Psychology and Stress

What causes us to be attracted and attached to certain individuals and not others? With so many potential mates and friends in the world, what leads us to focus our attention and energy on only some people? Psychological research on interpersonal attraction generally shows that we tend to pair up with people we find physically attractive, share physical proximity with, who seem to like us, and who are similar to us in attitudes, beliefs, interests, and values. There are a variety of traits and characteristics that appear to increase the likelihood that two people will form a friendship or a romantic bond. Some popular online dating services use algorithm models to try and match people on trait profiles that might make them compatible. Nevertheless, these kinds of analyses do not give us a full understanding of the mystery and dynamics of relationships. We meet many people we are attracted to and with whom we share some traits, but we only get into a relationship with a tiny fraction of these people, even though the opportunity for greater involvement is often present.

There is a chemistry to relationships that is significant and underlies what we can observe directly. In other words, there appears to be need-driven and largely unconscious aspects of our personalities that pull us toward some people, even when logic and objectivity are inconsistent with the attraction and attachment. We all have observed the union of two people who seem entirely mismatched. We have all also seen some people adamantly refuse to leave a relationship that is obviously unfulfilling and, perhaps, even abusive. How can we explain these relationships that defy sound judgment, reason, and common sense? What do you think makes a good relationship between two people? When a couple celebrates an extremely long marriage, say 50 years or even longer, often the first question posed to them is, “So what’s your secret to staying together for so long?” Poets, novelists, playwrights, song writers, philosophers, psychologists, and the folks down at the local diner have all offered possible answers; our answer involves flexibility, compromise, and independence.

The kids were 15 and 17, and Janice (39) decided she wanted to get a college degree, going part-time at the community college. Her husband, Frank (41), was against it, saying he needed her to handle the domestic chores. He could not find the flexibility needed to make the new situation work. Over the next few years, the marriage slowly fell apart, and when the youngest child went off to college, Janice increased her college course load. Frank sought a divorce. After four years of marriage, Boyd (28) told his wife, Adele (28), he wanted them to begin having children, at least two, just like they had planned to do when they got married. She said, “No, things have changed now that I have a promising career.” Boyd noted they could afford good child care, and he was willing to wait a few more years and have only one child. Adele was not willing to consider a compromise. Sue (28) was the woman Mark (41) had always looked for, someone with no desire to have children, and whose sole ambition in life would be to take care of him. After seven years of marriage, however, Sue decided she wanted to get a job and have some money of her own. She said this new venture would not affect her caretaker responsibilities. Mark, however, was threatened by her desire for more independence, and told her no wife of his was going to get a job. Within the year, Sue left him.

            Every couple’s situation is different, but it seems clear that in a healthy long-lasting relationship, each partner lets the other be themself. Social psychologist David Schnarch says each individual has a level of “differentiation” that influences relationships. Simply put, if you are a differentiated person, you are able to maintain your individuality, your sense of self, even when you are emotionally close to someone else. You can share, cooperate, compromise, and give in, but through it all, you remain an individual. You work with your partner from a context of personal stability and self-assurance, not from a context of weakness, insecurity, and dependency. People high in differentiation communicate effectively with their partners without becoming aggressive or withdrawing; they maintain their individuality by balancing assisting validation for their partner, and validating themselves. Those low in differentiation are narcissistic and demand attention and approval from their partner, forcing the partner to meettheir wants and needs; or they ignore the partner while “doing their own thing” and concentrating on their needs. As a result, the partner will not feel a part of the relationship, married or not! If a valued relationship is suddenly on a rocky road, assess your level of differentiation, and ask yourself if you are encouraging differentiation in your partner.

            A related and even more perplexing question asks, “Why do some people continue in relationships that are at best unsatisfying and, at worst, destructive to their well-being?” Next week we will look at that question in some detail.

Some combinations of personalities don’t have the relationship chemistry needed for long-term intimacy. The only hope in this type of case is if the partners make some fundamental changes in their actions and expectations. The case of Andy and Gloria is a prime example of partners being unwilling to put forth the hard work involved in making such fundamental changes.

            Andy and Gloria met in their late twenties. They were drawn together primarily through shared interests in the theater. Both came from highly dysfunctional families with respect to having close, supportive bonds. Gloria described her father as verbally abusive and selfish. Andy said his dad was very demanding. Both also described their mothers in less than flattering terms. As each moved through their teen years, they both were eager to reach an age when they could leave home and begin independent lives. Andy and Gloria entered counseling complaining of sexual problems, specifically a lack of it! Gloria, in particular, was bothered because she wanted a family and wanted more sex to increase the odds of getting pregnant.

