There are several sources of proof that DOLIF Theory is valid and a realistic method to use both to improve family dynamics in normal families, and for treatment purposes with children and adults.
The first practical proof is the application of DOLIF to ongoing problems with misbehaving children. When parents, particularly the Prime Love Giving parent or PLG of a family follows the DOLIF prescription by actually changing their attitude toward their Disfavored child and making an effort to equalize the LOVE between their Favored and Disfavored children, we observe positive changes in the Disfavored child’s temperament and behavior. This previously naughty child shows more control and better judgement in their thinking and social attitudes.
Sometimes, acting like a prescribed medication, the remedy works instantly. But sometimes it can take longer for the effects to become obvious, such as weeks or months. However as time goes by, new characteristics appear and become ever more deeply ingrained into the misbehaving child’s total personality and social adjustment. Poor behavior seems to dissipate “naturally”, as if nothing actually happened to change it. Old behavior patterns are given up and are, miraculously it seems, replaced by new, more mature social behaviors. Friends and family begin to rally around the Disfavored child as her/his social esteem in the eyes of others is elevated. The entire household atmosphere calms down, fighting among the rivalling siblings subsides and parents are no longer overwrought. The DOLIF solution can come about even better and more speedily when parents and children are supported by a therapist who is trained in the DOLIF technique.
A second line of support for DOLIF Theory comes from the many real-life case studies reviewed herein, where children and families were successfully treated. One of the blogs lists 34 criminals whose deeds can almost certainly be attributed to SIBLING RIVALRY. More cases of criminal behavior, both mild and extreme that are the result of SIBLING RIVALRY dynamics could surely be identified through broader research.
A third source of proof comes from the sibling born after the third child. When a fourth child arrives, this child creates a second cluster of siblings consisting of the third and fourth ones together. From our point of view we find the same pattern repeated! That is, just as the first two siblings competed and produced one Favored and one Disfavored child in their first cluster, the third and fourth siblings now form a second set and create the next competitive grouping. If we look closely, we soon see that Child 3 remains comfortably adjusted until the arrival of Child 4. at which point Child 3 and 4 seem to find each other and set up their own new competitive cluster. From this newly-formed second cluster that emerges, we again invariably find one Favored child and one Disfavored child. With the arrival of more children, the same pattern is unmistakably repeated. And in every succeeding cluster of two or three siblings born into the family, we find that the formula persists. As stated in the chapter about 4 siblings, there is almost never any alteration in this 4-child pattern where the two older and two younger form two separate competitive groupings. The anticipation that Child 3 or 4 will compete and divide into one who is of a Favored temperament while the other has a Disfavored temperament. is entirely predictable as soon as the fourth child is born, with no chance of variation. It may even lead couples to wonder: if they have a sweet-tempered, Favored third child, whether they should think twice before having a fourth child who will surely turn out with a Disfavored temperament. Once they have the fourth however, the outcome can be deceiving, for it can be either the third child who will make an about-face and suddenly turn unhappy and difficult to manage, while the fourth baby turns out sweet and docile, or it will be the fourth one who will turn out to be an unpleasant, anxious, angry, whiny and difficult child. (See chapters titled: The Fourth Child and The Rest of the Sibline.)
However, our most thoroughly researched, fourth source of proof comes from studies of identical twins. These are the subject of continual curiosity and research because they share exactly the same genes and DNA. Yet, whether raised together or apart, it is well known that many identical twins are “discordant”, meaning they do not match with regard to substantive characteristics. For example, there are many identical twins who have a different sexual orientation. In these cases, by puberty or even earlier, one of the twins feels attracted to the opposite sex and declares themselves to be heterosexual, while their identical twin declares a same-sex preference, and joins the homosexual or “gay” population. So we must ask: If all the genes and cells in identical twins are exactly the same, how can they have polar opposite preferences in a function that is as basic as sexuality? Most studies of the sexual orientation of identical twins rule out the idea that sexual orientation can be the product of genes alone. They support the DOLIF theory that emphasizes child-rearing practices and the environment as the main influencers when it comes to personality, behavior and in this case, sexuality. The conclusion of most researchers is that hormones, environmental factors and epigenetics (the effect of the environment on genes) are powerful contributing factors, and the influence of genes can be significantly altered by individual life experiences.
Perplexing too are cases of identical twins where one twin turns out to be a respectable, law-abiding citizen, while the other becomes a convicted criminal. There are also those identical pairs where one is of normal mental status while the other is afflicted with a diagnosable mental illness, such as depression or schizophrenia. How can it be that these products of the same embryo turn out so different as to their personality and behavioral styles?
The Olsen twins, Mary-Kate and Ashley, are famous movie stars/models who are identical twins and looked so much alike that as babies they were substituted for each other on the TV sitcom Full House. Yet as they grew older it became obvious that Mary-Kate suffered from severe mental health issues, notably an eating disorder, while Ashley did not. Another famous set of identical twins were Pauline and Esther Phillips who were high profile advice columnists better known to the public as Dear Abby and Dear Ann. Although they followed the same career path, these women were known to have had different personalities and serious rivalries in both their professional and personal lives, Esther being more aggressive, competitive and always looking to outdo the more gentle Pauline.
But the best illustrative case of identical twins and the phenomenon of differentiation or the human Instinct to be Opposite comes from a set of Siamese twins, Chang and Eng. These boys were born conjoined at the waist and never separated, having migrated to the United States from Thailand in the early 1800’s. Since they shared upper body organs that were nourished by the same blood supply and every cell in their bodies was absolutely identical, we can say that physically and biologically speaking, these men were clones or two copies of the same person.
Nevertheless remarkably, Chang and Eng were well known to have had diametrically opposite personality traits and temperaments. An article titled Chang and Eng Bunker (1811-1874) by Mudhaffar Bahjat (2018) reports that John Warren, a professor of anatomy and surgery at Harvard Medical School in the 1800’s, noticed and recorded his observation that these men had distinctly different personalities and behavioral characteristics. He and others found it mysterious that the larger twin, Eng, had a bad temper, was a smoker and drinker, and chased after several wonton women of the day. In DOLIF terms, this twin displayed typical Disfavored characteristics associated with Anger and Anxiety. However, his attached twin who was slightly smaller, Chang, showed distinctly opposite characteristics. He was mild-mannered, jovial and easy-going, traits that DOLIF identifies as typical of a Favored personality style. In spite of their obvious physical disadvantage and inevitably shared daily experiences, Chang and Eng actually clashed as to their thoughts, feelings, desires and choices. One wanted to go out socializing and insisted on displaying ‘bad’ or socially unsavory behaviors, while the other was tame, socially compliant and preferred to spend quiet evenings at home. No doubt their situation created a significant arena for conflict – the same type of conflict we often see erupting among separate siblings for no apparent reason.
The example of Chang and Eng provides noteworthy support for the perspective that DNA cannot account entirely for personality and behavioral traits. Rather, their case gives empirical and practical support for the DOLIF assertion that, even as conjoined identical twins, the Instinct to be Opposite was well in play from the beginning of their lives and throughout the manhood of these Siamese twins.
See more evidence supporting DOLIF Theory in Sources Of Proof – Part 2
