romance.

The Governor - like countless men, women, and the fictional Francesca - was for a time, objectively less passionate about his mate than a less-known other. Not just rightfully, but biologically, any mature, high character woman might feel less sexually attracted in return, as a result of the male lack of composure, impulsive, poor judgment, and thoughtlessness.

But like the rest of humanity, they won't be able to force desire, lay down rules on the instincts, logically convince the passions through moral argument, demand rational behavior of the irrational, or consciously choose to somehow, mysteriously, magically "just be attracted" again.

Instead, forgiveness will have to sooth the memory, and an effort made to somehow return to the playful, nonverbal flirtatious, fun, carefree natural experience that - ironically - adolescence, not cold, calculating maturity allowed in - not the serious weight of "proving one's love or commitment," but the freedom of the emotions we knew as kids at play.

They have a chance, but only through the illogical, irrational, naughty, playful, fun, flirty ways of passion - the very thing that can get humans into grave moral territory if omitted or neglected, but is the stuff of feeling truly alive like no other feature of our psychology.

If the devils flee, the angels leave with them. Forgive the devils instead, feed them seductiveness and they willingly, eagerly set up roost in your bedroom - no other's. The marriage contract can memorialize the rules of conduct and maturity in love's commitment to each other, but only the biology of courtship can take one by the hand in the wordless, rule-less dance of passion felt only for each other.

The Bridges of Sanford County, Part I

Paul Dobransky, M.D. — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:23:18 +0000

"This kind of certainty comes but once in a lifetime."
- Robert Kinkaid, Bridges of Madison County

What if you were forced to choose between being passionately "true to yourself," or quietly resigned to be "good to others?" What if at the only moment of true opportunity - however brief - you chose to betray another so as to not betray yourself?

Then you just might be one of the fans of the novel from the nineties called, The Bridges of Madison County - in its time hailed as a romance of romances, and the best selling hardcover fiction book in history.

It just recently struck me that if the genders and names of the characters in this novel and the film version of it were changed, it would be uncannily similar to the story of the prodigal Governor of South Carolina. Except that he was caught in midlife rather than just after passing on, and he was the one absent from the home (and admittedly, possibly unforgivably, his weighty duties of course), rather than the family he had let down.

I am not a specific fan of the man, his politics, policies, or particular details of his spiritual path, but however against the popular grain, however politically incorrect or annoying to those who want the world to be a certain way that it is not, something just doesn't sit right - not merely regarding the actions of Governor Mark Sanford, but also about our reaction to him.

He bare his soul, his conflicts and his confusion in a way which most who harbor a secret and evil agenda of deception instead continue to conceal, not amend and append the tale with further lurid but honest detail. One might just as easily identify him as the most honest politician anyone has ever heard of, rather than one worthy to be so quickly abandoned by his party as a bad example of what they stand for.

As Sanford returned to the podium again and again, making the world his therapist, digging himself in deeper by airing his fluctuating feelings, conflicts, and details - the lover as his "soulmate," and simultaneous insistence that he will labor at and accomplish falling in love with his wife again - many in the audience, jeered, but it is not a new story, nor necessarily one that must have an unhappy ending. As surgeons say, "It's not what you do, it's what you do next," and for that matter, it's not about the struggle of a lone individual, but a couple - not a "bad" you, or "good" me, but a happy, fulfilled "we."

A couple is not a couple at all if one is betraying the other, but it is also not a couple if either betrays the deepest desires of the self. Otherwise, the relationship is not much more than another job.

The Bridges of Madison County (1995)

In this well-loved romance, Meryl Streep's Francesca is a married mother of four, who finds herself helpless under the spell of passion that arises from a chance encounter with photographer Robert Kinkaid, played by Clint Eastwood.

