Monday, October 19, 2020

Intimate Relationship: How to Tell a "Keeper" from Someone who Isn't

Because of the misunderstanding reflected in in some of the early replies to this article when it was originally posted on Reddit's Codependency sub, may I make it clear that this is about romantic partner, employer-and-employee, coach-and-player and other adult-to-adult relationships. And NOT about children being neglected, rejected or abandoned by their parents. (That several people did that on this particular sub does intrigue me, however. Because a lot of people who do not process the grief -- and clear the hurdle -- of having been thus treated by their parents develop unfortunate compensations that cause others to reject and abandon them in adulthood.)

  1. A "Keeper" can see, hear, feel and sense what IS, including him- or herself, and you, and they recognize, acknowledge, accept, own and appreciate you and how they respond to you. They KNOW what and who they are either IN or OUT of the relationship... and consistently demonstrate that. ... Someone who Isn't (a "Keeper") can NOT see, hear, feel and sense what IS, including him- or herself, and you, and they are NOT able to recognize, acknowledge, accept, own and appreciate you and how they respond to you. They do NOT know what and who they are either IN or OUT of the relationship... and consistently demonstrate that.

  2. Most "Keepers" get along well with their parents and their siblings and do not race around on any Karpman Drama Triangles with them -- or you -- because their parents are relatively healthy, functional and do a pretty good job of seeing, hearing, feeling and sensing them as they are, without insisting that their children be precisely as they require. ... Someone who Isn't (a "Keeper") tends to NOT get along well with their parents and their siblings and does race around on Karpman Drama Triangles with them... and you.

  3. Most "Keepers" are who they really seem to be even after the "pink cloud" and the early hormone rush wears off. ... Someone who Isn't (a "Keeper") quickly morphs into something quite different from what they appeared to be during the pink cloud stage.

  4. Most "Keepers" are flexible and want to continue to explore and grow. ... Someone who Isn't (a "Keeper") is usually rigid, inflexible and incapable of growing.

  5. Most "Keepers" have reached the "formal operational" stage on Jean Piaget's developmental path, which what makes it possible for them to see, hear, feel and sense themselves and you. ... Most who are not "Keepers" didn't make it to that stage, and are stuck in "concrete operational" or -- even (far) worse -- "fantasy operational processing" (in not-moses’s reply to the OP on that Reddit thread) which makes them somewhere between partially and completely blind, deaf, dumb and functionally senseless insofar as the relationship is concerned.

  6. Most "Keepers" have reached the third tier of Kohlberg's stages of moral development, which is a further indication of flexibility under stress. ... Those who are not "Keepers" remain topped out in the second or -- (far) worse -- the first tier, and can be counted upon to be either morally perfectionistic or reliably antisocial, as well as some form of narcissistic even when they are not stressed.

  7. All "Keepers" have moved functionally through the first five stages on Erik Erikson's developmental path and are capable of functional "intimacy." ... Most who are not "Keepers" hit the wall somewhere along the path and are hung up there.

  8. The "Keeper" tends to already know or be able to grasp that "Love is being with what IS in relationship." ... Those who are not "Keepers" cannot and rarely ever will.

Resources & References

Berne, E.: Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relationships, San Francisco: Grove Press, 1964.

Bernstein, A.: Emotional Vampires: Dealing with People who Drain You Dry, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000.

Bowlby, J.: A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development, London: Routledge; New York: Basic Books, 1988.

Branden, N.: The Disowned Self, New York: Bantam Books, 1976.

Branden, N.: The Psychology of Romantic Love, New York: Bantam Books, 1981.

Carnes, P.: Don't Call it Love: Recovery from Sexual Addiction, New York: Bantam, 1991.

Carnes, P.: The Betrayal Bond: Breaking Free of Exploitive Relationships, Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications, Inc., 1997.

Erikson, E.: Childhood and Society, New York: W. W. Norton, 1950, 1967, 1993.

Erikson, E.: Identity and the Life Cycle, New York: W. W. Norton, 1959, 1980.

Gurdjieff, G.: Life is Real Only Then, When I Am, New York: Viking, 1974, 1991.

Harris, T.: I’m Okay—You’re Okay, New York: Harper and Row, 1968.

Hendrix, H.: Getting the Love You Want: A Guide for Couples, New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1988.

