Skip to main content

Human Psychology: Generativity, Liking, Loving

My Psychology and Life (Gerrig and Zimbardo) textbook is perhaps one of my better investments. It is certainly better than the dozens of random books I've purchased over the years from the streets and the internet. My mother recently cleaned by bookshelf in order to find this astrology book I once had (given recent events, she felt compelled to consult the wisdom of astrology). She didn't find the book, but I did uncover titles like Killing Hope, a 600 page history of all military interventions by the US government in the last 100 years; The History of God, which I found on the floor in Stuyvesant High School one day; and Kisses, a book I forgot to return to my second grade ESL class.

The psychology textbook, however, I still consult regularly. As I was rereading the text randomly, I came across the concept of generativity : a commitment beyond oneself to family, work, society, or future generations, typically a crucial step in developing in one's 30s and 40s; an orientation towards a greater good. The word was applied only to men. In a research study of 95 highly intelligent men,


by middle life, the best-outcome men were carrying out generativity tasks, assuming responsibility for others, and contributing in some way to the world. Their maturity even seemed to be associated with the adjustment of their children--the more mature fathers were better able to give children the help they needed in adjusting to the world (353)


Generativity seems like something that men eventually develop with time. They are taught to be successful, to be tough, and moneymakers as youth, but evolution inserts generativity into the male psyche in mid-life. My little brother is at a stage in his development in which he is "trying to be his own man." This grounding of the self in his individual capacities and agency is crucial because it motivates him to make money, to do well in school, etc. I, on the other hand, have always enjoyed school immensely and will continue to do so because I enjoy learning for the sake of learning. From my education, I don't expect to generate a lot of money. When the reality of marriage hits, my education and personal income will be secondary to my character, my ability to serve the greater good, follow directions, be self-sacrificing and responsible, my willingness to make compromises--my generativity essentially. My brother won't be expected to do such things. His making enough money and acquisition of the right degrees (Masters in Engineering) will make him marriageable by default.

The fact is that generativity is programmed into young girls by their parents, society, culture etc. This fact is of course dependent on the social context of the girls' upbringing--i.e. where she is from, what are the values of that culture, etc. Other than my father, I cannot think of a man under 30 who is at this stage, no matter how intelligent. But nearly all my girlfriends have an overt tendency towards generativity.

Another fascinating concept I encountered in my beloved psych textbook was under a chapter titled "Social Processes and Relationships."

By now, you may have noted the consistent theme of relationships appear and reappear on Sadia's Blog. I cannot explain why this is so relevant to the current state of my affairs. This past year, I've certainly been more preoccupied with relationships, whether with friends, acquaintances, or Other(s).

So the chapter on social relationships begins with a question, "How do you choose the people with whom you share your life?" (558) Interpersonal attraction, or what's commonly known as liking, is based on
(1) proximity--People like objects and people just by virtue of mere exposure
(2) physical attractiveness--In studies, beauty mattered more than high IQs, good social skills, or good personalities
(3) similarity--"Similarity on dimensions such as beliefs, attitudes, and values foster friendship" (559)
(4) reciprocity--You like the people who like you back.

The more intense stage of interpersonal attraction is known as love. Research has identified the following markers for love:
(1) passion--sexual passion and desire
(2) intimacy--honesty and understanding
(3) commitment--devotion and sacrifice

What characterizes one's experience of love is influenced largely by attachment style. I have identified myself as a avoidant style of adult attachment, seen in only 25% of the population (what population, I don't know):

I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.

Compare that style to someone who displays a secure attachment style:

I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them. I don't often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me.

Which style are you?

The attachment style predicts (1) relationship quality (2) how individuals experience jealousy in relationships.

The text also notes that culture influences how one experiences love. For example, if you choose a life partner based on how that individual fits in with your family structure and concerns, you are more attuned to collective goals. If you choose someone based on your own feelings of love, you are showing a preference for personal goals. Furthermore, these members of independent cultures are more demanding of their potential partners. Because people in these cultures have stronger ideas about personal fulfillment within relationships, they also expect more from marriage partners. (561)

And the final factor in discussing loving relationships is commitment--by far the most troubling for someone of the avoidant style of attachment. Apparently, the likelihood that one will remain in a relationship is related to the Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale (IOS), which shows to what degree one feels interdependence with a partner. Dependence fills certain needs like intimacy, emotional involvement, companionship and intellectual involvement. Basically, the dependence model and scale suggest that one remains in a relationship when that relationship satisfies important needs that cannot be satisfied by anyone else.

My friend Musa claims that my entries are of lesser quality than other things I have written because I violate a basic tenant of good writing that is consistent progression of ideas. For example, I fail to connect what I started writing about--generativity--to social relationships. Well, I guess he will be disappointed again because I can find no connection between these ideas.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Not Friendship (Revised)- Repost

It is difficult to be merely a friend to a boy who seems more suitable as a husband than a friend. To reduce a potential life partner to a friend is immature and selfish. Friendship is the not the greatest type of relationship, but it is the safest. Friendship allows you to be intimate without the messiness of other things, like physical attraction, etc. Between friends, there is a warm permanence, a fuzziness that can be called appreciation and gratitude. There is also comfort and trust. Friendship is great if only for the possibility that one can know the beauty of another human being. The possibility of that is worth the difficulty of all else. But sometimes friendship is not enough. Sometimes, to reduce someone to friend when he should be much more is an affront to the opportunity God has presented before you. It is like saying to him, I know that we are amazing together, but we should be friends because I am a dumbass. To reduce him to friend also precludes the possibility of love...
Malcolm Gladwell. "Getting In: The Social Logic of Ivy Leage Admissions" http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html Major themes: 1. Passion is a significant contributor to success. 2. High intelligence means little without discipline and passion. "Bowen and Shulman write about the characteristics that make athletes more coveted by Ivy League schools: One of these characteristics can be thought of as drive--a strong desire to succeed and unswerving determination to reach a goal, whether it be winning the next game or closing a sale. Similarly, athletes tend to be more energetic than the average person, which translates into an ability to work hard over long periods of time--to meet, for example, the workload demands placed on young people by an investment bank in the throes of analyzing a transaction. In addition, athletes are more likely than others to be highly competitive, gregarious and confident of their ability to work well in groups (on teams). I ...

Re: Your Inquiries

"You confuse yourselves with your actions, even with your thoughts. You barely understand that in order to be, it should not be necessary to act, and that the world changes you far more than you change it." (Malraux, The Temptation of the West, 1961 ) The world consists of wonderful people who enter and exit your life. When you let them enter, your breaths seem more thoughtful, your behaviors more scrutinized, your ideas challenged, and sometimes your brain orgasms from happiness. But when these individuals leave, you experience equally significant things like confusion and hurt. It seems okay to let someone in, someone trustworthy, good, honest, and not concern yourself with the end. As things exist in your mind, there is no harm. Intellectual promiscuity, then, is not so bad. To have intimate, intelligent conversations into the morning is not troubling, either. Sometimes when good people enter, it is not necessary to act, or specifically to resist. When people enter, their ...