            In counseling, Andy immediately stood out as a dependent individual who also had narcissistic qualities. He lacked empathy, was very possessive, and could not take criticism. Gloria, on the other hand, came across as self-sacrificing, while also showing actress-like traits. That is, she could be very dramatic and attention-seeking in her statements and actions. “It’s hard enough to get pregnant for God’s sake, and it just doesn’t help things if we only have sex once a month or even less,” Gloria complained, all the time waving her arms in the air. Andy just shrugged and said, “Hey, I can’t help it if I’m tired a lot and just don’t feel like it. I’m not a machine.”

When asked if she thought she would be better off out of the marriage, Gloria was reluctant to discuss the issue, although she was clearly unhappy. Whenever she might suggest to Andy that they consider a separation to help them see things in a better perspective, he would become very manipulative, almost childlike. He would beg and implore her not to talk like that, and then quickly shift to trying make her feel guilty for even bringing up the subject, to becoming contrite and asking for forgiveness. Sometimes he would promise that he would change and things would get better; other times he would become angry and break out into an emotional tirade.

            The more serious their marital difficulties became, the more dependent Andy became on Gloria. He never finished college and his income was low. He talked about finishing his college education but never made any real effort in this direction. He promised he would get a better job, but made no real effort to do so. “I’m just going through a tough time, Glo. I promise you I’m going to look harder for a better job, and then we’ll have more money. I just know I can find something.” Gloria’s problem was that she was too focused on her husband’s needs and not enough on her own. She could not assert herself consistently and strongly enough with him. Consequently, her motivation to change her life was decreasing because she just did not see too many options that would let her do something to change her life situation.

            Andy and Gloria stopped going to counseling after several years, even though their goals (at least hers) were never met. They had a friendship that worked to a degree, and apparently they were willing to stay in their no-growth relationship that only minimally met their needs. The alternative would require them to make dramatic changes in their lives that would take them out of their comfort zones and produce a lot of stress, uncertainty, and more independent decisions and lifestyles. The opportunities for a better life associated with these challenges were not enough to motivate them towards significant change, either together or apart. Unfortunately, neither Andy nor Gloria brought out the best in the other. They each lacked both the physical and emotional chemistry needed, and were unwilling to change their relationship. They stayed together for the wrong reasons. He was extremely dependent and attached to her no matter what. She was willing to sacrifice her needs for his, even if that meant she would not be happy. We lost touch with them after they left counseling.

            We have asked hundreds of never married, married, or previously married people a simple question: “How many of your relationships have been worthwhile, and brought you more satisfaction than dissatisfaction?” In answering the question, we asked them to consider only the relationship itself, not any by-products, such as children, that may have come from the relationship. We asked a few young adults in the 20s and 30s, but most of them ranged from the 40s to the 60s. Regardless of age, nearly everyone we asked said they have seldom had a relationship where the positives outweighed the negatives, or that they could only think of one relationship where that statement held true.

            Our respondents were clients in counseling, so the sample was neither random nor representative of a larger population. Nevertheless, we feel three conclusions are valid: (1) A healthy and satisfying relationship can be hard to come by; (2) If we have a decent partner (not perfect), we should think long and hard about ending the relationship when it is not everything we want or hope for; (3) if we have a decent partner worth committing to, working hard to improve the relationship is a better strategy than giving up on it because it does not meet our often over-romanticized, unrealistic ideals. This last statement captures the essence of the task facing those in intimate relationships: “How can I develop a more satisfying and meaningful relationship with someone before problems escalate out of hand and become too ingrained to correct?” Most clients in therapy have been involved in failed relationships. Why did it end? Typical comments are: “I’m sorry to say I cheated on them”; “I just took them for granted”; “I didn’t realize I had something special that you don’t find every day”; “I just let the relationship slip away by not taking care of it.” Almost all of them spoke of loneliness, unhappiness, and even depression over the break-up, and wished they could turn back the hands of time and repair the relationship.

