Background

How to Resolve (T)horny Dilemmas

Uploaded 1/6/2023, approx. 17 minute read

Okay, baby seals and baby selects.

Today I'm going to teach you how to resolve dilemmas.

A dilemma is a form of cognitive dissonance. And of course, I have to explain what is a cognitive dissonance.

A cognitive dissonance is when you hold in your mind two beliefs, two ideas, two courses of action, two pieces of information that contradict each other, that are mutually exclusive. One of them must be right. One of them should be wrong.

When they inhabit the mind at the same time, they create a conflict. They create a dissonance, and that is known as a cognitive dissonance because it's a dissonance, a conflict of cognitions, of thoughts.

A dilemma is a cognitive dissonance involving usually two courses of action, which are mutually exclusive, which are contradictory. Each course of action is known as a horn.

So every dilemma, like certain bovine animals, has two horns, and they are known as the horns of the dilemma.

In a proper horn, horns and horniness, there's a service announcement. Things are getting a bit out of hand. My breakup with Richard Grannon has taken a life of its own.

I have been receiving a tsunami of emails, letters, messages, pigeon carriers, and I don't know what, from women, women who are writing to me with allegations of egregious abuse by Richard Grannon, and how duplicitous he is, and how sleazy he is, and so on and so forth.

I'm saying allegations because I'm being careful. Please, all women who had been impacted by Richard Grannon positively or negatively, take it with him, take it with him. Go to the authorities or the police if you have to. Talk to your pastor, consult your therapies, open a Facebook group for victims of Richard Grannon.

I don't know. I am not your address. I want nothing further to do with Richard Grannon in any way. I want him and every echo of him out of my life he had contaminated it long enough.

Richard Grannon was bed-mouthing me to all the women in my life for hours at a time and throughout our relationship.

I will not stoop to his level. I'm not going to do the same. I'm not going to respond to you. I'm not going to help you in any way, shape, or form.

I am not Richard Grannon's custodian. Thank heavens.

Please adopt some other course of action if you have to. Thank you very much.


Now to the topic of the video, which is dilemmas.

I'm going to choose a dilemma which is very typical in relationships.

Then I'm going to show you a simple method to resolve this dilemma and all dilemmas.

Dilemmas, as I said, are very common in daily life.

Here's a dilemma from a relationship, more specifically the dating scene.

I'm scared to meet him, but I'm scared to let him go. I don't know what to do about this. I'm struggling.

This is known as an equi-potent dilemma. The two horns, do you remember the horns?

The two horns of the dilemma have equal power. They're equally compelling. They are equi-potent.

You are scared to meet him, or you don't want to meet him, or you feel uncomfortable about meeting him.

On the other hand, you can't live without him. You can't let him go.

The two are of equal power. They exert equal force on you. They compel you the same way, but in opposite directions.

This is known as an equi-potent dilemma. This is how to solve an equi-potent dilemma and make a decision.

Write down the following.

If I meet him, I'm going to suffer greatly.

For example, if you were to meet an abuser or reunite with your abusive ex.

If I meet him again, I'm going to suffer greatly.

But if I do not meet him, I'm going to be jealous of other women who will presume to take my place. And I may lose him. He will fall in love with another woman.

So now what you did, you spelled out your fears. You made your fears explicit.

Prior to this beginning of the exercise, your fears were implicit. They were a hidden text.

And what you've done, you have deconstructed the hidden text. You have rendered it overt. An overt text. An open text.

Why? Why are you afraid to meet him?

You're afraid to meet him because you believe that you will suffer greatly again.

And why are you afraid to not meet him? You're afraid to not meet him because then you will be jealous of other women who will take your place.

You may lose him. He may fall in love with another woman.

Let us put the two together.

I do not want to suffer greatly again. I want to be happy. I want to be respected. And I want to be loved.

This has another layer of hidden text. I do not trust him to change his behavior.

If I were to meet him again, I would suffer because he is incapable of change, is incapable of reforming himself or modifying his behaviors.

So now let us summarize all the information we have gleaned regarding the first horn of the dilemma.


Number one, if I meet him, you remember the dilemma is I want to meet him, but I'm afraid to meet him.

I want to see him again, but I'm afraid to see him again.

So clearly two courses of action, both of them incompatible. They can't sit with each other. They're contradictory.

So let's summarize the first horn, the first option, the first course of action, meeting him.

If you meet him, you're going to suffer greatly again. That's the problem.

