It’s always nice to discover that some of your ideas are not totally out in left field, not that there’s anything wrong with left field. I was recently reading a wonderful book by Paul Wachtel on Therapeutic Communication (2011) where he discussed his concept of cyclical psychodynamics to describe how our current interactions with others maintain our not so useful thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. He also explains this phenomenon in an earlier book Psychoanalysis, Behavior Therapy, and the Relational World (1997). I was delighted to discover that I have been practicing cyclical psychodynamics without knowing it. I’m reminded of the character in one of Moliere’s plays who was amazed to find that he was speaking prose all his life.
I wrote in my book Nine Lenses on the World (2010) about how our Enneastyle strategies are over-compensations for the maladaptive beliefs we may have about ourselves and others and how these strategies actually bring about the very condition we are trying to avoid. Voila! Cyclical Psychodynamics.
Here are some extended quotes from Wachtel describing his theory. After them I’d like to muse about how cyclical psychodynamics might work in each of the Enneagram styles.
A chief characteristic of the circular patterns described by cyclical psychodynamic theory is irony. With surprising regularity, the situation that the patient ends up in is precisely the one he is trying to avoid; in many instances, he does not aim for the consequences he encounters; he produces them despite – yet because of – his vigorous efforts to prevent them. (2011, pg. 75)
The cyclical psychodynamic account of how we repeat problematic patterns does not typically posit an intention to reproduce the offending situation. The intention, rather, is quite the opposite – to prevent the repetition. The irony in what ensues lies in how, by the very act of carrying out that intention, the patient contributes to the outcome he is trying to avoid. (2011, pg. 76)
People live in contexts, and our behavior, both adaptive and maladaptive, is always in relation to someone or something….Understanding how people change requires understanding that in an odd way a neurosis is a joint activity, a cooperative venture of a most peculiar sort. If one looks closely at the neurotic patterns in which the patient is entangled, one invariably finds that the maintenance of those patterns proceeds with the assistance of other people….To keep a neurosis going, one needs help. Every neurosis requires accomplices….Indeed, it is only when one understands how others are drawn into the pattern as accomplices, how they are induced to interact in ways that confirm neurotic expectations and perceptions, that one appreciated fully both the depth of the patient’s dilemma and what is required to bring about change. (2011, pg. 77)
The people who play the role of accomplice in our lives are not necessarily malicious; most often they are not even aware that they are playing such a role. But their participation is crucial. Focus in the therapeutic work on how patients induce others to play a complementary role in their neuroses is in many instances the key element in understanding how the patient’s difficulties are perpetuated….The process whereby others are continually recruited into a persisting maladaptive pattern is the neurosis. (2011, pgs. 77-78)
The kind of experiences we have early in life, and our way of dealing with these experiences, strongly influences what further experiences we will encounter, as well as how we perceive those experiences and how we deal with them.
For example, the two-year-old who has developed an engaging and playful manner is far more likely to evoke friendly interest and attention on the part of adults than is the child who is rather quiet and withdrawn. The latter will typically encounter a less rich interpersonal environment, which will further decrease the likelihood that he will drastically change. Similarly, the former is likely to continually learn that other people are fun and are eager to interact with him; and his pattern, too, is likely to become more firmly fixed as he grows. Further, not only will the two children tend to evoke different hehavior from others, they will also interpret differently the same reaction from another person. Thus, the playful child may experience a silent or grumpy response from another as a kind of game and may continue to interact until perhaps he does elicit an appreciative response. The quieter child, not used to much interaction, will readily accept the initial response as a signal to back off.
If we look at the two children as adults, we may perhaps find the difference between them still evident: one outgoing, cheerful, and expecting the best of people; the other rather shy, and unsure that anyone is interested. A childhood pattern has persisted into adulthood. Yet we really don’t understand the developmental process unless we see how, successively, teachers, playmates, girlfriends, and colleagues have been drawn in as “accomplices” in maintaining the persistent pattern. And, I would suggest, we don’t understand the possibilities for change unless we realize that even now there are such “accomplices,” and that if they stopped playing their role in the process, it would be likely eventually to alter. (1997, pg. 52)
How (other people) behave toward us is very much influenced by how we behave toward them, and hence by how we initially perceive them. Thus, our initial (in a sense distorted) picture of another person can end up being a fairly accurate predictor of how he or she will act toward us; because, based on our expectation that that person will be hostile, or accepting, or sexual, we are likely to act in such a way as to eventually draw such behavior from the person and thus have our (initially inaccurate) perception “confirmed.” Our tendency to enter the next relationship with the same assumption and perceptual bias is then strengthened, and the whole process likely to be repeated again. (1997, pg. 54)
My own observations were similar: paradoxically our over-compensating Enneastyle tactics often bring about the very thing we fear and are trying to avoid. I found this echoed in Jeffrey Young’s cognitive therapy approach.