Many psychologists say that the single best predictor of happiness for married people is their satisfaction in the marriage. In general, a positive relationship is one that helps those involved feel better about themselves, more creative, happy, social, and productive. On the other hand, a negative relationship is one that leads them to be self-absorbed, less efficient, unhappy, and lower in self-esteem and self-respect. Much human suffering is caused by relationship problems, and many in outpatient counseling are having significant difficulty accepting and adjusting to problems in relationships, which is the primary reason they entered therapy in the first place. Because the dynamics of relationships appear so fundamental to psychological problems, it is vital to help people minimize their pain and suffering in relationships. It is also essential to help them find and enhance the positive motivation, effort, and happiness that occur when they are in relatively healthier relationships. Let’s face it—no relationship is perfect. A few bumps in the road will occur, but in most cases it is worthwhile to work through them to avoid the more serious pitfalls described in the comments noted earlier. Above all, it’s good to remember: you don’t find a healthy relationship; rather, it’s the product of effort and commitment.

Billionaire Bill Gates is straightforward and clear: He says he will give away virtually all  his wealth for charitable causes over the next 20 years. He says a total of $200 billion will go toward causes that help save and improve lives around the world. “By deciding to spend all this money in the next 20 years, we can get a lot more done and save tens of millions of lives.” He has three main goals: stopping the deaths of mothers and children from preventable causes, eradicating deadly infectious diseases, and putting more countries on a path to prosperity by focusing on improving education. Gates wants to solve problems, what for him are moral problems. He shows empathy because he understands how mothers feel when a child is sick or dying; he understands how education increases self-esteem and achievement motivation. But Gates’ motivation to help goes further because it is based on moral empathetic strength—an understanding that fixing some problems is just the proper, decent, and honorable thing to do.

Billionaire Elon Musk also speaks of empathy, but shows little understanding of what it means. He speaks in convoluted, confusing terms and equates empathy with self-destruction: “I believe in empathy, like, I think you should care about other people, but you need to have empathy for civilization as a whole, and not commit to a civilizational suicide. I heard a podcaster talk about suicidal empathy. Like, there’s so much empathy that you actually suicide yourself. So, we’ve got civilizational suicidal empathy going on. And it’s like, I believe in empathy, like, I think you should care about other people, but you need to have empathy for, for civilization as a whole, and not commit to a civilizational suicide. The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy. You need to think it through and not just be programmed like a robot.” Unlike Gates, Musk sees empathy and charity as burdens on society, and efforts to lighten those burdens is akin to self-destruction. This twisted thinking allows his mind to demean and discard compassion and generosity as worthy pursuits.

[NOTE: The descriptions that follow are for dysfunctional extremes. Most people would show milder patterns and cope moderately well.] Relationship issues? Maybe one of the following patterns is the problem. Are you a dysfunctional giver, someone who avoids new challenges and subjugates their wants and needs in relationships, leading to interpersonal conflict? Whether excessively dependent, enabling, passive or cooperative, dysfunctional givers are not really giving. They shrink from responsibilities and run from insecurities, fears, and identity development; they also often inappropriately blame the taker. It is easy to understand why takers are attracted givers. Why, however, would a giver be attracted to a taker? The fact is, dysfunctional givers have a variety of self-interest motives that are served when interacting with takers: Givers have powerful dependency needs because of basic insecurities and related fears, and takers serve these dependency needs; givers become accustomed to having family members sacrifice for them; givers believe their actions are a way to secure and strengthen their relationships; givers have weak self-identity because they have not developed autonomy, individuality, and independence, which allows them to avoid the pain of facing their shortcomings; givers can avoid true intimacy and vulnerability in relationships, factors that can cause stress and anxiety. Givers often play the childlike, helpless role, or act like they are the victim: “You want me to pick you up when it’s sleeting outside? I can’t drive in those conditions. You know how nervous I get if I have to drive in bad weather. Do you want me to get killed? Thanks for caring so much!”

Maybe you’re more of a dysfunctional taker, someone who displays a limited capacity to understand, empathize, and meet their partner’s reasonable wants and needs. This limitation leads them to excessive manipulation, control, neglect, and abuse of others. Essentially, takers consume as much as possible from others without regard for their welfare. They do not consistently reciprocate in relationships, and tend to make others victims of a double standard, treating them in ways they themselves would not tolerate. Takers are psychological vampires. They draw as much “blood” as they can from their partners, friends, or family members, and then they either ignore or toss them aside. Paradoxically, takers become very frustrated and outraged when others are not there to meet their wants and needs. 

