In addition to the factors mentioned in Part 1, support for DOLIF theory comes from its nearly 50-year history and longitudinal design. It is a lifelong project that occupied the author’s personal time, effort and resources for almost half a century. Its origin is at once serendipity, empirical and independently researched, a course of discovery that mimics the way many theories come to fruition and ultimately make changes to science and society in fields such as engineering, mathematics, medicine or technology. More than this, because of the generational observations that contributed to its creation, it is a project that is as much as one could expect a lone individual to accomplish in a lifetime. The time it took to make the observations, construct the concepts, formulate a new theory, test it out informally, write up the findings and bring it to publication is probably more than many scientific theorists ever spent inventing or promoting a single theories.
The discovery of DOLIF is comparable to that of Mme. Curie, the famous French scientist whose independent research and empirical observations led to the discovery of a new chemical element. Mme. Curie became convinced that there must be something missing from the pool of knowledge about chemistry in her time. Relying partly on deductive reasoning, but mostly following her own gut instincts, she painstakingly pursued a new line of experimentation, and ultimately reached the conclusion that the mysterious element must be both invisible and intangible. Surely like myself, she had to overcome her personal disbelief first! After that, also like myself, she was faced with the burden of proving to others that it existed. Once she overcame this hurdle however, she named the new element “Radium”, and went on to win a Nobel prize. In DOLIF theory the concepts of FAVORITISM, SIBLING RIVALRY and the MIND OF A CHILD are likewise invisible and intangible. Because they are hardly perceptible to our usual sources of sensitivity, skeptics must be convinced of their existence. To add to these hurdles, discussion of all the topics, especially Favoritism, is objectionable to many and socially all but prohibited. For example, in the book titled Siblings Without Rivalry, (Faber & Mazlish, 2012), when an example of favoritism arises, the authors promptly shut down the discussion and forbid the participants from ever mentioning favoritism again, calling it something that is unacceptable for any parent to feel or express at any time. In the case of DOLIF, the elusive nature alone of the concepts, such as a Circle Of Love, suggests that it would have been extremely difficult, perhaps even impossible, for formal research to have ever uncovered them.
More proof relates to the author’s methodology. In charge of her own line of experimentation, she made sure she knew in depth the situation of every family with whom she came into intimate contact throughout her lifetime and theirs. Rather than the random candidates that would have been recruited for a formal research project, the author specifically examined families with children whom she knew very well, The first test populations therefore consisted of families that were closest to her including her own children, grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, the families and children of her siblings, and such. She also looked into the families of friends, relatives, close acquaintances and neighbors. The author took great care to ensure that she had in-depth knowledge about the internal psycho-social workings of those families, and was personally familiar with all the players, as well as the nature of the conflicts they lived through for over 40 years. After a decade of soul-searching and study she concluded that her observations were entirely valid, predictable and suitable for application to treatment. Only then was she confident enough in her findings to use them with her patients in her public and private psychological practice. It was from this point onward that she was finally able to formulate DOLIF theory. Then. like the discovery of new land on the world map, she is making her best attempt to share the new and uncharted territories with others. Sill, the author acknowledges that the DOLIF concepts, because they are invisible and intangible, require some stretch of the imagination. There is no doubt that they will generate controversy and may take some time before they can be incorporated into accepted scientific knowledge.
The idea that there can be anything constant, absolute or predictable in human psychology is admittedly shocking. There is little, if anything, in the entire universe that happens with 100% certainty, let alone in a “soft” science such as psychology. So WHY are sibling relationships that designate children as Favored and Disfavored such a glaring statistical anomaly that occurs with 100% certainty and predictability? Yet if we examine the repetition of the pattern and sheer predictability of family dynamics as described by DOLIF, we must conclude as this author did, that given the certainty with which these dynamics play out among the siblings in every family, there must be some hidden constants at play that are thus far unidentified.
Statistically we can compare this dilemma to flipping a coin 100 times. In probability terms our best prediction is that there will be 50 heads and 50 tails. Now if we take two coins and flip them together 100 times, our best prediction is that we will see heads-heads 25 times, tails-tails 25 times, heads-tails 25 times and tails-heads 25 times. This means that 50 times out of a 100 each coin will land on the same side, the same number of times as they did on their own. However, 50% of the time they will be mismatched.