You have to break down the horn of the dilemma to problem, need and assumption. Let's try to do it.

If I were to meet him, problem, I'm going to suffer greatly again.

Need, I do not want to suffer greatly again. I want to be happy and respected and loved.

Assumption, I do not trust him to change his behavior.

So now the picture is much clearer. If I were to meet Sam, I would face a problem. If I were to meet him, I would face a problem. I would suffer greatly again. It would frustrate my need.

My need is to be happy, to be loved, to be respected, taken care of, appreciated, held.

So the problem, I'll suffer, it frustrates, undermines the basic need to be loved.

And there's a hidden assumption. The assumption is he can never change his behavior. He is bound to abuse me. He is bound to disrespect me and not love me and not protect me and not take care of me because that's who he is. And then I'm going to suffer.

So when we analyze the horn of the dilemma, we go from beginning to end and then we go from end to beginning.

Beginning to end, problem, need, assumption. End to beginning, assumption, need, problem.

Problem, I'm going to suffer, need, I don't want to suffer. Assumption, he will make me suffer because he cannot change.

Reverse, Assumption, he will make me suffer because he cannot change.

Therefore, my need to be loved will be frustrated. Therefore, I will suffer.

Okay. Having done all this, look at the structure.

Can you change the problem?

Well, you can't control the outcome of your meeting. He may well abuse you, mistreat you, make you suffer.

So the problem is immutable, not changeable.

Can you change your need? Would you, for example, agree to suffer? Would you love to suffer? Of course not. You want to be loved? You want to be held? You want to be respected? You want to be cherished? This is your need and it cannot be changed and should not be changed.

What can you change? What do you control?

You can change the assumption. You can control the assumption.

Remember, the assumption is his behavior is fixed.

He cannot control or modify his misconduct. He is liable to damage me and hurt me.

That's the assumption. Can you change the assumption?

The answer is yes, actually. While you cannot change the problem or the need, you can change the assumption.

For example, you can ask yourself, maybe he has learned his lesson and will be afraid to lose you.

Maybe there is a way to incentivize him to behave better, to give him rewards and positive reinforcements when he behaves himself. Maybe there is a way to punish him if he abuses you and mistreats you.

I don't know. Walk away. Break up for two weeks. Block him for a while. Maybe you could change some of your behaviors to prevent his reactive abuse.

Maybe in some way you're pushing his buttons and provoking him.

It's not always true, but it sometimes is. When, for example, you use projective identification.

So, you see, by asking questions about the assumption, we begin to realize that the assumption can be modified, can change by changing your behavior, by changing his behavior, or by making certain relatively plausible assumptions.

For example, that he has learned his lesson from this period of separation. He knows to behave better.

Let us proceed to the second bone of the dilemma.

Remember, the first bone of the dilemma was, I'm going to meet him. He's going to make me suffer. I don't want to suffer. He cannot change.

The second bone of the dilemma is, I do not meet him. I'm not going to meet him.

Now, this presents a problem. The problem is, if I don't meet him, I'm going to be jealous of other women who will take my place.

I may lose him. He may fall in love with another woman. That's the problem.

The need, I do not want to feel jealous. Jealousy is uncomfortable. It's a knowing, painful motion. I don't want to experience it.

So, that's the need. The need to not experience jealousy.

What about the assumption? Remember, we always analyze the horn of the dilemma.

Each horn problem needs an assumption.

So, the problem is, I'm going to be jealous. If I don't meet him, I'm going to be jealous that he might be with another woman.

The need is, I don't want to be jealous. I don't want him to be or to love another woman. I don't want him to be with another woman. I don't want him to love another woman.

It will still make me jealous. That's the need.

What about the assumption? The assumption underlying the second horn of the dilemma is, he will immediately replicate with other women what he has had with me. He will immediately replace me.

So, this is the second horn of the dilemma.

To remind you or to recap, if you do not meet him, you're going to be jealous of other women. You don't want to feel jealous. You don't want him to love someone else.

The problem is that you believe the assumption.

So, the problem is that you will be jealous. The need is to not be jealous.

And the assumption is that he will immediately replace you with someone elseand that will make you jealous.

You cannot change the problem. Remember. And you cannot change your need.

But you can always change the assumption.

For example, maybe he doesn't want to love againso soon or after so many traumatic experiences. Maybe it is very difficult for him to find someone to love.