Typical actions and emotions that takers show are: displacing aggression on others close to them; fear of being vulnerable and getting hurt; excessive need for control; enhancing personal self-esteem at the expense of others; avoidance of responsibilities; low frustration tolerance; extreme feelings of entitlement. Takers tend to come across to others as very secure and high in self-esteem. However, they are neither. Takers desperately need to be the “top dog,” and seek relationships that allow them to satisfy their deep insecurities.Takers tend to test others early in a relationship in order to discover what they may be able to get away with down the road. For example, to avoid paying for dinner or some other activity, they “forget” their credit card or claim they will not get paid until next week. They may arrive forty-five minutes late for a date without a plausible explanation, and try to excuse their behavior by commenting on some recent stress, problem, lack of sleep, or a similar excuse. These actions are a way of gauging how the other person will respond. A passive or deferential type of response gives a taker a sign that this is the type of person they are likely to be able to manipulate.

Both these patterns are childlike, which prevents both givers and takers from becoming mature, constructive partners. They lose out on a great deal of satisfaction in their marriages, parent-child relations, and friendships.

Throughout this blog, we emphasize psychological principles for coping with stress:

There are only two things you can directly control: yourthoughts and youractions.

You must accept and face your emotions for what they are— – a part of you.

Inappropriate actions, not your emotions, are your coping challenge.

Optimistic, realistic actions are more important than thinking positive thoughts.

Personal happiness emerges from satisfying actions.

Personal pity parties are avoidance actions that disrupt effective coping.

You have no right to have the corners of your world padded for you.

You are not here to live up to others’ expectations.

Your actions must be guided by a social conscience, values, and ethical standards.

Successful coping with stress involves four steps:

Acceptance: You must resist the temptation to engage in denial about situations that bring you uncomfortable emotions. You must accept reality and your emotional reactions to it.

Accountability: Sometimes your actions have a positiveeffect on others, sometimes a negative effect, and sometimes no effect. You are responsible for realistically determining the impact of your actions.

Humility: Self-preoccupation is a barrier to effective coping. You are not the primary ingredient in the recipe.

Empathy: You must listen to and learn from others. You can resolve conflicts better, and feel more independent and empowered, when you act with the needs of others in mind.

Acceptance and Accountability provide you with a solid coping base, and allow you to enter the Humility Circle. Imagine five actions placed around a circle. At the top, the first position, “Humility,” encourages you to admit that you are not the primary ingredient in your life recipe. Moving around the circle, the second position is “Freedom.” Humility releases you from self-preoccupation and gives you a sense of freedom—an optimistic spirit—that is uplifting. Continuing around the circle, the third position is “Sharing.” Strengthened with your new-found positivity, you can now share yourself with others who are also fighting stress in their lives. You move to the fourth position, “Communication.” Sharing your struggles with others not only requires you to talk to them, but also to listen to and learn from them. That brings you to the fifth and final position, “Empathy.” The circle is now complete. You begin with reducing a focus on yourself as the center of it all, and end with an empathetic understanding of others who are wrestling with life challenges just as you are. Released from the prison of self-absorbed ego, you are able reach out to help others because you understand their plight. Purged of considering yourself special and deserving of pity, you cope with your stressors by helping others with their difficulties. Empathy is the gold standard of coping. There is no more effective therapy than empathetic service to others. The absence of empathy is denial; its presence generates acceptance of what is going on, accountability of what you can do about it, and humility in the presence of others’ suffering.

Zach’s father abandoned the family when Zach was just a child, and he grew up with an alcoholic mother who had a gambling problem. These experiences planted the seeds of insecurity and abandonment anxiety in Zach’s mind, but throughout childhood and into his teen years and young adulthood, Zach compensated by being outgoing and socially active. In college he developed a close friendship with a classmate, Kyle, and was pretty much “adopted” by Kyle’s family. He spent a lot of time with them and Kyle’s dad became a surrogate dad to Zach.

            After graduating from college, Zach and Kyle worked at Kyle’s family business. Zach married and they began a family. Zach, however, was chronically plagued by unresolved issues from his childhood and adolescence; he fought fears of being abandoned and alone, clearly the result of his father leaving, and the lack of warmth and nurturance from his mother. Zach spent most of his adulthood avoiding facing these issues and the insecurities they caused him. He neither appreciated nor understood how powerful and stressful these conflicts were; nor was he able to face the reality that they prevented him from ever truly trusting and sharing himself fully with anyone. Psychologically, he was chronically adrift and lonely. 

