What do dreams mean? I was dumped 10 months ago. I couldn't stop thinking about him. Now I barely do, but last night, I dreamed I broke in to his apartment, found him in bed with this gorgeous girl, and punched her in the face. Does this mean I'm not over him?
--Wanna Start Dating
Follow your dreams -- and end up doing five to 10 in the pen for home invasion and assault!
The widely believed myth that dreams are filled with meaningful symbolism is an unfortunate form of what I call Freud reflux -- the "I Dream of Penie" version of a questionable burrito that keeps repeating on you. The assumption that Freud knew what he was talking about comes not from any solid evidence for his claims but, as I wrote in a previous column, probably in part because he "accessorized so credibly, with the cigar, the iconic eyewear, and the groovy Viennese fainting couch."
Psychologist William Domhoff, on the other hand, has done decades of rigorous research on dreaming. He finds there's really no good scientific evidence that dreams have any importance for guiding our lives -- no evidence that they have any function or useful meaning for us (save for the guy in the turban and kohl eyeliner outside the food co-op, for whom dreams are the stuff that timely rent payments are made of).
Domhoff explains dreaming as "intensified mind-wandering" that leads to "imaginative but largely realistic simulations of waking life." Brain imaging of people in REM sleep (a sleep stage often accompanied by vivid dreams) suggests our capacity to dream is "an accidental byproduct of our waking cognitive abilities" and may be a "subsystem" of the "default mode network" of the brain.
This is simply the network of neurons the brain "defaults" to when you aren't doing targeted thinking, like trying to solve some complicated equation or remember some word in French. Your brain doesn't just shut down between these targeted thinking jags. It does what I think of as "background processing," gnawing at problems you were previously focused on -- but it does it beneath your conscious awareness while you're, oh, washing a dish or having sex.
So, in a way, dream time seems to be a kind of cognitive autopilot. In brain scans of people in REM sleep, neurobiologist Yuval Nir sees decreased self-awareness, attention, and memory. There's also reduced "voluntary control" of action and thought -- which is why, when dreaming, we cannot control "the content of the dream," like by changing the channel from HesWithSomeHussy!TV. Nir also finds that there's often -- surprise, surprise -- greater emotionality when dreaming. (Presumably, you don't go around punching your ex-boyfriend's dates in your waking life.)
However, Domhoff says that in many instances, dreams "dramatize ongoing emotional preoccupations." These are sometimes unhealthy or at least unhelpful. You'd think you could just try to avoid thinking those thoughts during your waking hours. Unfortunately, research by the late social psychologist Daniel Wegner suggests otherwise.
Wegner, famously, instructed research participants, "Try not to think of a white bear." This is a failed proposition from the start, because your mind sweeps around to check whether you're avoiding bear-pondering -- thus leading you to think about the bear. In short, Wegner found that trying to suppress thoughts made them come back with a vengeance. The same was true when he later had subjects try to suppress thoughts just before going to sleep. These subjects were much more likely to have those thoughts be all "We're baaaack!" in their dreams.
But -- good news -- there is a way to outsmart your brain's yanking you back into the same old abyss. Psychologists Jens Forster and Nira Liberman found that you can probably keep yourself from endlessly revisiting a thought if you simply admit that not thinking of it is hard. As I explain in my new book, "Unf*ckology: A Field Guide to Living with Guts and Confidence," their solution "probably sounds too simple to be real, but it makes sense. Removing the need to patrol your thoughts also removes the mental sticky note that tells you to keep going back into Thoughtland ... to see how well you're doing."
In general, you should try to avoid ruminating -- pointlessly rechewing the past, like your mind's a sadistic TV station always showing the same disturbing rerun. Moving forward takes thinking about the past in "forward" ways -- basically, by making meaning out of it. So when you find yourself reflecting on this relationship, remind yourself to put the right spin on it: looking at it from the standpoint of what you've learned -- what you'll apply to make your relationships work better in the future. Before long, you could be on a date again -- and I don't mean one of his, with binoculars from a car across the street.
I'm a 33-year-old woman. Though I don't want a boyfriend right now, I have a strong sex drive and don't want to go without sex. I've tried the hookup apps, but besides finding sleeping with strangers sexually unsatisfying, I'm always a little surprised at how emotionally empty I end up feeling. (It's not like I want any of these guys to be a boyfriend.)
--Hungry
It's possible for a woman to have an orgasm from hookup sex -- just as it's possible to spot a white rhino grazing on a roadway median in suburban Detroit.The reality is, hookups tend to work best if you are a man or a trailer. Research by sociologist Elizabeth A. Armstrong and her colleagues finds that for women, hookup sex is particularly problematic in the orgasm-dispensing department. In first-time hookups, women they surveyed reported orgasms only 11 percent of the time -- compared with 67 percent of the time from sex in a relationship. However, the more times a woman had slept with her current hookup partner the more likely she was to finish with screams of ecstasy -- and not the ones that stand in for "You 'bout done yet?"
As for why you feel crappy after your latest Captain Hookup shinnies down the drainpipe, I've written before about how female emotions seem to have evolved to act as an alarm system against deficient male "investment." They push women to crave emotional connection after sex -- even when they went into it wanting nothing more than a little sexercise with some himbo.
