The desire for interacting and communicating with other people is an innate part of human nature. This communication is the medium through which people form bonds with one another. However, the bonds that people form in the lives can end up having contradictory consequences. In the book Hard to Get: Twenty-Something Women and the Paradox of Sexual Freedom, Leslie Bell discusses the concept of splitting which is a type of mindset that women face in relationships resulting in psychological conflict. Bell also talks about how the upbringings of women also play a factor into the psychological conflicts they face. In the book Love 2.0: How Our Supreme Emotion Affects Everything We Feel, Think, Do, and Become, Barbara Fredrickson mentions how
…show more content…
This vulnerability allows for bonds to form between people and for their unease to be alleviated. Bell discusses vulnerability is the scope of splitting. She says, “Vulnerability, needs, [and] desires … often become … experiences to be avoided rather than embraced” (Bell 29). Looking at this statement through the previously redefined version of splitting, people in general suppress their longing for vulnerability and in turn prevent the ability to form a feeling of dependence with another person. Dependence in this context refers more to a level of trust than a state of relying on someone or something. Fredrickson gives an example in her text of possibilities that arise when an individual opens themselves up to be vulnerable in an encounter. In an experiment, a person is placed in a scenario where they are alone with another person. Rather than tending to himself, the person strikes up an engaging conversation with someone nearby leading to what Fredrickson describes as “brain coupling” (112). She goes on to explain that “Brain coupling … is the means by which we understand each other … a true meeting of the minds” (Fredrickson 112). The brain coupling would not have happened if the person did not make an effort to interact with someone, and in opening himself up to being vulnerable towards this person, he formed almost a type of dependence on them. This …show more content…
Logically speaking, a person would be more open and understanding with a close friend or relative than they would be with a random stranger. As previously stated, Fredrickson gives the example of what can happen when a parent and child have an abundance of moments of positivity resonance; the two form a strong bond that lasts for the entire lifetime of the child. However, Fredrickson also explains how a lack of these moments of positivity resonance can lead to a disconnect between the parent and child, resulting in the formation of an otherwise weaker bond. She says that the amount of “positive behavioral synchrony,” which is the amount of moments of love and connection the child and parent share, go “hand in hand with oxytocin synchrony,” and fewer moments of synchrony cause the pair to “connect over mutual distress … rather than over mutual affection” (Fredrickson 117). The lack of synchrony between the parent and child cause disassociation between them, where the child is much more hesitant to be vulnerable and dependent upon their parents. Jayanthi, another one of Bell’s patients, embodies these principles throughout her social life and her relationships. Jayanthi went against her parents' expectations and the cultural norms
This vulnerability allows for bonds to form between people and for their unease to be alleviated. Bell discusses vulnerability is the scope of splitting. She says, “Vulnerability, needs, [and] desires … often become … experiences to be avoided rather than embraced” (Bell 29). Looking at this statement through the previously redefined version of splitting, people in general suppress their longing for vulnerability and in turn prevent the ability to form a feeling of dependence with another person. Dependence in this context refers more to a level of trust than a state of relying on someone or something. Fredrickson gives an example in her text of possibilities that arise when an individual opens themselves up to be vulnerable in an encounter. In an experiment, a person is placed in a scenario where they are alone with another person. Rather than tending to himself, the person strikes up an engaging conversation with someone nearby leading to what Fredrickson describes as “brain coupling” (112). She goes on to explain that “Brain coupling … is the means by which we understand each other … a true meeting of the minds” (Fredrickson 112). The brain coupling would not have happened if the person did not make an effort to interact with someone, and in opening himself up to being vulnerable towards this person, he formed almost a type of dependence on them. This …show more content…
Logically speaking, a person would be more open and understanding with a close friend or relative than they would be with a random stranger. As previously stated, Fredrickson gives the example of what can happen when a parent and child have an abundance of moments of positivity resonance; the two form a strong bond that lasts for the entire lifetime of the child. However, Fredrickson also explains how a lack of these moments of positivity resonance can lead to a disconnect between the parent and child, resulting in the formation of an otherwise weaker bond. She says that the amount of “positive behavioral synchrony,” which is the amount of moments of love and connection the child and parent share, go “hand in hand with oxytocin synchrony,” and fewer moments of synchrony cause the pair to “connect over mutual distress … rather than over mutual affection” (Fredrickson 117). The lack of synchrony between the parent and child cause disassociation between them, where the child is much more hesitant to be vulnerable and dependent upon their parents. Jayanthi, another one of Bell’s patients, embodies these principles throughout her social life and her relationships. Jayanthi went against her parents' expectations and the cultural norms