            Zach’s denial and avoidance of facing his core conflicts became manifest in fanciful “get rich quick schemes,” and he developed a serious gambling problem. He confided to Kyle, “No amount of money will ever be enough for me.” His risky schemes and gambling worsened, and he had to borrow large sums of money, most of which he never paid back. Problems and pressures grew. On more than one occasion Zach quit his job, only to return days later asking to be reinstated. The time came, however, when Kyle’s father said, “No.” Soon, Zach faced bankruptcy, loss of his home, public shame, and embarrassment. During this time, he consulted a priest and psychologist, but he never fully revealed to either the real nature of his psychological problems. He was never sufficiently motivated to confront his fears. Feeling alone and unwanted, he was hell bent on self-destruction, a perfect example of how unchecked self-sabotage actions lead to inescapable blind alleys.

            One day Zach’s wife came home and found him dead by his own hand. There was no note; there were no good-byes. From Zach’s perspective, there was no more pain for him. He no longer needed to avoid unpleasant thoughts and feelings. Memories of his father’s abandonment, and painful comparisons of his life versus Kyle’s did not have to be endured any longer. Zach quit on his wife and kids the way his dad quit on him. Ultimately, he became caught in a vicious cycle of self-destruction that led to his death. He was filled with too much anxiety, depression, guilt, anger, shame, low self-esteem, hopelessness, narcissism, and self-defeating actions to overcome the conflicts and fears that had begun decades earlier.

            [NOTE: We learned the details of Zach’s life from his wife, who came to counseling to deal with his suicide.]

Justin is a first-year college student finding himself confronted with information—mostly out of class—that contradicts some of the “facts” he was raised to accept: Black people are intellectually inferior to Whites, lazy, and lacking in ambition; gays are indecent degenerates, morally corrupt sinners who seek to undermine America’s virtue; women are a threat to men in the workplace, and need to be kept out of positions of authority. As the semester progressed, Justin’s social circle expanded, and he was stressed to discover that many of his beliefs just did not stand up to the reality of his experiences. At first, he discounted his college experiences as exceptions to the real world; his thinking involved denial, selective perception, and distorting the reality around him. But slowly, he began to consider another alternative: “Maybe my beliefs about these groups are wrong.”

It’s interesting to note that when confronted with troublesome contradictions like Justin experienced, the last thing most people do to resolve their mental anguish is to change their beliefs. When you think about it, that makes some sense. When coping requires you to change your beliefs, the first step in the process is looking squarely at those beliefs and asking yourself, “Do I have poor judgment? Am I avoiding something? Am I afraid of something that makes me hold onto these beliefs?” Tackling such questions can be tough.

Rodney was an 18-year-old who believed that all Mormon men had multiple wives, only one of whom they made public. The rest were hidden away. Rodney’s father taught him this “fact,” and Rodney’s self-esteem was based on praise and acceptance from his father. He had a mostly unconscious fear of offending his father and suffering rejection, which would plunge him into anxiety about being abandoned. Psychologically, therefore, he could not reject his father’s beliefs and, to our knowledge, he never did. Allegiance to his father kept him in psychological balance. When anyone challenged Rodney’s belief about Mormons—even a practicing member of the Mormon church—he told them they were wrong. He was not interested in rejecting his father’s beliefs.

Sometimes, however, people do change their beliefs. Rachel, a 35-year-old single woman, avoided romantic commitment. At a deep mental level, Rachel feared she would be sexually promiscuous like her mother, who was a prostitute throughout Rachel’s childhood. Rachel believed and feared that romantic involvement would lead her to promiscuity, and expose to herself and others that she had no moral values. Only complete avoidance of emotional commitment could keep her fears hidden. Rachel required long-term professional counseling to be able to accept the reality of her core fears. Over time she was able to consider alternative beliefs and actions that enabled her to cope with her anxiety in more realistic fashion.

Carol, a 19-year-old college student suffered intense test anxiety. Rather than face this truth realistically, she was able to convince her school’s Learning Skills Center that she needed special arrangements in her courses for taking tests. She was a solid B student, but she was tormented with the belief that she was a “dumb, incompetent, loser” who couldn’t face a challenge without special help. Carol was aware of her core fear, and she was able to work with a college counselor for alternative ways—notably better study practices—to confront the anxiety.

When it comes to dealing with stress, no matter what beliefs we’re talking about, when they are unrealistic, illogical, inconsistent, and contradictory—and your actions perpetuate those beliefs—you should attack those beliefs critically and work at discarding them in favor of alternatives. Discuss your choices with a trusted friend, advisor, or professional counselor. Finally, when you choose new actions consistent with more realistic beliefs, make sure you have a reliable social support network. Coping with stress by changing your beliefs is seldom accomplished alone.