Pop the hood on the brain and you'll see support for this notion. An analysis of findings from 24 brain imaging studies led psychiatrist Timm Poeppl and his colleagues to conclude that "sexual stimulation seems to activate key regions for emotional attachment and pair bonding more consistently in women than in men."
So, it isn't exactly bizarre that you, as a woman, find hooking up with a stranger about as emotionally and sexually satisfying as a fist bump. This doesn't mean you have to rush a boyfriend into your life to have sex. You can eliminate some of the problems of hookup sex by finding a regular sex-quaintance -- ideally, a guy friend who's sweet and attractive but who falls steeply short of the qualifications you have for a romantic partner. (That way, you'll be less likely to let any "activated" brain regions vault you into a relationship.)
This is somebody you can gradually show around your body and train in the magic trick it takes for you to have an orgasm -- as opposed to some single-serving Romeo who approaches your body like a burglar in a pitch-black china shop. And, finally, having at least friendly affection for somebody you sleep with should mean that sex leaves you feeling, if not loved, well, less like a rental car somebody just dropped off. "Note to person checking in this vehicle: Makes weird noises when cornering."
I'm a 30-year-old gay guy. I was laid off, and I'm freelancing crazy hours to try to pay my rent and bills. My best friend's birthday was this past weekend, and I did what I could timewise (and put a modest gift on my credit card), but he's totally bent out of shape because he feels like I neglected him. He equates the attention you pay to his birthday with how much you care, which is so ridiculous.
--Feeling Bad
What kind of friend are you that you couldn't, say, sell a kidney on the black market and buy the guy a proper gift?
Yes, it seems you prioritized frivolities such as paying rent and keeping the lights on without needing to rig a treadmill for your dog to chase a piece of bacon on a string. Of course, putting your financial survival first doesn't mean you're a bad friend. The, uh, brat of honor probably just sees it that way because of what psychologists call "attribution bias." This describes how we tend to be charitable in explaining our own errors and failings -- excusing them as situational (the result of something that's happened to us) -- while attributing others' to the sort of people they are (compassionless, birthday-hating monsters).
Have a sit-down with your friend and explain that you care deeply about him. (Review your history of showing this.) Emphasize that it was a lack of time and funding, not a lack of feeling, that kept you from, say, renting a sufficiently mansionesque bouncy house or hiring David Blaine to make balloon animals on his special day. Apply compassion. Recognize that there's probably some woundyplace in him that makes him this way, basically expecting his birthday to be treated like some major national holiday. Okay, maybe the guy's first name is Martin. Chances are, the two that follow aren't "Luther" and "King."
I'm dating again now and annoyed by how texting's become the way you get to know somebody you might want to go out with. I type all day at work. I'll talk on the phone, but the last thing I want to do when I'm off is type text messages.
--Contrary Millennial Woman
Back in, say, 539 B.C. in Sumer, if you wanted to tell somebody you were "laughing out loud," you'd have to dispatch your eunuch across town with the message on a cuneiform tablet. Okay, so the "tablets" are way more tricked out these days, but oh, how far we haven't come.
Texting can be a great way to get to know somebody -- somebody who can't talk on the phone because they're hiding in a closet from kidnappers in a Liam Neeson movie. However, assuming neither of you is in immediate danger of being sold into sex slavery by the standard swarthy Hollywood terrorists, you should hold off on any text-athons until after you put in some solid face-to-face time.
Sure, in texting, it seems like all sorts of information is getting "bloop!"ed back and forth. However, you end up missing some vital elements -- tone of voice, emotion, body language -- that you'd have in person or even FaceTiming on your phone.
People shrug that off: "No biggie...I'll just see all that stuff when we meet." Well, there's a problem with that. "Nature," it's said, "abhors a vacuum," and it seems the human brain isn't so hot on it, either. Research by neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga suggests that when people lack information, their brain helps them by making up a narrative that seems to make sense. So there's a good chance your brain is going to be your helpful little servant and fill in the missing bits -- with ideas about a person that may not correspond all that closely with reality.
In other words, you're accidentally onto something with your dislike of text-athons. That said, the telephone isn't the best way to get to know somebody, either -- not even via FaceTime, which only gives you a partial picture. That's why I think you and anyone you're considering dating should communicate minimally online or by phone and get together in person ASAP. Ideally, your first date should be three things: cheap, short, and local -- making it low-cost in time, money, and, on some occasions, "lemme outta here, you sick pumpkin latte-slurping degenerate!" (Apologies to any degenerates who don't befoul their latte with autumn Febreze.)
Tell guys your preference, and don't be swayed by texting aficionados who insist that you simply MUST engage in marathon text sessions before meeting somebody...because...because safety! Sure, meet your dates in public places (rather than have them pop by your place so they can zip-tie you and stuff you in their trunk). The reality is, texting somebody till your fingers bleed is not the equivalent of an FBI report on their trustworthiness -- though it will leave you well-prepared to testify at The Hague on their war crimes against the apostrophe.
