LOL! If you think I use such a simplistic model of putting people into predefined, static boxes, then you seriously underestimate me. Modeling or “pigeonholing” can be extremely important, though it can be harmful too, as you point out. The benefit to “pigeonholing” is that it allows you to sink a post in the ground from which measurements and variations can be made. In science, a working hypothesis is central to research. With relationships, it is the same.
As in science, a hypothesis must be dynamic, open to change, new ideas, the unknown. A finite system of boxes can exclude possibilities, lead to a very narrow view of life. But does that mean modeling or pigeonholing is the problem? Maybe yes maybe no. I think the problem you speak of is not the concept of categorizing behaviors and ways of thinking but the system used to create and maintain those “boxes.” You say that you used to put people in convenient little boxes and later came to see how limiting that was. I think that maybe you did not build a very robust model for “boxing” people.
Anything dealing with human emotion is going to be extremely complicated. Once you figure out a system, it changes. There is no one true answer. Whatever set of boxes you create today for one group of people will need to be altered for changes in age, race , socio-economic class, nationality, religion, historical experiences, and who knows what else. All of that will need to change again as time goes by.
My “model” of boxes is closer to no model at all in that I think of it as a multidimensional matrix, where one layer overlaps another in all directions, where there may be horizontal or vertical layers, where some situations may have only one “layer” but other may have multiple “layers.” These “layers” are nothing more than different possible combinations of actions/reactions that all begin with a common point and that is fear. There can be different types of fear, but I see all those as variations on a theme.
I believe fear is inherent in everyone. It is a human condition. There is no such thing as a person without fear. The type of fear each person has is determined by genetics and environment, the biggest factor being the influence of our parents (on again excepting personality disorders or chemical imbalances). That fear then mixes with our inherent personality and our FOO experience to create all the many dysfunctions we see all over this board. The variety is limitless. It can result in people being introverted, extroverted, angry, violent, timid and withdrawn, the class clown, the addict or even the perfectionist. But each of these types of behaviors is only a manifestation. Treating the behavior is what CBT is all about. It can help but unless the connection is made to the underlying fear, CBT is only a bandage. The root of the behavior is not touched.
The one “box” that I am certain exists in everyone is the box at the bottom of my matrix and that is the fear box. So while all the different manifestations can swirl and morph into different effects, keeping focus on the one true known quantity – fear- is what makes my model work in my mind and keeps me on track when looking at all situations. In the end it is very simple. But it is also all encompassing. It can be specific to a particular situation or very general across many type of relationships.
In this way I do not think my “model” is limiting. It helps me to categorize behaviors, bring better understanding to why people react as they do, cut through seeming chaos and find common themes and patterns. It is a way of trying to see what one currently does not see. It is not a simple “box” system at all.
You say that putting people into boxes is a way to control the unknown, that by fitting patterns I can hope to predict the future, minimize risk, maximize control, avoid fear. That might be true. But I think any system that helps to explain the unknown reduces risk and fear. That is a good thing. Systems can give a sense of control by at least understanding why others act as they do. That is also a good thing because it helps you to not engage and to stay out of the pit. Your criticism of a “box” system is valid if such a system is only intended to give the creator a false sense of control without better understanding. But your criticism can also be made of a legitimate system that helps to promote understanding and growth. How will you, an outsider, know the difference?
I agree with you in that taking life as it comes, that learning to react to situations rather than trying to control and “box” them can be a good approach to relationships. But it can also become passive and reactive. For some people this is fine. For others, they may need to develop more assertiveness, to learn to shape their future rather than drift with the tide. These people may have accepted what comes at them for too long, and that is their way of escape and a core issue to be addressed. It all depends on the person.
Take Fearless for instance. I was certain there was something deeper she was dealing with because all people have fear at their core. She is no different. The only question I had was which path did her fear take as it made its way through the “matrix.” It did not appear to be taking the path of violence or anger, addiction or sexual affairs, timidity or withdrawal. She did appear to be a people pleaser, a perfectionist, model child and a peacemaker, all of which fall into the same “quadrant” or theme of the matrix, as I see it.
Like everything else, all those behaviors are fear driven. Her type of fear may not be fear of physical punishment, or being yelled at, or abused. Maybe Fearless was conditioned by her FOO to have a fear of not gaining approval and validation, fear of disappearing, fear of losing herself through the engulfment washing over her from her mother/grandmother. Whatever the actual fear at work with her, I am certain that this fear exists.
Identifying the type of fear can be important for knowing how to deal with the problem because the next question is to ask why that particular fear came to exist in the first place? I think Fearless had a narcissistic family setting to deal with as a child. If this is true and if she can come to recognize this and the dysfunction in her family, come to accept the faults of her parents and the damage they caused her, then she can recognize why she developed into a perfectionist and exactly what it is that she is trying to avoid and what she was trying to correct by being perfectionistic. If she cannot accept this and instead prefers to focus only on her perfectionism, then I believe she will have a long struggle because the root cause will keep seeping forth and counteracting all her efforts.
That becomes an exercise in futility and her improvements can only endure as long as she has the strength to do the work. We see that same pattern in so many other couples here. They don’t want to get to the root of their problems and tackle the hard stuff, so the marriage can only improve for a period of time, while the latest behavior modification stays in place. Ultimately most relationships do not keep these modifications going for too long before reverting to old behaviors, then a new “cure” must be found and put into practice, and on and on. That model of understanding is flawed IMO.