Are you regularly self-critical, always casting yourself as the enemy? It’s tough to cope effectively if you are your own enemy. Sure, you have negative thoughts and feelings, but it helps to remember that they are a natural part of life, and having them does not make you weird or abnormal. If someone criticizes you, well, that’s their problem, not yours; you’re not here to live up to others’ expectations. You must also remember your values. Do you give in to self-destructive behavior—drug/alcohol abuse, social withdrawal, gambling, eating disorders, jeopardizing your family’s welfare—at the expense of your values? If you value your roles as parent, spouse, employee, or friend, but, at the same time, let yourself become less effective in these roles, how can you expect to feel good about yourself?  If you value work, family, and friends, you must act accordingly, and with a sincere commitment and dedication. Coordinate your actions with your values.

            Do you regularly ask yourself, “How am I doing?” or, “Am I happy enough?” If you overdo this self-focus you can lose your ability to feel satisfied in the present. For example, chronically depressed and anxious people are likely to focus on whether they are feeling better. They search for answers in social situations to see how they are doing: “Does Joe see I’m here?” “Do I look foolish to Sally?” They also monitor their own actions: “Is my heart racing?” “Am I sweating?” “Am I just pretending?” “How well am I relating?” They try to feel “right,” which makes it impossible to be themselves and have a good time. Coping well with stress does not mean you should constantly check on your actions and worry about what others are thinking. It’s the same with trying to maintain complete control over what’s going on around you. Such efforts are not coping solutions, but only present you with coping problems. In the final analysis, actions based on fear and anxiety are the basis for the issues most people face; fear and anxiety are the motivators for the conflicts that produce most psychological problems and encourage inappropriate actions. Can you see that your emotions are not the problem, but inappropriate actions servicing the emotions are?

            Stop treating your emotions as if they are alien invaders. They are you! We all have them and they are a natural part of living. You are not weird. Accept your emotions but do not be governed or dominated by them. Acceptance of their presence and focusing on your behavior are the keys to effective coping.

Biological Evolution. Darwin says organisms evolve through natural selection, which occurs because those individuals with a wider variety of traits are more likely to survive and produce more offspring. In other words, diversity of traits is essential for survival.

Psychological Evolution. In 1974, psychologist Sandra Bem published the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. The test measured where one’s sex-role traits fall on a scale ranging from “Traditional Male” to “Traditional Female,” with “Psychological Androgyny” falling in the middle of the scale. Traditional Male sex-roles are characteristics like competitiveness, aggressiveness, assertiveness, and domineering. Traditional Female sex-roles include traits like sensitivity, emotional, caring, and passive. The post-WWII childrearing culture of the US identified good parenting as teaching boys traditional male sex-roles (“You need to be tough, kid!), and teaching girls traditional female sex-roles (“Remember, honey, you must always nurture your children and support your husband, and make sure your household is well-run.”)

            Bem’s message was that forcing children into rigid sex-roles limited their diversity and their ability to cope well with everyday life. For instance, what if a situation requires caring, sympathy, and displays of emotion? Well, the traditional male is lost; he doesn’t know how to behave without sacrificing his masculinity-dependent self-esteem. Similarly, what if a situation requires assertiveness and an aggressively competitive spirit? In this case, the traditional female is lost because to act in those ways would be a threat to her femininity. Thus, Bem says, teaching children to display traditional sex-roles severely limits their ability to adapt and cope—evolve—with a variety of situations. This dilemma is where psychological androgyny comes in. The androgynous woman is caring and sensitive, but if the situation demands it, she can also be aggressive and competitive. By the same token, the androgynous man is dominant, powerful, and tough, but if the situation demands it, he can also be emotional, sympathetic, and soft. Parents should, therefore, encourage androgyny—diversity of traits—in their children in order to foster psychological evolution, and help them be more effective at coping with stress.

            Social Evolution. Evolution is based on the principle of diversity of traits, which increases the odds of survival. We believe this principle applies not only to biological development of a species, but also to the psychological of individuals within a species. How about social structures that individuals form? Does the principle of diversity also apply to those groupings? Could one argue, for instance, that a human society that accepts a wide range of interests, abilities, needs, and backgrounds—compared to a society that encourages homogeneity among its members—is stronger and healthier, and more likely to adapt and successfully meet challenges? Is diversity among members of a society necessary for survival of that society?