THE FORK IN THE ROAD:
HOW IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES LEAD
TO OPPOSITE PERSONALITIES
By Dr. Daniel A. Bochner
It's heart-rending when a child loses a parent, isn't it? And it's infuriating
when a kid's been abused. The general feelings these circumstances evoke are
quite obvious (even if there are more subtle reactions as well). So, why is it so
hard to predict the personality attributes that will likely develop based on these
experiences? It is common for therapists to meet clients who have endured
extraordinary loss or abandonment and have developed profound dependency
and sadness. But it's equally common for these clients to become somewhat
angry and controlling. We've also all met victims of significant abuse (both
episodic and serial types) who become seriously angry and aggressive people.
But it's equally common for these victims to become passive and fearful.
When disparate lines of personality development occur, in spite of similar
experiential circumstances, it seems like perhaps there is no reliable way to
understand the effects of experience on personality. Notice, however, that
development does seem to have a relationship to experience. The relationship
is in aversion to the vulnerability caused by trauma. That is, when people have
been traumatized, they avoid the feelings of vulnerability associated with the
trauma.
For example, when a child experiences profound loss, life in this world is
proven unpredictable and out of control. Thus the child looks for ways to
prevent loss and to maintain some semblance of control. It may seem strange,
but this child actually makes a choice. This choice is made unconsciously, of
course. That is, the child has no idea that a choice is made. But nevertheless,
there is a choice. The child can become a person who tends to be in control
within relationships, and will brook no efforts at control by others. Or, the
child can become someone who is endlessly pleasing others within relationships
with hope that no one will want to leave. Both relational tactics work to
prevent loss. If the loss is of a severely abandoning type, it is also relatively
common to become a person who alternates between a need for total control
and a clinging dependency. That style, too, which tends to be much more
severe and less stable, also prevents the experience of vulnerability associated
with the initial trauma, since the violent swings from clinging to controlling
never allow for experiencing the feelings that occur in between.
For the sake of increasing clarity, an example of the abused child can also
be instructive. For the abused child, the world is dangerous and unsafe. As
they develop, these children also make an unconscious choice. They must
maintain safety for themselves and there are two primary ways to do so. They
can become a person most others fear, or they can become a person who
avoids real contact with others. That is they can become aggressive in their
general style or they can become avoidant in their general style. Unlike the last
example, there are very few people who alternate back and forth between
these two styles since acting fearful does not fit with acting aggressive. It can
be said, however, that both types avoid real relationships with others, since
even the aggressive style makes emotional intimacy impossible.
These are two oversimplified explanations of a complicated psychological
process. Nevertheless, they do demonstrate a point. Personality develops in
relation to trauma. The more traumatic an experience is, and the more
protracted that trauma is, the more likely that the personality will develop in
exaggerated and/or unstable ways.
The direction of exaggerated choice seems to depend on a variety of
factors, including genetics and family roles. Some people, it seems, simply do
not have a genetic temperament that fits with being aggressive. On the other
hand, some people simply do not have a genetic temperament that fits with
being passive. Ones natural temperament is likely the biggest influence in
determining which of two particular roads will be chosen in response to harsh
and protracted trauma.
Family roles, too, have an extraordinary influence on the particular
adaptation a person chooses in dealing with life's circumstances. If two siblings
have very similar temperaments, but the elder has already chosen the most
natural style for that temperament, the younger will have to choose a different
way. Thus, it is very common to have an older child deal with an aggressive
parent by being aggressive with everyone but the aggressive parent, while the
younger sibling develops a very passive and avoidant role.
However, even in healthy personalities the same strains can be observed.
That is, people pick one way or another of avoiding whatever their trauma
might be, even if that trauma is as small as being teased in school or being
ignored by a favored sibling. The level at which a person defends against that
trauma consists of the beliefs they have developed to counteract and defend
against the trauma. The strangest thing about these defensive beliefs is that
they include healthy thoughts. Those healthy thoughts, however, are
themselves hypertrophied because they have developed for the purpose of
making life livable and have not allowed for the original trauma to metabolize.
The very same healthy thoughts can become true beliefs about ones self, but
only after they are not being used in a defensive fashion.