From IMDb: "The path of Francesca Johnson's future seems destined when an unexpected fork in the road causes her to question everything she had come to expect from life. While her husband and children are away at the Illinois state fair in the Summer of 1965, Robert Kincaid happens upon the Johnson farm and asks Francesca for directions to Rosamunde Bridge. He explains that he is on assignment from National Geographic magazine to photograph the bridges of Madison County. She agrees to show him to the bridges and thus begins the bittersweet and all-too-brief romance of her life. Through the pain of separation from her secret love and the stark isolation she feels as the details of her life consume her, she writes down the story of this four-day love affair in a 3-volume diary. The diary is found by her children among her possessions and alongside Robert Kincaid's possessions after Francesca is dead. The message they take from the diaries is one of hope that they will do what is necessary to find happiness in their lives -- whatever is necessary."

They have an affair that is transforming, rich, genuine, touching, and a bond which seems to rise above and redeem what is also a clear moral wrong. We see the human frailty of being torn between the passions, promises made and contracts to keep in marriage.

Switch the genders, and this story might sound very similar to the Sanford remarks so quickly scoffed at:

Francesca: Robert, please. You don't understand, no-one does. When a woman makes the choice to marry, to have children; in one way her life begins but in another way it stops. You build a life of details. You become a mother, a wife and you stop and stay steady so that your children can move. And when they leave they take your life of details with them. And then you're expected move again only you don't remember what moves you because no-one has asked in so long. Not even yourself. You never in your life think that love like this can happen to you.

Robert Kincaid: But now that you have it...

Francesca: I want to keep it forever. I want to love you the way I do now the rest of my life. Don't you understand... we'll lose it if we leave. I can't make an entire life disappear to start a new one. All I can do is try to hold onto to both. Help me. Help me not lose loving you.

The beauty of the drama in that film is so mesmerizing, one would nearly forget the moral wrong this woman is committing, the effect on the children, the damage to the marriage (and the neighbors, community, and perhaps the reputation of Iowa) if found out. It's easy to forgive a Meryl Streep she goes to her grave with the fond memories of the delicious, secret tryst. It is the experience of two lovers powerless in the face of biological forces.

Maybe there is a great release of tension for some in righteous indignation about yet another case of Gubernatorial infidelity, or on the other hand perhaps you're sick and tired of hearing the same old thing - "Man does moral wrong, is publicly shamed, and apologizes profusely."

Instead of more moralizing, maybe we could turn an analytical eye to these stories and wonder, "What really causes infidelity and what can be done about it?"

Curiosity about the root causes and preventative measures surrounding a tragic outcome does not constitute condoning it. In fact, overly moralizing, demonizing and finger-pointing might just do more to spread the behavior than a straight-on, clinical look with an analytic eye. If we were to ask "why" and "how" about these events - fair to men and women both of whom cheat, and are betrayed - we might find some practical answers in such little-explored places as animal mating sequences, human courtship, the effect of mass media on our opinions, and marked differences in romantic instincts between the genders.

If this couple has a chance, like any who endure an episode of infidelity - or dozens of them - the answers will not come from moral outrage, either theirs or that of the public, nor from seeing men only as perpetrators incapable of being hurt by their own passionate actions, nor seeing men as unscathed by what might be lacking in their relationships, somehow less hurt or suffering from what can be omitted as well as committed.

Instead, both men and women have a role in revisiting the steps of courtship, or the equivalent of a human mating sequence no less biologically necessary for a full and passionate pairing than that of the rest of the world's species.

It will require the illogical, irrationality of fun, flirtation and "feeling like a teenager again." But that can't come before first finding forgiveness, new respect for the boundaries of loyalty, and just as much need for privacy, calm, and a reprieve from the moralizing, politicizing, and overly serious commentary of the righteously indignant.

Wishing it were fixed will not make it so, but learning what the passions are, masculine, feminine, and their intimate workings in the mating dance, will.

Join me shortly, for part II.

If You Don't Have a Father Today...

Paul Dobransky, M.D. — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:45:41 +0000

Maybe you don't have a father anymore, or feel like you never did. Maybe you never knew him, or maybe he was never around enough to know - emotionally, mentally, or spiritually - even if he was often physically in the same room. Maybe you, yourself, are also a father, or will be soon, would like to be one someday, are married to one, have a child with one, or already have a fatherly role toward others as a teacher, advisor, mentor or boss. While we celebrate and honor the great fathers who are here with us today, many millions of us don't have one, and this day is for you too.