My wife and I have our differences in bed. Let's say that I like A and she likes B. So we alternate -- A one time and B the next -- meaning we're each only satisfied half the time. Is this a smart compromise?
--Curious
Relationships do take compromise -- especially when one of you's in the mood for foreplay with whipped cream and strawberries and then a glance at the calendar reveals: "Oh, crap. It's Medieval Torture Device Monday."
As for whether your sex compromise is "smart," it depends. Research by social psychologist Shelly Gable finds that in a relationship, you can do the exact same activity on your partner's behalf -- say, picking up their thumbscrews from the welder -- and have it be good or bad for the relationship, depending on your motivation.
Couples in Gable's studies were happiest when partners' efforts for each other were driven by "approach" rather than "avoidance" goals. "Approach" involves moving in a positive direction, making an effort for positive reasons -- such as barking like a gibbon in bed because you love your partner and want them to be happy. "Avoidance" involves doing it to prevent rejection or conflict (like being exiled to the couch for three days).
An "approach" approach to sex, especially, appears to pay off. Social psychologist Amy Muise found that partners who took pleasure in giving their partner sexual pleasure "felt more satisfied and committed both at the ... time and three weeks later." The message in all of this? A smart sex compromise runs on enthusiasm for rocking each other's world in bed -- even if the thing your partner's into plays for you like "How 'bout we sneak out to my car for a quick endoscopy?"
I'm a single 33-year-old woman. Suddenly, after years of outdoor sports, I have a dime-sized dark brown sunspot on my face. It's not cancerous, and I'm having it lasered off. This will take a while. Though I cover it with makeup, I'm terribly self-conscious about it, and I don't want to date till it's removed. I know how visual men are, and I don't want a man to find out I have this thing and see me as unattractive. My friends say I'm being ridiculous.
--Insecure
It's a spot on your face that suggests you've done some stuff in the sun; it isn't Mark of Satan™ or a button with a message underneath, "Press here to activate the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse."
Your intuition that a clear, even complexion is important isn't off base. Anthropologist Bernhard Fink and his colleagues did some pretty cool research on how skin tone uniformity affects perceptions of a woman's attractiveness. This isn't a new area of study, but almost all of the research has been on Western populations. Social science findings are more likely to be representative of human nature when the subject pool goes beyond the usual "WEIRD" participants (from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic countries -- and, more often than not, 19-year-old college undergrads fighting a wicked hangover to answer survey questions for class credit).
So Fink and his team sought out 172 men and women, ages 17 to 80, from two remote tribes -- the cattle-raising Maasai in Tanzania and the forager-farmer Tsimane tribe in Bolivia -- each "unfamiliar with lighter-colored skin." The researchers explain that these tribes have no electricity and "little or no access" to magazines or newspapers from the West. They also live far from any tourist destinations, so no -- no pale-faced college girls dropping by, all "C'mon, Mr. Maasai...just one more selfie with me and your totally adorbs cow!"
Tribe members were asked to assess "age, health, and attractiveness" from photographs of skin -- squares of white-lady skin cropped from photos of faces of British girls and women ages 11 to 76. Echoing findings from Western populations, women with "homogenous skin color" -- meaning even in tone overall, with little or no "skin discoloration" (blotches or spots) -- "were judged to be younger and healthier" and more attractive.
Research finds that humans, in general, prefer faces with clear, uniform skin, which is associated with being parasite- and disease-free. There's also strong support, from cross-cultural studies, for the notion by evolutionary psychologists that men evolved to be drawn to female features that suggest a woman is young and healthy -- and thus more likely to be fertile. Men just don't think of it in so many words -- "Better babies when Mommy's got skin like an airbrushed Vogue cover girl!" -- especially not in places where the nearest newsstand is maybe four days away by donkey.
Because women coevolved with men, women anticipate this male preference for flawless skin -- leading them to feel, uh, undersparkly when their facial landscape is less than pristine.
This brings us to you. The thing is, you aren't just a skin dot with a person attached. A guy will look at the whole. Also, we accept that people use products and technology to hide or fix flaws in their appearance -- or to enhance the features they have. Accordingly, a guy is not defrauding you by using Rogaine, and no man with an IQ that exceeds your bra size believes you were born wearing eye shadow.
Ultimately, you have more control than you probably realize over how much any imperfections affect your total attractiveness. A woman I know is a living example of this. She's got two fewer legs than most of us. But she understands -- and shows it in the way she carries herself -- that she's vastly more than the sum of her (missing) parts.
In other words, your real problem is you -- your feeling that this spot is some kind of boulder-sized diminisher of your worth. Chances are, this comes from putting too much weight on your looks as the source of your value. Though you may not be where you want in your career, doing regular meaningful work to help other people -- like volunteer work -- might be the quickest way for you to feel bigger than that dot on your face.
There's nothing wrong with getting it lasered off, but as long as it's still with you, try something: Revel in having it instead of going into hiding over it. I'm serious. After all, it's basically a sign that you went outdoors and seized life -- not that you got drunk and joined one of those racist Tiki torch marches and now have to hit up some tattoo artist to turn the swastikas into butterflies.