For example, how many women did he love in the past decade? Are you sure of what you are saying? What is the history of his relationships? Does he have long-term, fruitful, happy relationships? Or do women tend to break up with him? Is he anxious and angry when he is in a relationship or when women abandon him?

Maybe being in love for him is actually being anxious and guilty. Maybe he identifies love with guilt and anxiety.

In other words, your assumption that he will immediately replace you with someone else and love her as he had loved you.

You need to study this assumption really, really deeply. You need to ask yourself, what is his love language? What has been his experience with love? Traumatic or happy? Is it easy for him to find someone to love? What do women do to him when he does love them? How does it end? Does he associate love with positive emotions or negative emotions such as anxiety and anger? And if he associates love with negative emotions, why would he rush to be in love again?

So, go easy. Hold your horses. Don't jump to the conclusion that if you were to not meet him, there would be another woman hanging on his arm waiting to be loved.

Maybe his history, personal history, romantic history, doesn't indicate this.

So, this is the second phase. The first phase is analyzing the first horn of the dilemma.

The second phase is analyzing the second horn of the dilemma.

And now we come to the third phase. And the third phase is comparison of the two horns.

Remember that each horn is made of problem, need and assumption.

So, now you ask yourself, which need is greater?

Remember that in the first horn of this particular dilemma, the need was, I want to be treated well. I do not want to suffer.

And in the second horn of the dilemma, the need was, I don't want to be jealous. It's uncomfortable. It's painful.

So, now you ask yourself, which of these two needs is greater? Which of these two needs is more compelling? Is it the need to be treated well, to be loved and cared for, to not suffer, to not be tortured, to not be mistreated? Or is it the need to not feel jealous and the need to make sure that he doesn't love someone else?

Now, very often, the resolution of the dilemma starts here.

It suddenly occurs to you that one of the needs is greater than the other need.

Dilemma solved. The need that is greater determines which horn of the dilemma you will choose.

If your need to not suffer, if your need to be loved is the greater, then, of course, you should not meet him. If your need to not be jealous is greater, you should meet him.

But what to do if both needs are equippotent, if both needs have similar power, exert a similar force on you, is equally compelling?

If the needs are absolutely equally important to you, ask yourself again if you can change the assumptions.

For example, if you do not behave in certain ways, is he still likely to abuse you as much or at all?

How about teaching him a lesson so that he is afraid to lose you and therefore abstains from abusing you?

Maybe there is a way to incentivize him to give him positive reinforcement and rewards if he behaves himself or behaves better. Maybe there is a way to punish him if he mistreats you.

What about his romantic and relationship history? How likely is it that he will fall in love again so soon? And if he does fall in love, how likely is this new relationship to survive? Does his relationship history indicate long-term, deep, profound commitments or shallow, on-the-fly, fly-by-night pseudo-relationships?

You need to review all the assumptions.

In case both your needs have equal power, you absolutely must change some of your assumptions.

The good news is most assumptions are wrong. They reflect fears, anxieties and insecurities, not facts and cool analyses.

Dilemmas can be solved only by the letter, the application of the letter, analysis and a cool head.

Enjoy.

If you enjoyed this article, you might like the following:

How to Handle Complaints (CIAPS Lecture)

Complaints can be categorized into two types: those arising from unsatisfactory experiences and those stemming from unacceptable behavior. The psychology behind complaining often involves a gap between expectations and reality, leading to frustration and potential aggression. Effective complaint management requires acknowledging the complaint, validating the complainant's feelings, and implementing changes based on the feedback received. Complaints should be viewed as valuable insights that can drive improvement and innovation, rather than as negative experiences to be avoided or dismissed.


What Is Acting Out? (and Covert Narcissist)

Acting out is a way for individuals to discharge conflicted mental content through action, often as a result of being unable to verbalize or communicate their internal struggles. It is commonly associated with personality disorders and can lead to self-destructive behaviors. Acting out can be seen as a form of somatization, using the body to remember and process repressed memories and emotions. It is important to distinguish acting out from other concepts such as acting in, passage à l'acte, and bad behavior, as they have different implications and meanings.


4 Ways to Reject Reality (Denial: Root of all Failure)

Denial is a conscious defense mechanism that prevents individuals from acknowledging unpleasant realities, leading to a cycle of unresolved issues and repeated failures. It operates alongside other psychological mechanisms such as repression, dissociation, and delusion, which serve to manage emotional conflicts and overwhelming experiences. When denial fails, individuals may resort to dissociation or delusion, ultimately retreating into fantasy as a means of escaping intolerable realities. This progression highlights the importance of confronting and processing difficult emotions and experiences to avoid the detrimental effects of these defense mechanisms on personal growth and mental health.


