Filtered by author: Jeremiah Gibson Clear Filter

We Do: A Book Review (part 3)

This is the third of a four part series of Stan Tatkin's new book, We Do: Saying Yes to a Relationship of Depth, True Connection, and Enduring Love. This portion involves how Tatkin addresses sexuality, substance use, and infidelity. A special thanks goes to Peter Jones, EdD for writing this series.

In We Do, sex, with its intensity of contact and proximity, is presented as a potential psychobiological minefield, fueling the troublesome triad of communication, perception and memory. Because “in the psychobiological world partners repeat the same mistakes everywhere, regardless of the situation,” what goes wrong in sex is predictable from trouble in other areas.  

Read More

We Do: A Book Review (part 4)

This is the fourth of a four part series of Stan Tatkin's new book, We Do: Saying Yes to a Relationship of Depth, True Connection, and Enduring Love. A special thanks goes to Peter Jones, EdD for writing this series.

Some users may object that Tatkin’s vision calls for relationship relentlessly up close. They may prefer a vision of relationship with more distance and independence.

Read More

We Do: A Book Review (part 1)

This is the first of a four part series of Stan Tatkin's new book, We Do: Saying Yes to a Relationship of Depth, True Connection, and Enduring Love. A special thanks goes to Peter Jones, EdD for writing this series.

In We Do, Stan Tatkin sets out a conception of successful relationships, what gets in the way, and what couples need to know to prevent and repair trouble.

With no lack of books on the market seeking to help couples, We Do is a significant contribution for its solid grounding in current neuroscience and attachment research, and Tatkin’s flair for making that research accessible in fresh language while articulating a rich model of successful relationship.

Tatkin offers readers a binocular perspective on relationships: one lens focusing on agreements, principles and social justice; the other lens focusing on automatic psychobiological (body/brain) wiring that can undermine couples’ best intentions. The binocular depth that results sheds new light on key areas of couples’ difficulties such as sex, fighting, and betrayal, while generating new strategies solutions and tweaks to handle them.

Tatkin argues that couples’ best chance at enhancing their survival in a dangerous world, and from there to thrive, is to adopt a model of relationship as “secure functioning”. We Do is a thorough exploration of secure functioning, what it looks like across lifecycle phases in a couple relationship, and how it can be unintentionally undermined.

Simply put, secure functioning couples learn who they are, including how they are shaped by their earliest experiences, know what they are doing together, what they agree to, how to collaborate on making changes, and how to minister to each other when in distress.

To do this well Tatkin helps couples collaboratively create explicit, shared “principles of governance” based in values such as fairness, justice, sensitivity and reciprocity. A variety of clarification exercises support users in exploring what the explicit underpinnings of their relationship are and agreeing to what they should be.

Success in secure functioning may be based in agreements but requires a sharp eye on how implicit human psychobiological wiring, especially the nervous system, either supports or undermines their collaboration.

Tatkin’s skill as an educator and writer shines in his ability to set out the complexity of this neuroscience and attachment challenge in fresh language. He grounds his exploration in the importance of grasping the “troublesome triad” of memory, communication and perception.

Memory stemming from our prior relationships, beginning in childhood, is our main resource for managing the present, and without awareness and skill, history will repeat itself.

Communication is necessarily partial and easily misleading, leading to compounding errors in perception if uncorrected.

Compounded errors in perception lead to compromised affect and arousal states, with partners increasingly seeming threatening to each other without intending it. In conditions of even low-level threat, collaboration and alignment with agreements and shared visions is compromised.

Thus, the job for couples is two-fold, with a need to explore and develop explicitly their shared vision on one hand, and on the other to watch for how their minds, bodies, and brains can play tricks on them.





















Read More

We Do: A Book Review (part 2)

This is the second of a four part series of Stan Tatkin's new book, We Do: Saying Yes to a Relationship of Depth, True Connection, and Enduring Love. A special thanks goes to Peter Jones, EdD for writing this series.

Drilling down to reveal how the troublesome triad of memory, communication, and perception plays tricks on us, Stan Tatkin devotes several chapters of We Do to our mostly implicit, mostly automatic psychobiological systems, which are by default expert at detecting threat and waging war.

Tatkin lays out the architecture of systems with a variety of simplifications, many familiar by now to therapists but less so to other users. Crucial to managing the war are emotional and arousal (energy) regulation, a spectrum of attachment styles, the nervous system’s fight, fight, freeze and collapse responses, the window of tolerance, and not least, the negativity bias, an overarching tendency for the brain to lean negative and store negative memories, weighting psychobiological systems towards ever finer perceptions of threat.