What can you do today, and how is it that you have made it this far without a dad to reach out to through the years?

Volumes of research on human resilience exist that explain your current success and healthy adjustment. Whether you are a man or woman, taking note of the fact that you do have a good life right now at this very moment is proof that you have everything in you that you ever needed to survive the loss of a father, the absence of a father, the need for a father, and thrive anyway. As someone who lost a father at a young age - and for over a decade has specialized in helping men and women overcome the effects of that absence on their dating, relationship, and career lives - I'd like to share a bit of that research, and some things I've learned along the way.

Fathers not only make us more resilient people, but our own natural resilience also assists us in finding the fathering we need. Human resilience has been defined as:

a. a positive outcome despite the experience of adversity;
b. continued positive or effective functioning in adverse circumstances; or
c. recovery after a significant trauma (Masten et al., 1999).

My own dad died when I was twenty-two, in the midst of medical school, and had just broken up with a fiancée. My little brothers were eighteen and about to enter college, and twelve and about to enter puberty. I could safely say that the particular week my dad died was also probably the week I had most needed him, ever. And while my brothers and I dealt with the loss at different developmental stages, with different challenges and gifts, and in unique ways amongst us, there were most certainly universal effects to overcome and actions to take to adapt and heal.

I called my brothers today to ask what they are doing. One informed me that he is going to connect with his former rugby coaches, his former priest, and our father's best friend from childhood. The second is going to church with his new wife and her parents. I am going to spend time writing about fathers, assisting some of my clients on the matter, and then will meet with some good male friends whose fathers aren't going to be in the city for the weekend.

I'm also thinking about personal heroes such as an old friend and journalist who passed on many years ago - Starr Wright. He was one of many fatherly people who stepped in to help me along when I needed it. He saw a glimmer of passion for writing in me long ago, encouraged it and nurtured it. With a chuckle thumbing through my earliest clumsy attempts at writing, Starr would put out his cigarette, cough, clear his throat, and regardless of my lack of inborn talent, stoke the pure interest and passion for it, saying, "You're doing good, kid. Keep at it and don't let anyone tell you what it's worth but you. Get to work."

In all of these personal examples, there is a common thread about resilient humans - men and women both. When we can't get what we need from a single source, we adapt and get it anyway from diverse sources past, present, and future. We find fathering in our mentors and coaches, our spiritual leaders or the spiritual experience itself, from looking at our father's life and his past, those who shaped him, indirectly from the fathers of our friends and loved ones, and even from our makeshift families called "circles of friends" - what have also been called "urban tribes" that can substitute for nontraditional or broken families.

We can even look to the future with guidance from men we have never even met, and will never likely meet - our heroes. Feeling fathered, the gifts fathers bestow, life skills they teach, and guidance they provide from a masculine worldview do not have to come from a single source. They can be collected and refined from our life's experience in the social arena itself, the "school of hard knocks," and the kind and competent men we meet along the way.

I'm particularly proud of my brothers' abilities to have graduated college, found excellence in careers, and a solid role in marriage and family with no resources or guidance to begin with.

The absence of a dad is certainly known to affect the young in different ways depending on what their level of psychological development is, but it's not just what's in you that matters - how you will do with your life is also dependent on what you surround yourself with, and what you do with the circumstances you are in, to adapt. To take your "lemons and make lemonade."

Glen Elder in Children of the Great Depression (1974), identified the profound effects of historical change on human development. By comparing the experiences of children born in Berkeley and parts of Oakland, California, in the early and late 1920s, he could show that children born at the beginning of the 1920s were not as susceptible to the effects of family disruption and hardship caused by the Great Depression as children born in the late 1920s (Elder, 1974/1999). The findings illustrate that developmental processes should be viewed not only in relation to individually lived time, but also in relation to the socio-historical context in which they take place.

We live in a time of history right now that has been compared to the Great Depression. And while many of the statistics show job losses taking a heavy toll on men's health and welfare even more than on women currently, we have different resources at our disposal in the form of social networking and technology, behavioral science and education. The need men and women have for a father hasn't changed, but the pressures on fathers, and our means of accessing their gifts, have.

