"Joy and woe are woven fine": the Harvard Study of Adult Dvpmt
The study in itself is very interesting, but the findings, as reported in this article, raised questions for me that are very congruent with some of my own struggles of adaptation at the moment.....
The author writes that the central question of the study
is not how much or how little trouble these men met, but rather precisely how—and to what effect—they responded to that trouble. His main interpretive lens has been the psychoanalytic metaphor of “adaptations,” or unconscious responses to pain, conflict, or uncertainty. Formalized by Anna Freud on the basis of her father’s work, adaptations (also called “defense mechanisms”) are unconscious thoughts and behaviors that you could say either shape or distort—depending on whether you approve or disapprove—a person’s reality.
.....
“immature” adaptations, which include acting out, passive aggression, hypochondria, projection, and fantasy.... aren’t as isolating as psychotic adaptations, but they impede intimacy. “Neurotic” defenses are common in “normal” people. These include intellectualization (mutating the primal stuff of life into objects of formal thought); dissociation (intense, often brief, removal from one’s feelings); and repression, which, Vaillant says, can involve “seemingly inexplicable naïveté, memory lapse, or failure to acknowledge input from a selected sense organ.”
....
The healthiest, or “mature,” adaptations include altruism, humor, anticipation (looking ahead and planning for future discomfort), suppression (a conscious decision to postpone attention to an impulse or conflict, to be addressed in good time), and sublimation (finding outlets for feelings, like putting aggression into sport, or lust into courtship).
Which, despite being a purely Freudian list, seems fairly reasonable....
But I wondered about the contrast between two of the cases listed, the first Case 128, as an exemplar of happy adult development:
“Probably I am fooling myself,” you wrote in 1987, at age 63, “but I don’t think I would want to change anything.” How can we know if you’re fooling yourself? How can even you know? According to Dr. Vaillant’s model of adaptations, the very way we deal with reality is by distorting it—and we do this unconsciously. When we start pulling at this thread, an awfully big spool of thoughts and questions begins to unravel onto the floor.
You never seemed to pull the thread. When the study asked you to indicate “some of the fundamental beliefs, concepts, philosophy of life or articles of faith which help carry you along or tide you over rough spots,” you wrote: “Hard to answer since I am really not too introspective. However, I have an overriding sense (or philosophy) that it’s all a big nothing—or ‘chasing after wind’ as it says in Ecclesiastes & therefore, at least up to the present, nothing has caused me too much grief.”
I am interested by their exemplar of happiness who by his own admission was "not too introspective", but self reported high levels of happiness. Was he just not looking very deeply?
What does this say for those of us who are prone to questioning and inquiry? That we shouldn't 'pull the thread' on our distortion of reality? Or that it's ok to do so, but only with mature adaptations in place?
By this model does this very "neurotic intellectualization" lead to unhappiness?
I feel much more kinship with case No 47, the spirited (yet dysfunctional?) 'philosopher' who earnestly sought to “squeeze" the "lemon” of life. A la Freud (who dismissed the very idea of “normality” as “an ideal fiction”) he asked:
"By what standards of reason are you calling people ‘adjusted’ these days? Happy? Contented? Hopeful?”
image from ffffound

Help