Tatkin shows how reliance on automatic functioning, on board since early childhood, can lead to partners attributing intentions to each other that are the residue of unreflected, memory-based functioning in real time.

Real time is too fast, Tatkin says, limiting error-correction of inaccurate perceptions by the higher cortical areas of the brain. Vignettes illustrate the functioning of these system in interactions couples are all too likely to recognize. Corrective vignettes show how couples might handle those situations in light of each other’s implicit wiring.

Crucial to error correction is coregulation, the capacity of partners to both take their partners’s nervous systems into account and make adjustments. Fast remediation of old responses, potentially rewiring for secure functioning, is possible with a renewed, better informed effort to coregulate. Failing to respond appropriately to the other’s state through coregulation, partners can easily spin out and begin to seem threatening and predatory to each other.

Tatkin offers secure functioning as the couple’s necessary antidote to the inevitable specter of threat, which all relationships must learn to manage. A relationship is secure functioning when couples can keep threat limited enough to support cooperation and collaboration on realizing their shared vision of relationship.    

The practical value of the binocular approach pays off in extended treatment of areas of perennial difficulty for couples such as sex, fighting, and betrayal.

For fighting, Tatkin leads with the secure-functioning directive that partners must learn to “take care of their partner and themselves at the same time.” This simplification is countered by the psychobiological limitations that come into play in a close relationship: the negativity bias coupled with attachment insecurities, each leading to coregulation difficulties.

The physiology of vision complicates matters and is crucial to understand; the depth of Tatkin’s approach is perhaps best exemplified in his treatment of the importance of visual coregulation during fighting.

We only see clearly out of the center of the eye, the fovea, which is the size of a pinprick; we are effectively legally blind to the side. Since we don’t have a clear visual stream coming from the side, if our partner is to the side  the amygdala will fire more often, prepping for threat. The brain, angling towards negativity and in the absence of eye-to-eye visual coregulation, will fill in the blanks of the visual stream based on memory.

If partners get into a difficult topic and don’t have a rich enough visual stream, while driving, for instance, they are more likely to misinterpret partner’s responses, introducing errors. Without crosschecking what they are hearing with clear and steady visual cues, which would allow them to respond to partner distress fast enough, couples may find these errors compounding, leading them to square off, undermining collaboration.

Difficult topics must therefore be worked through face to face and eye to eye, not pointed toward the TV, the wall, the road, or even the therapist. While face-to-face, couples are urged to focus on one difficult topic at a time, and to not hold the floor too long; with rising stress, the nervous system is undersupplying oxygen and glucose to the higher cortical areas of the brain, making it hard to stay in the listening position long. None of this allows couples to correct errors in perception quickly enough.

Couples may thus find that the knowledge of psychobiology supports their capacity to structure and manage better difficult discussions to fuel their partnership.























Read More

Meet Our Board: Katherine Manners

NEAFAST is a professional organization with a volunteer board of directors. The Board of Directors provides guidance and vision for how NEAFAST meets its goals of supporting quality training and practice of family and systemic therapy. Our board members have a diverse set of professional and personal interests, which contributes to the development of an organization that seeks to systemically address the needs of therapists in Massachusetts. In the initial installment of our series Meet Our Board, we introduce you to Katherine Manners, LMFT.

For over 30 years, Katherine has worked in the field of victim services. She began her career as a volunteer in a domestic violence shelter, which led to many years working in the new field of victim advocacy for the Middlesex District Attorney’s office. From there she obtained her M.Ed. in MFT from UMass Boston and went to work providing traumatic bereavement therapy with family members of homicide, developing and leading several programs in Roxbury, Cambridge and Boston including hospital and community-based agencies.

Read More

Meet Our Board: Jeremiah Gibson

NEAFAST is a professional organization with a volunteer board of directors. The Board of Directors provides guidance and vision for how NEAFAST meets its goals of supporting quality training and practice of family and systemic therapy. Our board members have a diverse set of professional and personal interests, which contributes to the development of an organization that seeks to systemically address the needs of therapists in Massachusetts. In the initial installment of our series Meet Our Board, we introduce you to the NEAFAST President, Jeremiah Gibson, LMFT.

NEAFAST: How did you get interested in becoming an MFT? 