In his book on Schema Therapy (2003) Jeffrey Young describes how we maintain our maladaptive schemas by surrendering to them and going along with them (“I certainly will ultimately be abandoned”), by avoiding them (“I will never put myself in a position to be abandoned”), and by over-compensating for them (“I will make myself so extraordinary that you will never think about abandoning me.”) For the latter Young gives an example of the over compensation of narcissism for a basic sense and state of deprivation when younger. To compensate for feeling deprived when a youngster, the narcissist has a sense of entitlement as an adult. I deserve this; I am owed this; and I shouldn't have to do anything to earn it. What the narcissist really wants is to be loved and have his or her needs met by others. However the narcissistic behavior and attitude is often exaggerated since it is an over compensation, and the exaggerated sense of importance and entitlement alienates others who then choose not to be involved with the narcissist. Thus the narcissistic individual is again left alone at the pool with only his image to comfort him.
From the Enneagram perspective, each exaggerated distorted personality style can be thought of as being an over compensation for some contrary underlying schema. Here is a précis of the maladaptive schemas and over compensation strategies of each Enneagram style and how they may ironically elicit the very circumstance we are trying to avoid.
Style One:
Those who are exaggeratedly trying to be good and excellent at everything are
compensating for underlying maladaptive beliefs that they are bad, unworthy,
and imperfect.
Being overly perfectionistic, pedantic, exacting, and critical frequently elicit criticism, anger, and avoidance from others. This confirms the belief the world is critical and not the way it should be.
If ONES anticipate that others will have high expectations of them and will be critical and rejecting of them when they don’t come up to those standards, they will subtly maneuver others to be critical of them. They will interpret others’ responses as attacks and defend themselves by proving they are right and others are wrong. ONES will then feel resentful that they can never get it right enough and never satisfy others’ expectations.
Style Two:
Those who are exaggeratedly trying to be helpful and generous are compensating for underlying maladaptive schemas that they are selfish, undeserving of love and consideration, useless, and unimportant.
Being too nurturing and smothering often elicits pushing-away behavior in others instead of the hoped for coming-closer behavior. This confirms the belief that getting one's own needs met is unacceptable and unlikely.
If you want to be helpful, then dependent people might be willing accomplices. You would reinforce their dependency by helping them and they will fortuitously reinforce your self-image as a helper at the same time.
However others might not want to turn down a Two’s offer of help because they know it would disappoint them, hurt their self-image, and might elicit a pouting indignant response. So others say “yes” when they don’t really want help and then they don’t appreciate the Two’s help and don’t say “Thank you.” This then provokes the Two’s schema that people don’t appreciate them enough and so they try harder to please. Thus a vicious circle is established.
Style Three:
Those who are exaggeratedly trying to achieve and be successful are compensating for underlying maladaptive beliefs that they are not acceptable in themselves; people don't like them; they are failures as human beings.
An overly achieving, mechanical style frequently turns other people off and encourages them to interact with the persona or role instead of with the real person. This confirms the belief that performance, not genuineness, pays off.
Three’s promote their accomplishments and then we praise them for their successes thereby reinforcing this pattern. We’re not offered an opportunity to interact with their authentic self. Also we are probably only given the opportunity to respond to their positive achievements and not to anything negative or troubling in them. Success is rewarded; failure is avoided.
Style Four:
Those who are exaggeratedly trying to be special are compensating for underlying maladaptive schemas that they are nobody; they are flawed and ugly; and people don't want to be around them.
An overly sensitive, refined, precious, entitled, easily misunderstood attitude generally brings about misunderstanding and distancing instead of empathy and connection. This confirms the maladaptive schema of being unlovable.
To validate your fears of being abandoned, you need to select people who will abandon you. You can find people who are unavailable or who have an avoidant personality. They will eventually leave you just as they’d leave anybody else. If you have something of an ambivalent attachment pattern yourself, you might doubt that people would want to be with you and then cling to them or demand that they be with you. Either of those strategies, clinging or claiming, will probably bring about what you fear most: being left.
Style Five:
Those who are exaggeratedly trying to know while remaining anonymous are compensating for underlying maladaptive schemas that they are ignorant, insignificant underdogs unable to represent themselves.
Keeping quiet and withdrawing provokes intruding and projecting behavior from others. Nature abhors a vacuum, so people move into the space vacated. Being silent can either be interpreted as: "She must be thinking something brilliant;” or "He must have nothing to say.” This confirms the belief that the world is intrusive or uninterested and you have nothing to offer it.
If you are sensitive to demands being put on you, then not saying “no” or assertively setting limits will probably lead to demands being put on you because you offer no resistance. Just disappearing may lead to others tracking you down. If your concern is that others are not interested in what you have to say, not saying anything will probably lead to people not listening to you, since you’re not saying anything.
