 Dr. Tracy Cooper is debuting a new, more positive name for Highly Sensitive Person. The guest article is his previously published announcement for how the new name came about and why it was chosen. Reprinted with permission.
Why I Am Now Using the Term High Sensory Intelligence Instead of Highly Sensitive Person Dr. Tracy Cooper, Ph.D. The use of the word ‘intelligence’ may raise a few eyebrows but allow me to lay out a simplified way we can reasonably and accurately use ‘High Sensory Intelligence’ as a better, non-stigmatizing popular culture term than the existing ‘Highly Sensitive Person,’ which carries with it deep emotional and cultural weight for many of us who identify with sensory processing sensitivity. Preface these remarks with this statement, I am NOT offering ‘High Sensory Intelligence’ as a replacement term for Sensory Processing Sensitivity (SPS). SPS is the clinical scientific name you will see in the peer-reviewed journal articles. Sensory Processing Sensitivity will always be the official name of the trait originated by Elaine Aron, Ph.D. The pop culture term that is used out in the world, though needs to be immediately positive in tone, free of any negative stigma, and purpose driven; Highly Sensitive Person does not fulfill that role. I believe that ‘High Sensory Intelligence’ can serve us quite effectively. I realize that the use of the word ‘intelligence’ bears defining and articulating a rationale for its usage without getting beyond the scope of the way the word ‘intelligence’ is being used. There are many theories of intelligence but the one that I have found to be most appropriate in the way that I suggest relates to the work of cognitive psychologist, Scott Barry Kaufman, Ph.D., who has a particularly interesting personal story that many people who identify with Sensory Processing Sensitivity may also find compelling and that led him to suggest that a new way of looking at intelligence was needed. Scott’s story involves high test anxiety on IQ tests and his poor performance and classification as a special needs student until he was in 9th grade. IQ testing is primarily focused on linear reasoning and has its utility in predicting many factors in one’s life but is limited in its ability to encapsulate the real world of how humans live and develop over a lifetime. Enter Kaufman’s work to reframe intelligence, and education, as inclusive of the whole person and how we might honor curiosity, openness, creativity, and exploration. In his dual processing theory of intelligence, Kaufman integrates prior work, such as Gardener’s theory of multiple intelligences, which posits that intelligence is not finite, with his own unique perspective on the role of spontaneous forms of thinking, intuitive thinking, daydreaming, imaginative play, and learning that occurs incidentally (implicit learning). The way humans adapt to the demands of a given task, often increasing our capacities beyond our potential allows us to think of ‘intelligence’ as fluid, developmental, and real-world oriented. How does this include those who identify with sensory processing sensitivity? Sensory processing sensitivity is a personality trait, or adapted psychological mechanism, that evolved through the natural process of necessity meeting potential. In our hunter-gatherer period, not so long ago in geological time, humans needed to ‘read’ the natural environment with great skill to know where to find resources, viable areas for tribes to live at different points in the year, and to stay safe. Those who were higher in an overall sensitivity to both the natural and interpersonal environments proved to yield a slight advantage on the average, so sensory processing sensitivity remained in the gene pool to be passed down through the generations. In that vast time period, it was simple to understand the how and why of 15-20% of the population being more open and aware of danger but also opportunities. This developmental and whole-person view of intelligence imparts an intentionality and purpose to our lives as High Sensory Intelligence people. Many of us report being stigmatized early in life for a variety of reasons but imagine if there had been advocates and professionals in society utilizing different terminology to describe Sensory Processing Sensitivity! How much more accessible and inviting would it have appeared if High Sensory Intelligence were used to describe the intuition, deeper processing, high empathy, emotional range, and awareness of subtle nuance that Sensory Processing Sensitivity is known for? It is staggering and sobering to have to acknowledge the shallow and superficial level of rational thinking in our species where first-reaction judgements become set in stone, as with ‘highly sensitive person.’ If we truly wish for Sensory Processing Sensitivity to reach the 15-20% of the world’s population with this natural and neutral personality trait, we need to be adaptable enough in our messaging to recognize when a ‘pivot’ is necessary to move away from the stigma attached to a simple term. In short, there is a better term available that is adequately descriptive of the D.O.E.S. core features of Sensory Processing Sensitivity that is positive in tone and stigma free, High Sensory Intelligence. For those who speak or write about Sensory Processing Sensitivity often, here is a brief synopsis you might use to describe High Sensory Intelligence: High Sensory Intelligence is a personality trait with a purpose and that is to help all of us survive through changing and challenging times and circumstances. High Sensory Intelligence is
Please comment below.