Read More

Book Review: Eight Dates

NEAFAST members uphold our responsibility to learning about current trends and up-to-date research in family and systemic therapy. Plus, we love to read. Here's the initial installment of our Book Review series: Eight Dates, by John and Julie Gottman. A big thanks to Katherine Manners for writing the book review.

--

Read More

NEAFAST Blog

Online journalism is going through its share of growing pains.

Read More

The Relationship Checkup

“Jeremiah, we need to talk.”

As a 21 year old college student, those were some of the most terrifying words that I heard from my partner. My anxieties went on red alert. Is everything okay? Did I do something to mess this up? The ultimate fear lingered in the back of my mind: Are you going to break up with me?

The dreaded DTR, or “define the relationship”.

DTRs were commonly painful, stress-inducing conversations. They were also the times where my partner and I were most honest with each other. We allowed ourselves to be vulnerable in a completely different way—we dared to speak for what we needed, what we hoped for, how we wanted the relationship to be different, consequences be damned. They were also seldom as bad as I feared, as we reminded each other what was valuable about the relationship and each other.

The anxieties around DTRs never really went away. In fact, when my partner and I got married, we used a specific construct of marriage to prevent us from the self-reflection and self-improvement of DTRs. My understanding of marriage was the continuation of the relationship was the most important thing, and that if I spoke for what I needed, I risked upsetting my partner. I bought into the toxic masculinity that doesn’t get discussed in 2019: Happy wife, happy life. I swallowed my voice, put on a happy face, and perpetuated a homeostatic process for a disappointingly impressive amount of time.

I’m not alone in this story—many of my couples describe a similar process leading into couples therapy. We get into a routine. We develop assumptions about our partners and operate based on those assumptions, resulting in diminished intimate conversation. We believe that checking in on the relationship requires too much vulnerability, too much honesty, too much risk, so we kick the can down the road. As therapists, we have an obligation to encourage our individuals and couples to take relational risks, so that relationships can be a venue for growth and development, rather than stasis and stagnation.

I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. James Cordova, professor of psychology at Clark University, and Dr. Tatiana Gray about the Relationship Checkup, a solution-focused interview process designed to help couples identify their strengths and growth areas in a safe, non-judgmental setting. Dr. Cordova is the author of The Marriage Checkup: A Scientific Program for Sustaining and Strengthening Marital Health. He and Dr. Gray are co-founders of Arammu Consultants in Worcester, and are presenting on the Relationship Checkup this Friday, 1/25, at The Bridge Institute in Worcester.

How did you become interested in doing couples therapy?

JC: As an undergraduate at the University of New Mexico, I was the assistant director of the University’s student-run suicide crisis hotline. One of my responsibilities was tracking the reasons that people called the hotline to make sure our training matched the most urgent needs of our callers. Month after month, for the entire time that I worked there, the number one issue, by a wide margin, was relationship conflict. That experience convinced me that people’s relationships are often the source of their most profound hurt and suffering. So, when I applied to graduate school, I focused on programs with faculty who specialized in developing and studying couple therapy. I was lucky enough to be invited to study at the University of Washington with both Neil Jacobson and John Gottman – both pioneers in the scientific study of relationship health.

NEAFAST: How did you decide to create the Relationship Check-Up?

JC: While on internship at Harborview Hospital in Seattle, I was trained in Bill Miller’s Drinker’s Checkup, which struck me at the time as a significant innovation in brief and effective intervention. The implications for relationship health were obvious.

In the Jacobson lab, we had been lamenting the clinical significance outcomes of even the most effective forms of couples therapy, because in the long run, though significantly better than no treatment at all, couples therapy had about a 50% chance of improving couples relationship health to a degree that sustained for at least two years. For me, the takeaway was that too many couples wait to go to therapy until it is simply “too little, too late.” Our understanding from the literature is that the average couple can wait 6-7 years within a significantly distressed relationship before seeking any kind of professional help. It appears likely that within that time, irreparable harm can be done to the emotional foundation of the relationship.

My idea was that something like the Relationship Checkup, could provide couples with something brief, easy, and even fun to do for their relationship health, on a regular basis, to maintain their intimate connection and identify and prevent the accumulation of irreparable harm. For me, the key innovation in relationship health care has to be prevention and early intervention. The emotional complexities of long-term, truly intimate, relationships are simply too challenging for most people to navigate entirely successfully on their own. It’s akin to being solely responsible for your own physical health without any access to regular consultation with medical professionals, except for emergency room care. It would be the rare individual whose physical health would not eventually be significantly compromised under those conditions. And yet, those are exactly the conditions for our relationship health at the moment. The Checkup is designed to change that.  