Hendrix, H.; Hunt, H.: Keeping the Love You Find: A Guide for Singles, New York: Pocket Books, 1992.

Kabat-Zinn, J.: Wherever You Go, There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in Everyday Life: New York: Hyperion, 2004.

Kabat-Zinn, J.: Coming to Our Senses, Healing Ourselves and the World Through Mindfulness, New York: Hyperion, 2005.

Karpman, S.: Fairy tales and script drama analysis, in Transactional Analysis Bulletin, Vol. 7, No. 26, 1968.

Kohlberg, L.: The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984.

Krishnamurti, J.: On Relationship, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992.

Krishnamurti, J.: On Love and Loneliness, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993.

Lissette, A.; Kraus, R.: Free Yourself from an Abusive Relationship: 7 Steps to Taking Back Your Life, Alameda, CA: Hunter House, 2000.

Marcia, J.: Development and validation of ego identity status, in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 3, 1966.

Masterson, J. (editor/author): The Personality Disorders Through the Lens of Attachment Theory and the Neurobiologic Development of the Self, Phoenix, AZ: Zeig, Tucker & Theisen, 2004.

Mellody, P.; Miller, A. W.: Facing Codependence: What It Is, Where It Come From, How It Sabotages Our Lives, San Francisco: Harper, 1989.

Mellody, P.; Miller, A. W.: Breaking Free: A Workbook for Facing Codependence, San Francisco: Harper, 1989.

Mellody, P.: Miller, A. W.: Facing Love Addiction: Giving Yourself the Power to Change the Way You Live, San Francisco, Harper, 1992.

Millon, T.: Personality Disorders in Modern Life, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2004.

Norwood, R.: Women Who Love Too Much: When You Keep Wishing and Hoping He'll Change, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985.

Payson, E.: The Wizard of Oz and other Narcissists: Coping with One-Way Relationships in Work, Love and Family, Royal Oak, MI: Julian Day, 2002.

Piaget, J.: The Origins of Intelligence in Children, New York: International University Press, 1936, 1952.

Rogers, C.: On Becoming a Person, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961, 1995.

Schaef, A. W.: Escape from Intimacy, New York: Harper-Collins, 1987.

Schaef, A. W.: Co-dependence: Misunderstood, Mistreated, New York: HarperOne, 1992.

Shaver, P.; Mikulincer, M.: Psychodynamics of Adult Attachment: A Research Perspective, in Journal of Attachment and Human Development, Vol. 4, 2002.

Simon, G.: In Sheep's Clothing: Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People (Revised Ed.), Marion, MI: Parkhurst Bros., 1996, 2010.

Sullivan, H. S.: The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry, New York: W. W. Norton, 1968.

Tart, C.: Waking Up: Overcoming the Obstacles to Human Potential, New York: New Science Library, 1987.

Weinhold, B.; Weinhold, J.: Breaking Free of the Co-dependency Trap, Revised Edition, Novato, CA: New World Library, 2008.

Weinhold, J.; Weinhold, B.: The Flight from Intimacy: Counter-dependency--The Other Side of Co-dependency; Novato, CA: New World Library, 2008.

1 comment:

  1. re: the italic text, I kind of get what you're trying to say (That not retaining a relationship with parents isn't the problem) but I do feel some rephrasing of the point would help for clarity. The bracketed stuff reads a bit condescending, with giving advice it's important to recognize that people aren't always at where you're at recovery-wise (Especially if they're 20somethings) and to not put people on the defensive/talk down to them. "Hmm, seems everybody disagreeing hasn't processed their trauma :)" especially where they can see it = will read as dismissive, folk go on the defensive and won't as readily absorb the point that was intended.

    I think people went :/ and ran with it because how the sentence was constructed = what it was supposed to convey didn't land (That no longer having a relationship with them is fine but keeping contact with those same dynamics going on isn't good) as opposed to 'oh lots of mass-projection going on'. Phrasing goofs happen, it clicked for me after clarification/sussing it out but it took me a bit, it wasn't so clear that the 'and' qualifier was a necessary part if that makes sense (rather than each point without them operating on standalone).

    Anyway yeah, clashes/lost-in-translation happens, I get not wanting to do the other extreme of "if you engage in maladaptive responses ur valid" this is just how I feel things could've been phrased better. Not trying to chew you out or anything, there's good advice there.

    ReplyDelete