Dissonances, Anxiety, and Addiction (Intl. Conference on Addiction, Psychiatry and Mental Health)

Dissonance, or inner conflict, is a powerful force that can lead to addictive, traumatic, or post-traumatic behaviors. While cognitive dissonance is widely discussed, there are many other types of dissonance, including volitional, emotional, axiological, deontic, and attitude dissonance. Dissonance can arise from conflicting thoughts, emotions, values, duties, and attitudes. When defense mechanisms fail to cope with dissonance, severe anxiety can lead to self-medication and addiction, which can engender trauma and personality pathologies such as narcissism.


How To Write a Case Study (CIAPS Class)

A case study is a narrative that combines facts, context, theories, assumptions, and conclusions to analyze specific events or transactions in business, finance, or management. It serves as a diagnostic and prescriptive tool, helping to identify problems and propose solutions while emphasizing the human element involved in decision-making. Effective case studies require careful audience consideration, fact gathering, and contextual analysis to ensure relevance and clarity. The structure typically includes an abstract, introduction, body, analysis, conclusions, and recommendations, with a focus on presenting information in a clear and engaging manner. Ultimately, a well-crafted case study aims to enlighten and transform its readers by providing valuable insights and actionable solutions.


People are Like Trees: Roots and Obstacles (by Jennifer Howard)

Humans adapt to obstacles in their environment similarly to how trees navigate around physical barriers, allowing for continued growth despite challenges. Psychopathologies serve as adaptive mechanisms that help individuals achieve a functional equilibrium, even if the resulting personality configurations are considered abnormal. The resilience of life forces enables individuals to develop personality structures that meet their needs while responding to external constraints. Ultimately, personal growth and development persist until death, with life experiences shaping the intricate fabric of personality.


Why We Dream (International Congress on Neurology and Brain Disorders)

Dreams serve three primary functions: processing repressed memories and experiences, organizing conscious experiences from the preceding days, and maintaining a connection with the external world through symbolic representation. They act as a continuous self-therapy mechanism, allowing individuals to adjust their self-models and cope with internal and external stimuli. The nature of dreams varies across cultures, with Western societies often viewing them as personal reflections, while other cultures may see them as significant communications from the external world. Ultimately, dreams are integral to our understanding of reality, influencing our thoughts, emotions, and creative processes, while also reflecting the complexities of our mental states.


How to Resolve Your Inner Conflicts? Deceive Yourself!

The lecture discusses the concept of dissonance, particularly cognitive dissonance, and how it manifests as conflicting thoughts or emotions within an individual. It emphasizes that dissonance can be understood through various frameworks, including the interaction of personality parts and self-states, and outlines five methods to resolve dissonance, such as temporal, reactive, inclusive, denial, and defensive solutions. The speaker argues against the notion of a unitary self, proposing instead that individuals are composed of multiple parts that interact dynamically. Additionally, the lecture categorizes different types of dissonance, including volitional, emotional, axiological, deontic, and attitudinal dissonance, and suggests that mental illness can arise from unresolved dissonance.


When Is It OK to CRY? 3 Rules

Crying serves as a powerful form of signaling, communicating distress and a need for help to those around us. It functions as an anxiolytic, reducing anxiety by prompting others to modify their behaviors in response to our emotional state. While crying can foster connection and support, it is often stigmatized and viewed as a sign of weakness, leading individuals to refrain from expressing this natural behavior in certain environments. It is advisable to cry in friendly settings, when alone for self-soothing, or when it can effectively alter negative circumstances, as it can facilitate empathy and support from others.


Narcissist's Psychological Defense Mechanisms

The psyche is a battleground of conflicting forces, including instinctual urges, societal constraints, and moral standards, leading to various forms of anxiety. Defense mechanisms, such as narcissism, acting out, denial, and projection, serve to protect individuals from emotional pain and internal conflicts. These mechanisms can manifest in harmful ways, such as splitting and idealization, particularly in those with personality disorders. Ultimately, these defenses create a complex inner landscape that can hinder personal growth and lead to destructive behaviors.

Transcripts Copyright © Sam Vaknin 2010-2024, under license to William DeGraaf
Website Copyright © William DeGraaf 2022-2024
Get it on Google Play
Privacy policy