Soothing Without Screens

Recently, I asked AI to analyze this blog, and to tell me about the writing style. It came back with the response that it is DBT, or Dialectical Behavior Therapy, in its orientation. I agree. I’m not a DBT therapist; however, I am informed in this area. It got me thinking about why I’m where I am.

I’m a child of the ’60s and ’70s, and so my parents showed emotions that conveyed to us what they were feeling. Neither yelled at us. When we were young, my older siblings and I got “the eye” that came along with “kids.” We knew we’d crossed a line and were able to regulate ourselves. That was the plus side of how I was raised. The downside is that I was sheltered from seeing anger.

Children need to have exposure to both positive and negative emotions, and they need to experience a wide range of emotions and feelings so that when they reach adulthood, they’ll be able to cope with all of them, or know when to seek help in dealing with what they are struggling with. Children need to have the experience of learning how to soothe themselves, and to know that parents will stand by and give positive feedback in this area.

My first exposure to people who struggled with difficult anger was in junior high. They had a “CO,” or cooling-off room. I’d walk by this room, and I’d think that it was a strange place to need to be.

The only outwardly angry relative I had was an aunt. I labeled her as dysfunctional because of her lack of control. In the 2000s, she’d be referred to a DBT program for therapy.

The plus side of the CO room was that anger was recognized and interventions could be made to enable those in the room to cool down and return to the classroom and interact properly. I was fortunate in that I came from a fairly functional home and learned enough good stuff to cope with most things.

What does that room have to do with children today? I’ve written about Joyce, and how my mother would send her to her room to sit on her bed and think about what she’d done wrong. It worked because there were no toys for her to play with in that space. She would sit on her bed, and she’d think. Today that doesn’t work because many children have things that easily distract them in their rooms. Joyce would sit on her bed and come out on her own when she was able to do so.

I think that there were a few things that my parents did that were helpful. I was raised without a television in the home. We didn’t get one until I was in my teens. I spent my free time curled up in my favorite reading chair with a stack of books. I also engaged in play by myself and with others. I could ask to go to a friend’s house, walk there, and be home by dinner time. In this way, my generation had something many children don’t have now. I’m thankful that staying out until the streetlights were on was a thing! We learned to play, make our own rules, and negotiate with friends. We had to learn to regulate ourselves.

The negative part of this is that children would be bullied. The damage from bullying was not recognized and, consequently, some of my peers suffered great emotional damage from bullying.

Then people numbed their feelings with alcohol and other drugs, and today the odds are someone will numb themselves with primo weed. Yes, the times have changed.

There is still a need to learn how to regulate one’s emotions.

Back then, we got hit with magazine ads and television marketing. Today the marketers have intensified their efforts, and now screen time is a real issue.

The younger clients I see are struggling with higher rates of anxiety and higher pressure to perform in ways my generation never faced. Now children are being targeted, and many parents are themselves grasping at straws as they attempt to figure out parenting.

I’m not a fan of “gentle” parenting. I believe it leaves children confused about healthy vs. unhealthy emotions, anger being one of them. I believe that people are staying in abusive relationships because they fail to understand that they don’t need to tolerate such things.

Children need to see appropriate anger modeled for them. They need to be told no, and they need to learn how to soothe themselves and not have parents or a screen rescue them. They need to learn that sometimes Mom or Dad can’t make it alright, and they need to be helped to understand the coping process. They need to understand that acceptance is a part of the process. Children need clear signals and messages.

Today’s children need to have adults respect them and apologize for wrongdoing. They also need to be taught to reciprocate when they are in the wrong. I believe we rush in too quickly with “tell _________ you’re sorry.” We also demand it as adults when they’ve done wrong. Allow a child time to process what they can and guide them to make their own choices.

Building healthy adult relationships begins at a young age. It begins with experiences that shape our minds in constructive ways. It’s OK to be angry, and it is good for us!

If you are interested in learning more about screens, self-soothing, and why children and younger adults suffer from high rates of anxiety, check out Jonathan Haidt’s work. You can learn from what I’ve written and read his books. He does good research.