– Fifty times they will match and the other 50 times the coins will land on opposite sides and be mismatched.
Our simple conclusion from this exercise informs us that the likelihood of flipping two coins and having them land on the same side ALL the time is so small as to be negligible or almost impossible.
Our simple conclusion from this exercise is that I it is also impossible to flip two coins and have them land on opposite sides ALL the time. So we can ask again: How is it possible that every time we closely examine the behavior and personality of the first adjacent siblings WE FIND THEY HAVE OPPOSITE PERSONALITIES EVERY TIME? By standard statistical rules, and even by common sense, it is simply impossible.
Of course, the first obvious objection to this line of argument is that sibling relations are far more complex than the mere flipping of a coins, whether once or even hundreds of times. A second argument might be that while siblings may be reliably different, they cannot be considered exactly opposite, but just simply different, which can send their behavior in wildly varying direction, but they would not necessarily be considered “opposites”. Thirdly, we might say that the DOLIF formula is just too simple to be true, and if it were so obviously true, why wasn’t it discovered earlier, either in ancient times, or modern times by our advanced state of science? And this author would have to agree with ALL these criticisms. There is no doubt that human relationships are far more complex than flipping coins, or that DOLF theory sounds far too simple to have had to wait this long to be discovered and is even, by our Intellectually dominated adult reckoning, an imbecile reality.
Yet fortunately or unfortunately, the rules of DOLIF theory are fixed and do not change. And its prescription is so entirely predictable that it easily leads us to a standard formula that in itself is shockingly mathematical and rigid. It leads us to conclude that humanity, like all other earthly creatures, is governed by immutable INSTINCTS, but that in the case of humans these INSTINCTS are exclusive and are NOT the same as those of any other animal. Our best clue to how the human mind operates is the Mind of a Child, because it specifically outlines human instincts, human Emotional reactions, and the way in which these must slowly amalgamate with the special human endowment of Intellectual functions in order to bring about adult human cognition, personality and maturity. This pattern has never changed throughout history, and will never change, but is routinely acted out every day by every woman, man and child who was ever born on this earth, and who ever will be born.
The reader is again reminded, as in other blogs, that these rules were NOT created by this author, Vera Rabie, Doctor of Psychology. They were merely discovered by her. She intuitively felt that something in our pool of knowledge of psychology was missing, and upon setting her mind to exploring the mystery, dared to diverge from what is believed to be known and accepted in the field. Almost serendipitously, she came upon a silent, invisible factor that is unaccounted for in our understanding of human psychology and followed her suspicions using all her educational and personal knowledge to present it formally to the popular and scientific communities as best she could. She readily admits that it is a strange phenomenon that seems to defy the laws of the universe with which we are currently familiar.
Why was the DOLIF phenomenon not discovered earlier by conventional research methods? A possible explanation is that the exposure of Favoritism on our part sounds offensive. Its mere mention and possible repercussion of blame conjures up our Anger, Anxiety and spontaneous resistance. Are parents to blame entirely for our children’s foibles, problems and mishaps in life? The theory challenges our morality by including Anger as a basic human Emotion. Are we all to be labelled as harboring Anger and in need of Anger Management? In addition to the positive social feelings that we like to harp on, like love, loyalty and friendship, is the behavior and personality of every human also driven by the negative social feelings of competition, envy and jealousy? Are we condemned to live with eternal conflict and strife among ourselves and is it indelibly written into human nature?
These assertions lead us to question our everyday decisions, choices and judgments. At the very least they generate controversy over whether we are right or wrong in the way we treat our most precious commodity – our children. Are we being fair to them, or are we falling prey to our bias in Favoring some children because they conform to our moral, religious and social standards and please us with the appealing ways they behave, but Disfavoring others because they challenge us and resist our bidding? Have we been tricked by our children into loving some more than others? We must question not only how we could have been duped for so long and our ignorance gone unnoted and uncorrected. Have we been oblivious, or is there really an underground world of Instinct, Emotion and conflict over human LOVE that we are all complicit in hiding? We must ask: Even if this author was educated to a high level, are we to believe the case she builds purely from her experiential and observational studies, without the backing of hard science? And if the poor sap did spend so much time and energy pursuing a farce, should we persist in tormenting her? It remains for the reader to be judge and jury. However for many a sad soul, the time we take to decide will only mean they will be deprived of a possible remedy.