2 Comments
 A Blog about Sensory Processing Sensitivity from the Worldview of a High Sensing Male
The basis of Sensory Processing Sensitivity is rooted in Environmental Sensitivity Theory. Environmental Sensitivity Theory is concerned with organisms' relative reaction to environmental factors and has several components, one of which is Sensory Processing Sensitivity. This is an important framework for people with High Sensitivity to know and understand. It helps us understand the underlying structure of why we are the way we are in many ways. We now know that sensitivity is a part of a spectrum ranging from low (dandelions) to medial (tulips) to high (orchids). Sensitivity measures our reaction to stimuli in the environment, primarily sensory inputs. So it's not only about our sensing but our perceptions and, more importantly, our responses to this stimulus. This implies that those low on the scale have less reaction to environmental change and those with high sensitivity have greater reactions to the same changes. From an evolutionary standpoint, it made me wonder, were there significant differences in how low, middle, and high sensitivity affected survival – was one group more adept at survival over the other. Was one more adapted to change than the others? What implications does sensitivity have in adaptation? Or does each group have adaptations that enhance their survival rates based on their sensitivity? More on Environmental Sensitivity Theory Environmental Sensitivity Theory is rooted in the study of organisms' reactions and adaptations to environments. The theory is based on a framework of several sensitivity models that include the Diathesis-stress model (adverse environment response), Vantage Sensitivity (positive environment response), Differential Susceptibility (some individuals are affected more by negative and positive environments), Biological Sensitivity to Context (sensitivity is impacted by environment) and Sensory Processing Sensitivity (the genetic basis of high sensitivity - HSPs). The discovery of the SPS model by Dr. Elaine Aron, suggesting a genetic basis for individuals who process environmental sensitivity at a higher rate, has led to theories on a distribution model of general sensitivity within the human population. This theory has given rise recently to the flower metaphor, in which three distinct categories of sensitivity exist within the human population. This has implications for the adaptability of all three populations that may have some consequence for survivability. Are Low environmentally sensitive individuals better adapted? The reference for low environmentally sensitive (ES) individuals is to that of a dandelion. Dandelions are hardy, grow under the worst conditions, and are seemingly prolific. Does this make them less environmentally dependent? If so, would that not make them able to adapt to changing conditions much more readily – hence, would they be more adaptable and have a greater chance for survival? Yet, I wonder if this adaptability might not serve as a disadvantage? Since they are intrinsically less sensitive to environmentals and are more prone to take more risks within the environment. Would this also not put them in harm's way more often? Might this factor lead to an early demise or embolden them to take life-altering chances? Truly there are advantages to taking risks, but also consequences. Perhaps, there are good reasons why this group only makes up about 30% of the population. Responsivity is not correlated necessarily with sensitivity, so this is pure conjecture. But behavior is often driven by perception and the likelihood of perceived success. These behaviors might make these low-sensitivity types more likely to engage in risky behavior to explore and expand their life situations. This could be a good thing. High environmentally sensitive individuals and survivability If Low ES individuals are prone to risk and high adaptability, then what could be said of the High ES (HSP) individuals? Are the HSPs readily made and better suited for adaptability because of their caution, inhibition, and sensitivity to environmental conditions? Is this like a sixth sense about safety and survival? Yet, the theories propose that High ES individuals do much worse when environmental conditions are worse (see Differential Susceptibility) than when they are good. Does that make them less productive and less prone to survive? Are HSPs because of this tendency to do poorly in less ideal conditions making them less adaptive? Are HSPs more risk-averse if the conditions are harsher? But what if the HSP's cautious and mindful Nature makes them better at navigating extreme conditions avoiding high risks, and surviving at