What is the Relationship Check-Up, and what are specific dynamics that the Relationship Check-Up hopes to better define?

TG: The Relationship Checkup is a fun, proactive approach for couples to take care of their relationship health. Akin to regular dental checkups, the Relationship Checkup provides an opportunity for couples to stay active and engaged in the long-term vibrancy of their relationships. Specifically, the Checkup involves a one-hour online video meeting with a trained relationship health consultant. The meeting provides an opportunity for couples to tell their story and connect with their early history of falling in love. It then moves towards identifying the strengths in the couple’s relationship and intentionally celebrating and capitalizing what they do well together. The consultant then helps identify any potential concerns about their relationship and helps them understand the roots and causes of those concerns in a more thorough and compassionate way – creating intimate connection where before there may have only been hurt and frustration. After the Checkup meeting, the couple is provided with a personalized summary of their Checkup, with a list of helpful suggestion for continuing to take active and loving care of their relationship.

What information can couples hope to receive in their assessment? How do you communicate that to the couples you work with?

TG: Our intention in the Checkup is for couples to connect with the positive aspects of their relationship, as these are the parts that are easy to take for granted. In addition we hope that they leave their Checkup with a deeper and more loving understanding of the places where they tend to get stuck, and then use their personal summary to start to more actively address their concerns in the ways that makes the most sense for them as a couple. Ultimately, we hope to provide couples with the context to feel more connected, understood, and happy in their relationships. Our intention is that this type of brief and regular intention can prevent the accumulation of misunderstandings, resentments, and emotional distance, and foster deeper and more loving connection in both the short and long run.

How does the Relationship Check-Up differ from PREPARE/ENRICH, and other similar relationship assessments?

JC: The PREPARE/ENRICH curriculum tends to target couples before they get married, is typically group based, and is primarily focused on teaching couples skills. The Relationship Checkup, on the other hand, is available for all couples at any stage in their relationship, is a completely personalized experience (with just the couple and the consultant), and focuses on eliciting understanding and compassion by using their concerns to build intimacy bridges. In particular, the Checkup does not assume that couples are necessarily lacking skills that they need to learn in a workshop format. Rather the Checkup’s philosophy is that partners generally care deeply about one another and already know how to be loving and effective communicators, what they need help with is seeing the habitual places where they get stuck from a different, more helpful perspective – and from this new perspective will be better equipped to gracefully traverse those places in the future. Given the context of the Checkup, the consultant is able to see the couple’s unique strengths and concerns so that she can provide them with a deeper understanding of one another and their relationship.

How do you collaborate with other couples therapists?

TG: We are currently developing a model where we train couple therapists in the Relationship Checkup theory and approach so that they can license the automated material and use the protocol in their own clinical practices.

Likewise, in what situations might other couples therapists collaborate with you?

JC: We are always looking for talented and enthusiastic clinicians to be a part of our team. Once they go through the training process, couple therapists could offer Checkups to couples through our web-platform. We envision this being an effective way to fill open hours in clinicians’ schedules.

Your organization is deeply interested in research, particularly around preventative relationship care. What are some specific research projects you’re currently working on?

TG: We are currently focused on our Randomized Clinical Trial funded by the DoD providing Relationship Checkups to active duty Airmen and their partners within an integrated behavioral healthcare system. We are in the final year of this multi-year, multi-site study are hopeful that we will be able to demonstrate successful outcomes for the relationships of service members in the Air Force. We are also working with several VAs to run pilot studies with Veterans and their spouses, particularly those at a higher risk for suicidality and PTSD.

You’re presenting at the Bridge Training Institute on Friday 1/25. What are one or two pieces of information that you hope participants leave with?

JC: We hope that the participants leave with a thorough understanding of the theory of intimacy (the driving force behind all the positive outcomes of the Checkup), and several strategies that they can use to elicit compassion with individual clients, couples, and even loved-ones. One of our favorite aspects of conducting trainings is that the information is deeply relevant to participants on both a professional and personal level.   

What is something different you’d like to see in the field of couples therapy in the next 10 years?

TG: We’d love to see relationship health being prioritized with the same importance as physical and mental health. It is our vision that in 10 years, every couple will believe that it is just as normal and available to receive an annual Relationship Checkup as an annual physical health checkup.