In talking with my clients, I am acutely aware of the need to be tactful when introducing them to DOLF concepts. To make a DOLF diagnosis, I first try to find the client’s Prime Loving parent, or PLG. I suggest that when they were growing up one of their parents must have been more approachable, easy-going, forgiving and LOVING than the other. Many reject the idea, refusing to bring to consciousness their innermost feelings toward each parent since it seems to evoke their guilt and denial. So I conjure up a little discussion to help them by asking some additional questions about what role each of their parents played. If they are ultimately unable to identify their prime parent, I move on. But if they suddenly find an answer in their heart, I ask them how they think I could have known there is such a difference without asking more information about their family. They are baffled because it doesn’t make logical sense that there is a real definable difference, and besides, they never heard of it. They find reasons to be skeptical and often ask for my research, so I point our my doctoral level of education, experience and 45-year span of empirical research. Even though the difference makes intuitive sense to them, they laugh inwardly at my lofty ambitions to alter the base of knowledge in psychology, and frown surreptitiously in disbelief. This is even more true when I tell them that DOLF is a universal phenomenon that occurs in every family, and that it even seems to follow a strict mathematical formula! Most people quickly dismiss my input and put it out of their thoughts because they are certain it can not be entirely true, and is not too important.
A significant number of people adamantly resist my suggestions or offer an excuse that explains how it does not apply to them: “My parents were from the holocaust, so it’s different for us”. As I discussed a patient with one psychiatrist and tried to enlighten him to how the formula applies to everyone, he refused to agree to how it applies to his own family. Accordingly he slammed his hand on the desk and proclaimed: “We aren’t here to discuss my family!” Others respond more elusively: “My mother was the homemaker so we always went to her” inferring that she was the PLG, or, “My father was passive and didn’t get involved in anything we did. He was always at work or in his study” – their excuse for why he was not the PLG. Some search their hearts to find a difference, but come up empty. Others still arrive at the wrong answer, which is challenging for me. Most base their belief on the time they spent with each parent, or the fact that one seemed to be in charge of commanding the ship and doing all the organizing in the home while the other seemed quite passive. However as stated in many blogs, regardless of the actual amount of time they spend with their children or the amount of authority they seemed to have in running the lives of the family members, both fathers and mothers are just as likely to be the Prime Loving parent.
In some cases people are deceived because their Additional parent was so domineering that they made the Prime parent seem virtually useless. For example, on a television program about parenting a woman complained that her husband was not helping her enough at home. One evening she went to a school meeting leaving her husband to babysit their two children and specifically laid out the bedtime chores. When she returned, the home was untidy, laundry was not done, their son hadn’t taken his medication, homework was not completed and the children had not been put to bed. The three were busy horsing around and play fighting and the children and their father, who was clearly the PLG had enjoyed a great time together. Predictably and in line with conventional social values however, the sentiment of the program firmly supported the mother. She was portrayed as the more essential parent who was tolerating a burdensome, lackadaisical husband, and was on the verge of filing for divorce.
As challenging as it may be to try to distinguish between Prime and Additional parents, the same is true about naming a Favored and Disfavored child. If we question adult siblings, they often insist that: “Our parents made a point of treating us all absolutely equally, and they never showed any differences.“ We glean from this that any hint or admission of Favoritism, whether among parents or siblings, is an enormous Emotional hurdle for both parents and children. We know Favoritism is important to children because we often hear them quarrel about which one the parents LOVE best. Parents too, though usually more than vaguely aware of their preferences, usually denounce any notion of Favoritism and declare they LOVE all their children equally!
Some parents I’ve spoken with, both in therapy and informally, have had extremely good outcomes with their children using the DOLF method, and I’ve seen their Disfavored child and family thrive over many years as a result of my advice. Yet they are mysteriously reluctant to mention their good outcome or share it with their friends or family. I once asked one intelligent young man whose problem I solved in one brief conversation, whether he found it strange that I had guessed so much about his family life and resolved his problem almost instantly. His answer was: “I’m not surprised because you’re a psychologist and you’re supposed to know that!” Yet no evidence-based research ever uncovered the DOLF phenomenon of Favoritism, and he would never have found these answers by consulting anyone but myself! On another occasion a mother asked me why her daughter wouldn’t listen to her and knowing the family I told her the girl was jealous of her sister and to show her more LOVE by comparison. Months later when I asked her how her daughter was doing, she suddenly retorted “What was wrong with her anyways? She’s fine!”