Style Six:
Those who are exaggeratedly trying to be loyal and dependent or rebellious and pseudo-independent are compensating for underlying maladaptive schemas that they are cowards; they are deserving of punishment for transgressing some rules; and they are living in a dangerous world.
A suspicious paranoid attitude usually elicits hostile or plotting behavior from others. Thinking that people are talking behind your back usually leads to their talking behind your back. This confirms the maladaptive schema the world is out to get you.
A counter-phobic attacking approach might provoke others to attack or challenge you, the very thing you are trying to avoid. An overly-fearful strategy might encourage others to take advantage of you. The very thing you are trying to avoid. Starting off with the belief that there are only two sides -- those that are on your side and those that are against you – generally creates two embattled sides: your friends and your enemies.
Style Seven:
Those who are exaggeratedly trying to be happy and O.K. are compensating for underlying maladaptive beliefs that they are not O.K.; they are limited; they are about to be overrun by depression; they are boring or are imminently about to be bored.
People who are compulsively cheerful and enthusiastic often elicit limiting and depressing responses from others as they attempt to "ground" or "shoot down" the high-flying optimist. This confirms the maladaptive fear that others are going to rain on your parade and pop your balloons
A fear of being limited or ensnarled may paradoxically lead to being tied down to always having to change. If others can’t keep up with your flights of fancy and adventures, you might find yourself alone and bored and experiencing the very condition you are trying to avoid: FOMO, the Fear of Missing Out.
Style Eight:
Those who are exaggeratedly trying to be powerful and strong are compensating for maladaptive underlying schemas that they are weak and vulnerable and the world is a hostile place.
Aggressive stances and behaviors, while intending to instill fear in others, can just as likely elicit aggressive behavior in others. The less strong frequently try to fight the more strong as a way of proving themselves. This helps confirm the belief that the world is hostile.
If you have the belief that people are unfair and abusive, then you will tend to interpret people’s actions toward you as unjust and punishing and you will react in an aggressive manner which could elicit either a flight (they are afraid of you) or fight (they want to beat you, literally or figuratively) response. If you want to be in relation with others, then scaring them by intimidation may not be the best approach for establishing intimate relationships.
Style Nine:
Those who are exaggeratedly trying to be settled are compensating for maladaptive underlying assumptions that they don't fit in; they are unwanted and neglected; they don't matter.
You get what you ask for. If you don't ask for anything, you don't get anything. When you don't express your needs, other people assume you don't need anything and so don't offer you anything. People seem cold and uncaring and this confirms the belief the world is indifferent.
If you start out saying it doesn’t matter and settling for whatever you can get, others may not give you much and you will feel uncared for. If you stay in the background, echoing the Five’s motto of “When in doubt, hide out,” people won’t notice you, thus confirming your belief that people overlook you. Your genuine human needs lie near the core of who you are. Expressing them establishes relationships; it doesn’t end them.
Another way of thinking about cyclical psychodynamics is George Kelly’s (1963) metaphor that we are all junior scientists. We come up with hypotheses (beliefs, constructs, interpretations) to explain repetitions in our experience and ultimately to predict and control our environment, particularly our social environment.
If we are good scientists, we put our hypothesis to the test by running an experiment, collecting data, and either confirming or disconfirming our hypothesis.
If we are bad scientists, we really favor our hypothesis and so skew our experiment and data to confirm our hypothesis. So if you want the rat to run down the left fork of your maze, you subtlety stroke the left side of the rat as you place him in your maze. If you believe men are hostile toward women or women are hostile toward men, you will run your experiment by irritating the opposite sex, provoking their anger, and then tallying the number of hostile responses you collect. All this is done “objectively,” allowing you to conclude that “This is the way it is.” Actually it’s more the way you carried out your experiment and massaged the data to validate your beloved hypothesis.
When we are on the high side of our Enneagram style, we are objective scientists open to the data we find. When we are on the low side of our style, we are prejudiced scientists, maximizing the evidence that confirms our belief and minimizing the data that disconfirm our assumption. We are practicing what Piaget calls assimilation, squeezing the data into our preexisting schema, vs. accommodation, modifying our schema to fit the data.
The Enneagram reveals our adaptive and maladaptive schemas. Cyclical psychodynamics exposes how we perpetuate those schemas. When we are aware of what we are up to, we have a better chance of changing what we are doing.
References:
Kelly, G. (1963). A theory of personality: the psychology of personal contructs. New York: W.W. Norton.
Wachtel, P. (1997). Psychoanalysis, behavior therapy, and the relational world. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Wachtel, P. (2011). Therapeutic communication, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press.
Wagner, J. (2010). Nine lenses on the world: the Enneagram perspective. Evanston, IL: NineLens Press.
Young, J. (2003). Schema therapy: a practitioner’s guide. New York: Guilford Press.