I’m a big advocate for less screen for everyone and more direct person-to-person contact. Turn off the screen!

The AI Utopia, Part 2: Only a Human Can Live a Human Life

This is Part 2 in a series. Read Part 1 here.

While it is true that there are no barriers to accessing AI online, and finding answers is part of what psychotherapy is meant to do, therapy should also help you explore the relationship you create with another human. In today’s climate, this exploration is needed. We need to explore things with another person.

The fact is that social media and too much screen time are causing people to look at their phones and not other people. The ability to pick up on social cues is fading.

Too much screen time is causing depression, poor social skills, poor concentration, and the inability to learn some essential life skills.

A chatbot can’t really interact with you in this way. It takes another human!

A chatbot can’t read the room. A chatbot can be programmed to meet certain parameters, but you are the one setting this up, and are you really going to want to be fully challenged? What if you need to be challenged in a way you don’t recognize? Getting called out on your reality testing is a tricky thing. Physicians should never heal themselves. We need that objective human to push us in a better direction.

A chatbot can’t be completely erased. Once there is a history, it is out there—forever. Don’t forget the “Wayback Machine” and its ability to find stuff that has supposedly been removed from the annals of the internet. Do you want your life questions to be permanently stored in that way?

The more I think about all of this, the more the answers I get are no, no, and no.

The uses of AI for mental health are being discussed. AI as a research tool will be a helpful way of using this technology. Could AI help on the medical end of things? Yes. It would be wonderful to see a “cure” for schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, and depression. Relieving someone of severe anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders would be life changing for so many in the human population. The research applications are wonderful to think about.

On the other hand, AI will not be able to sit with someone who is grieving or mourning a lost relationship. It can’t look a person in the eyes, witness the tears and the trauma, and offer comfort and reassurance that they are being understood. AI can “speak” the words: it fails in the human life-experience portion of things. AI can’t live a human life—only a human can.

As I write this, I’m taken back to another experience of grad school. In one of my courses, we were asked to create a utopian society where peace reigned and equality for everyone in the world existed, and oh, by the way, no Star Trek Next Generation models. Our group met, and we couldn’t do it. We may have come close in some ways, but the realization that we, as humans, were faced with diversity and the dilemma of how to give everyone a piece of the pie… Well, let’s just say it didn’t happen. I return to the question of who will live in this AI utopia that is being touted. 

Emotions are what cause us to be who we are. The ability to resolve conflict and work out differences is what creates successful outcomes in our lives.

We need diverse communities and everything that comes with them to challenge and cause us to think and move forward. An example of how this is not happening right now is when people are not allowing conflicting views to be expressed and banning them from the discussion. This creates an echo chamber. Progress will not occur in an echo chamber: stagnation is born in such places. I recently heard someone describe their version of a utopia, and as I was hearing them speak, I thought to myself: But do you understand how hard everyone would need to work to make this happen? Having grown up with “flower power,” and then seeing it fade away for something else, I’m aware of how the climate changed. I’m also hopeful that the lessons of that period of time can be worked with. I hold onto hope that we can do better.

I’m not hopeful that society is wise enough or ready for what AI presents. I’m willing to embrace the use of AI for assisting us with science and related areas of study. I’m not willing to turn my life over to AI in other ways.

I believe in humanity, and I want to see it thrive. Just like you, I want to see people heal, grow stronger, and build solid relationships that will support us as human beings. I also want to be realistic. I want to see greed wiped off the face of the planet. Doing that would be very helpful to humanity. It we could wipe out greed, we could wipe out poverty. If greed and poverty were wiped out, there would be no war. That would be a type of utopia many of us could live in.

Maybe if we turn AI loose on medical issues, world hunger, and have it do some serious thinking there, we can focus on enabling each of us to deal with relating to each other on a more functional level. First, we need to fully deal with the question of being able to create such tools and taking a hard look at the ethics surrounding their usage. Yes, I can. But should I? This needs to become the question we must ask ourselves.

If we were to slow ourselves down in this way, what types of changes might we open ourselves up to exploring? Yes, I can. Should I? Yes.