It's a different and more challenging social world for men to contend with than it was a generation ago.

For about a decade I have contributed to teaching an online community of men who - on the surface - seek out information with which to better their dating, relationship, social and romantic lives in general. What I found in that time was something deeper than just a public need for more accessible dating tips for men. I met men of all ages, some single, some divorced, some fathers themselves and all struggling to find a role, a place, and social satisfaction in our changing society. The universal need underneath their diversity ends up clearly being a need for a father - they all identify an absent father, a neglectful one, an abusive one, a father confused over his own role in a marriage, community, or society, or at the very least, the absence of enough practical, genuine, fatherly advice from our media to the degree and breadth of social and romantic guidance that women have enjoyed for decades in that same media.

For the past several years, men haven't been flocking to the internet "men's dating community" to learn how to date. They're looking for a father.

Fathers teach us "how to use our bodies" - which is to say, how to take action out there in the world - to take our resources and use them, face our challenges with courage, adapt, innovate, and solve our problems with our own two hands.

They teach their sons about women, and competition with other men. They don't just lecture, but literally show their sons how to play sports or fix cars, or get a job that's meaningful. By example they show sons how to grow a character maturity which will lead to someday having a satisfying marriage, career, and a legacy to give back to the world (as he will have done for us.)

Fathers teach their daughters about men, both through their stories, and through personal example - being the very first man she has ever encountered and "fallen in love with." Fathers show their daughters they are valuable and precious, and will always, always be protected and safe, but that they have guts and strength and resolve no less than a man. If he can see to it, he will always be there for you to help, to remind you of who you are when you are confused or stressed, and that you are not just any girl or woman, a statistic in today's confusing social and romantic arenas, or a cog in a corporate wheel, but his daughter.

No matter who you are, a man or woman, or whether your father is alive or available to meet today, you come from a long line of fathers - generation after generation over centuries and ages have led up to making you who you are right now. You are a resilient person from a long line of resilient people. You have the right to celebrate today with all the joy you can muster, honoring those who have fathered you - mentors, advisors, teachers, spiritual leaders, friends, bosses and partners - whether they had one minute to spare which would impact you for a lifetime, or years of devoted concern to give.

It is a day to do - to take action the way fathers are so good at helping us with, rather than just to think or ponder our lives. Here, then, are some actions you can take:

• Contact those mentors, teachers, spiritual leaders, advisors, coaches, and elder friends from your past - to thank them for their impact.

• Be with the friends, supporters, and confidantes of your present life who are your examples of good fathering, and with whom you are striving to go out into the world to make an impact.

• Remember who your heroes have been and who they are now, noticing that their own best features are always aspects of yourself - perhaps qualities you haven't yet cultivated, matured, and brought to bear in the world around you. Join one new activity that your heroes are gifted at.

• Look to the future and enjoy it now instead of waiting for it to be provided to you. The actions you will take while being your own best counsel - fathering yourself - will lead there.

• Look to the future and wonder who you will provide fathering to, the impact you will make, and the legacy you will leave behind when you're gone. Start now, and offer to help someone less skilled than you, today.

Regardless of the reasons your father is not around - whether there is unfinished business, anger at him, remorse over what went unsaid or undone , loneliness and missing him, or in a time of stress for which you really wish he was around to provide the answer - you are still here and there are real things that need to get done. You don't have to impress his memory because you never could get his attention, or vow to be his opposite because he let you down. You are resilient, and can forgive his failings while enjoying the skills for building a life you inherited anyway, if only in his DNA.

Get to work.

Father's Day is your day too, and in every courageous act in which you do what is right, even if it is difficult or uncomfortable, every ambition in which you fail and pick yourself up anyway for another go at it, you're living a genuine Father's Day. Every time you pass on what you know, assisting someone with less competence, less experience or skill than your own, you are honoring yourself, and fathers everywhere. You're honoring fatherhood itself.

You're doing good, kid. Keep at it, and don't let anyone tell you what you're worth but you.