So after a long discussion about everything my clients think I might be looking for, I turn to a different line of questioning. I try to discern which sibling was Emotionally attached to which parent. I base this on my knowledge that the relationship between a PLG and their Favored child is the closest and desired one in the family, as well as the most coveted by all. A statement like “I was closer to Mom and my brother was closer to our Dad” is of little use because either parent could have been the more indulgent and approachable one. So to unlock the information about family dynamics, I ask about divergence in the personalities of the first two children since the personality of the first two siblings is the other telltale sign of Favoritism. I ask which of the two siblings is the gentler, more compliant one, and which one is more “uptight” or agitated, angry or depressed.
If my client says “My sibling is much more high-strung than me”, then I can think the person before me is probably Favored, and adjust my treatment method. But if s/he says “I was always the black sheep or the bad boy”, then I know the person before me was most likely Disfavored.
I also make my own observations about each person. If my client seems gentle, easy-going and compliant, they were most likely a Favored child. I know from DOLF that the Emotional status of a Favored person is such that they are more prone to problems of Anxiety and Depression rather than problems of aggression or Anger and Anxiety. This is because Anger is in greater supply in the Disfavored personality, but in short supply in the Favored personality. Now in treatment, it is my task to try to undo these Emotions according to their Favored or Disfavored traits. So one of our conclusions here can be that the main defining feature between Favored and Disfavored individuals lies in the degree or quantity of Anger that each one feels, and their ability to mobilize it to their advantage. That is, while a Disfavored person has good access to their Anger and is relatively easily able to mobilize it, by contrast, a Favored person is unable to apply Anger productively in social situations, and often may be seriously lacking in Anger-related skills.
Knowing that the DOLF formula is firm, absolute and unchangeable, and that it occurs in the very early stages of the life of every family, I realize that it just takes time to be absorbed into people’s way of thinking. Resistance sets in merely because people are inclined to classify behavior by its morality, that is, as “right” or “wrong”, blurring the picture with Intellectually generated ideas they believe to be important. Current psychology supports the common fallacy that life is to be conducted by structure, discipline and logic, and there is a strong advocacy around labelling people in terms of diagnoses. Parents and educators are stuck in their belief that heredity and the later events of one’s life are the main influencers over personality and behavior, rather than early life. They allow clients to skirt the early indicators and relate ad nauseum stories about their life today, without any knowledge or suspicion that their early history and their lives as little children in their original families with their parents and siblings are the main influencers over their personalities and actions now.
What people tell me in their stories and what they mean to me are entirely different. For example they may say “I moved away at 16 and didn’t see my family again until I got married”. For the client this may mean they left because their home was a conflictual environment. But for me it means this person could have felt Disfavored, and suffers from the effects of too much Anger, Depression and Anxiety. If the person says “I left home to go to college and then returned to run the family business”, I would think this might be a Favored person who wanted to fulfill their families’ ambitions. I would then look to bolstering their Anger in order to reduce potential Depression and Anxiety, as per the protocol for treating a Favored person. I would do the same if a young man told me he loves his mother and is very close to her, but that he left home as soon as he could to join the army because his father was badgering him, and is probably jealous of him because of his attachment to his mother.
As an incidental aside, the majority of people I have seen in therapy are Favored. It seems that Favored people tend to blame themselves most, and are therefore more inclined to seek help than Disfavored people because they turn their Anger inward against themselves. By contrast, Disfavored people appear to have a stronger belief that they are right and others are wrong, and are are less inclined to seek reassurance for their behavior from a therapist. I have observed that Favored individuals are more likely to be urged by the Disfavored people around them to go and find help for their mental health. For example, among married couples, if one of the partners comes in for treatment, it is more likely to be the softer Prime parent who is blamed for the family’s problems and is urged by the Additional partner to seek therapy! Unfortunately, social mores seem to support the type of thinking in which the partner who is more self-defensive and accusing of the other tends to be better regarded, while the other who is willing to shoulder the blame become its target.
The journey to accepting DOLF theory is admittedly an uphill battle that involves much re-education and requires time to absorb. But if you have some patience and apply the knowledge carefully, tactfully and appropriately, you will soon see what profound and lasting changes it can make to your perspective on your life, the lives of those close to you, and your social position relative to the world around you!
