How Early Relationships Can Define Reality – For Better or Worse


From Jay Reid Psychotherapy: “In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it.’ – George Orwell, 1984 

I find in my therapy practice that there is nothing wrong with my clients except that they believe there is. People do not insist on a perception of reality that worsens quality of life out of stubbornness. Typically, believing they are defective helped to maintain a very important relationship early in lifeClick here to read about why maintaining ties to parents is required for psychic survivalIf a kid is not convinced that his parents love him as much as he needs then he will adapt in ways designed to get them to want to be there for him. Such a kid can and will do an amazing amount of shape-shifting to get the parent to be willing to care for them. Here is an example: if an otherwise depressed father consistently yells at the kid for not picking up his toys, the kid may infer that Dad feels better when he can yell at the kidSo, the child may unconsciously fail to pick up his room so that Dad can feel less depressed and be more available to him as a parentOf course, there’s tremendous cost to the kid who has to conclude that he’s inherently messy, immature and undeserving of protection from verbal abuse.
The quote from the book 1984 (2+2=5) above applies because kids can get put in this situation if you substitute ‘Party’ for ‘Parents.’ Kids have to believe in equally outlandish yet demanded claims such as:
  • ‘I am not entitled to be happy,’
  • ‘I do not deserve others’ love for me,’
  • ‘I am incapable of success.'”

Article →


Back to Around the Web


  1. “… but when those perceptions are governed by a self-limiting belief then distrust is warranted”, nope, there is the being too drugged, too drunk, too medicated, overconfident, deceived, etc., and as for that!, an example of a person without enough self criticism can write a single line of text that ignores all the other stuff that could explain/narrate a behaviour that “requires”?, distrust, but it’s self-limiting in believing?. In being?, in thinking?, ahh!, perhaps in perceiving beyond a single line of text I imagine.

    Because somehow perception, limits, trust and warranted are related how exactly?

    How does that work actually?. The relationship between those concepts in more than one line of text?.

    Am I wrong?, or is all of that self-limiting too?.

    Over indulgence, overconfidence, error, misunderstanding, etc. If any and all, or many of those things are self-limiting in the not it will run it’s course meaning, then self-limiting would be an overbroad concept. It encompasses too much to be of use, similar to “bad” belief, or “false” belief, or erroneous belief. Too broad concepts, crucially, when paired with the word belief. Which is too broad to begin with. Two broads don’t make a narrow…

    Take a protected belief example, when does my belief in God is self-limiting?. Would a therapist have a right to question that?. If I perceived God in every non-sense of psychology would that be self-limiting?.

    Or is that something in the eye of the therapist?.

    Words and meaning don’t matter, rights and protected beliefs don’t too?. Hum?.

    Particularly someone who believes himself an expert. Like a kind of self reflection is not the writers stuff. Hypothetically, how could he or she reflect on others?. When writing a single line of text reflects in my ignoramus opinion such poor reflection on the mere black and white text?. For an expert that is, that makes a living interpreting speech!, human speech!.

    Oh!, I think I get it!, self limiting wrong!, outside limiting good!. Oh, ok, I think I know where this is going even if poorly written, thought, and elaborated, as, again, my poor ignoramus opinion.

    The homophobia example speaks to me of self-identity and/or self perception. That is by definition not objective, it’s not part of reality as such.

    Recurring to the metaphor that part, part, of who I am is a reflection FROM others, again, is only part of who I am. The part that others can see, speak about, and that does not make it correct, that part, the interpretation of others, as in precisely some of the cases analagous are to be rejected!.

    There is no degree in judges of others, unless psychologists and psychiatrists can prove that beyond doubt.

    Am I wrong?.

    The Terrence narrative speaks to me of a well known phenomenon of cognitive human error, that for a CBT setting is appauling, I think, at least: search satisfaction.

    Since, apparently, it is written thus, no further explos allowed, only two possibilities where considered, only one, satisfying the expectations was found.

    How satisfactory and scientific!.

    And how possibly cognitively wrong, you know what I am saying?. 🙂

    Ok, to make a pun. Was the author under self-limiting, or erroneous beliefs and got a good outcome? Yes or nay?.

    Considering another well know error: recall bias. Terrence might have other things on his mind, more worrying, who can tell?, just happened that was fixable with some sort of “non-judgemental” listening, extrapolating and guessing the particular “therapeutic process”…

    Like CBT for CBTers does not work very well, self-CBT is a thing?, does the patient have a saying on the therapists cognitive errors?. Or, or, CBT for CBTers is like the Terrence example: consider this two things, another framing leading to cognitive error.

    No further narrative allowed from the author asfor the Terrence case, that would be another cognitive error, I imagine…

    Report comment

  2. As for the authors self sabotage second link:

    Does a child feel safe when with someone under constant terror if he/she is a a parent?.

    Because if the child does not then “Children need to feel like their parent is ‘near’ – often physically but always emotionally.”, under those conditions does not sound congruous with “[the child] is not easily frightened”.
    The parent feels frightenened, the child too, they both know it, and that brings them dang right close together, physically and emotionally…

    If that were the case: a child is easily frightened when with someone in terror, then those can’t be general statements usefull to argue, those can’t be used to provide reasons, and are certainly fallacious to provide explanations, let alone interventions.

    Or am I wrong?.

    Elaborating that on those basis attachment is developed is obfuscating the irrationality of the claims…

    From then one, any narrative is nothing more than Castles in the air: full of hot air built on irrationality. Go to childhood, adolescence, adulthood, if at all, all of that will be built not only on irrationality, but on falsehoods..

    Or am I wrong?.

    Again, the author can’t get more room to bring more concepts to justify, only those words quoted: children, need, feel, parent, near, emotionally, physicially and “easily frightened”. That would be bringing more castles and sand in the logical eye…

    Even “respectful of the child’s autonomy”, jives with my hypothetical scenario, the author is not allowed further elaboration on that either…

    Report comment