Imagine a man, for example, whose father had been a wealthy, respected,
successful, perfectionist. As children, the younger man's older sister struggled
intellectually and was thus the focus of their father's disappointment. As a
result of the father's treatment, the older sister developed poor self-esteem and
became rebellious. She was marked as the “black sheep.” The man who had
been the younger brother had always been quite bright and quickly learned that
the way to get his father's praise was to do well in school and to outshine his
older sister. Unfortunately, as a result of his favored treatment, this man has
developed within his adult personality an exaggerated sense of responsibility
and an exaggerated sense of guilt. He feels he must always do what he has
learned is “right” for others and whenever he desires to have anything his own
way, he experiences treacherous guilt and shame.
This man is clearly uncomfortable much of the time, but he succeeds by
almost all typical measures, just as his father had. The question is, what is
keeping this man in a constant state of guilt and shame when he seems to be
doing so well, and what choice did he have as a child? This man has
developed a relatively healthy way of dealing with being squeezed within his
family between doing what his father expected but trying not to hurt his sister.
Of course as a child he wanted his father's love and would do anything to get
it. However, he also had to deal with tremendous guilt for doing what he could
to get his father's love while his sister was being ridiculed. In fact, it's even
likely that he secretly rallied against his sister because every time she was
ridiculed he felt like he was especially loved. He has likely thought to himself,
“of course I did what I could to get my father's love - that is only natural.”
But this leaves the fact that he feels so guilty completely unexplained.
The fact of the matter is, there is a significant part of this gentleman that
continues to believe something really bad about himself. There is a part of him
that feels like, “wow, what a selfish traitor I truly am, to seek my father's love
for exactly what my sister lacked.” The extreme responsibility taking he has
developed is a relatively successful attempt at defending against feeling like a
traitor since taking responsibility seems to constantly prove to him that he is
not selfish. Nevertheless, he continues to feel guilty because any attention or
praise he experiences or accomplishes in any part of his life reminds him of his
survivor guilt vis-a-vis his sister.
Strangely enough, just as was discussed with respect to the abandoned
child or the abuse child, this gentleman could have just as easily developed in
another direction. He could have tried to become even more rebellious than
his sister. He would have lost his father's affection, perhaps, but he would
have been able to live without guilt. He would have been much less successful
and he would have had negative thoughts about himself like, “I was never good
enough to get my father's love.” That line would have led to a different person
and perhaps the defensive thought, “I have always been independent.” Either
way, the original trauma would not be worked through or overcome.
If a trauma is metabolized or worked through completely, its influence is
merely a memory, and no extreme feelings related to that memory are
experienced. Thus no defensive positive thoughts are necessary for the
purpose of compensating for negative beliefs about ones self. Rather than
exaggerated personality attributes related to that memory, the man who has
worked through the issue of his position between his sister and his father rarely
thinks about what happened. Although he takes responsibility well, he does so
because it feels good to maintain good relations with others and to take care of
his loved ones. The way in which he takes responsibility feels good to others
because it is truly integrated within his personality.
So it can be seen that even in relatively healthy personalities, the
avoidance of pain related to trauma will lead to opposing styles within a
person's character depending upon that person's circumstances and
temperament. While personalities are thus very hard to predict, patterns are
quite clear in opposing the experience of any particular kind of vulnerability
caused by a trauma. It can truly be a wonder when a person we assume
should be extremely angry seems to be placid in the face of our world. That
person, however, is generally avoiding any sense of aggression. To them
aggression is so wicked that they cannot tolerate it within themselves.
Unfortunately, that is exactly the problem they will have to confront. They
will have to find enough aggressiveness within themselves to at least take good
care of themselves – to treat themselves with respect. Likewise, the aggressive
person needs to learn to tolerate fear or they will never connect with others.
The controller will need to learn to feel in control of themselves even when
others are independent of them. The person who never takes control at all will
have to feel adequate regardless of whether or not others are pleased. Even
within relatively healthy people, it is important to recognize the other side of
ones tendencies. Chances are, if one is almost always one way or another
(even if its in a good way), on any particular issue or kind of experience, that
person is that way because to be the other way reconnects to some level of
traumatic experience that continues to be emotionally intolerable.