There are several sources of proof of the validity of DOLF Theory.
One powerful proof is the practical application of DOLF to ongoing problems with misbehaving children. When parents, particularly the Prime Love Giving parent or PLG, follows the DOLF 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 behavior, as well as more control and better judgement in the child’s thinking and attitudes. Sometimes, like prescribed medicine, the remedy works instantly “like a charm”, but sometimes it can take longer for the effects of the remedy to become obvious, such as a few months. The DOLF solution can work even better and more speedily when parents and children are supported by a therapist who is trained in the DOLF technique.
More support for DOLF Theory comes from the many real-life case studies reviewed in the blogs where children and families were successfully treated. One of the blogs lists 34 criminals whose deeds were most likely inspired by sibling rivalry, although more cases of criminal behavior, both mild and extreme that results from Sibling Rivalry, could surely be identified through broader research.
A third source of proof comes from siblings who are born after the third child. Just as in the first cluster where the first two siblings competed and produced one Favored and one Disfavored child, the third and fourth siblings immediately form a new cluster to create a second competitive grouping. That is, Child 3 remains comfortably adjusted until the arrival of Child 4, at which point Child 3 and 4 immediately find each other and set up their own new competitive cluster to determine their particular Favored and Disfavored positions. Here we soon find that the same pattern is repeated. In this second grouping or cluster we again find that Child 3 and 4 choose to compete exclusively with each other, giving rise to one Favored child and one Disfavored child in this newly-formed cluster. Later too with the arrival of more children, the same pattern is unmistakably repeated in every succeeding cluster of two and three siblings who are born into the family. (See the blogs titled: The Fourth Child and The Rest of the Sibline.)
However our most thoroughly researched source of proof comes from identical twin studies. Identical twins 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 differ as to sexual orientations. In these cases, by puberty or even earlier, one of the twins feels attracted to the opposite sex and declares they are 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 human sexuality? Most studies on the sexual orientation of identical twins rule out the idea that sexual orientation is the product of genes alone. They support the DOLF theory that emphasizes child-rearing practices and the environment as the main influencers when it comes to personality, behavior and in this case, sexual orientation. The conclusion of the researchers is that hormones, environmental factors and epigenetics (the effect of the environment on genes) are powerful contributing factors and that the influence of genes can be significantly altered by individual life experiences.
Perplexing too are those cases of identical twins where one turns out 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 status?
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 anorexia nervosa, while Ashley did not. Another famous set of identicals 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 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 migrated to the United States from Thailand in the early 1800’s. They were born conjoined at the waist and never separated. Since they shared upper body organs as well as the same blood supply, every cell in their bodies was absolutely identical. 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 at the time, noticed and recorded his observation that these men had distinctly different personalities and behavioral characteristics. He and others who observed them found it mysterious that one twin had a bad temper, was a smoker and drinker, and chased after wonton women of the day. In DOLF terms, this twin displayed typical Disfavored characteristics associated with Anger and Anxiety. However, his attached twin showed diametrically opposite characteristics. He was mild-mannered, jovial and easy-going, traits that DOLF identifies as Favored. 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 displaying ‘bad’ or socially negative 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 see erupting for no apparent reason among ordinary, separate siblings.
The example of Chang and Eng shows that DNA can NOT account entirely for personality or behavior. Rather, their case provides strong empirical and practical support for the DOLF assertion that, even as conjoined identical twins, the Instinct to be Opposite was well in play from the beginning of their lives and throughout their manhood.
See more evidence of DOLF Theory in a blog titled: Sources Of Proof – Part 2