all costs. Would that not make them better suited to survive? HSPs make up about 20 % of the human population. The broad Middle environmentally sensitive individuals Considering the extremes, both high and low ES, would that make the medial ES individuals the best group for survival? The middle group would be less likely to take greater risks in the environment, be hardier than the top group, and combine the best of both high and low. Sounds feasible, but could they be more dependent on the High and Low ES groups for leadership, counsel, and guidance? Are there more followers in the group? Are they happier, more satisfied, and less likely to make changes because of their relative satisfaction? Again, this is all speculative—so many questions. Are the Low and Middle ES people, in some ways, dependent on the High ES group? As I have stated multiple times, Dr. Aron and others believe that Nature has baked in the High ES trait into the population for evolutionary/survival reasons. Could the High ES group be the wise and mindful group that, through the normal reactions to the environment, serve as the proverbial "canary in the coal mine?" Because of our sensitivity to environmentals, does this make us well suited to serving that purpose of divination, sage guidance, and early warnings? And would that make HSPs better advisors than leaders? What role does EST play in informing about this notion? I wonder if, in some ways, HSPs are more evolved humans. Better adapted to the best conditions, prone to thrive in the best conditions, and as a group a biomarker for seeking and living in the best conditions. Does EST say something about this? Does The larger population really need HSPs to survive? I guess that all three groups perform specific functions to aid in the survival of the larger group. Based on the EST model, it would seem that each group continues to survive because they serve a particular function for the aggregate. Each group is designed to adapt based on their requirements and would enhance the overall survivability of the species, covering the other weaknesses. I suppose every garden needs its dandelions, tulips, and orchids to thrive. Perhaps, that's how Nature has designed it. Please comment with your thoughts.  A Blog about Sensory Processing Sensitivity from the Worldview of a High Sensing Male
Like many Highly Sensitive People, I often ask a simple question, “What’s wrong with the word Sensitive?” I mean, it’s a word with multiple meanings, but the one that we home in is the one that tells the story of our lives. Unfortunately, it is the one-word trait that is more often than not used in the pejorative to describe our nature that is either abhorred or tolerated by less sensitive folks. We live in a culture that values emotional detachment, stone-cold decision making, logical, warrior-like capabilities that seem so distant from the core behaviors of the clan of highly sensitive people. Our culture views sensitivity as a weakness, a lack of discipline, control, or maturity. An unfair and false assessment, if there ever was one. This judgment is especially hard on HSP males, who already have difficulty with the trait in lieu of expectations the culture sets for masculine behavior. Technically our trait is called sensory processing sensitivity, which is tied directly to environmental sensitivity theory. It embraces the notion that environmental sensory sensitivity is expressed on a spectrum from high to low. The term sensory processing sensitivity is a mouthful but sounds much more palatable than just plain “sensitive.” Yet, here we are, almost thirty years after Dr. Aron coined the term highly sensitive persons, and we still struggle with the concatenation of that sensitive moniker. Sensitive men struggle with the brand. Stacked up against their non-HSP peers, it does make them seem to be, well, less masculine. But, what does sensitive really mean? We know the term has multiple meanings, but why do we choose the most degrading definition. We need to do some serious renovation on how the term sensitive is used, dig a little deeper and put some fine points on the explanation of the term to truly capture the complex nature of high sensitivity and reframe the meaning. Definition of Sensitive As stated above, the definition of sensitive in Webster’s is multi-tiered. I’m not going to recite the definition verbatim but will recap the main descriptions. The first definition is as an adjective referring to SENSORY. That’s it, one word - sensitive is a sensory-based term. So far, so good. The second definition states that sensitive is receptive to sense impressions. Again, good. That makes everyone sensitive. The third definition starts to get to the heart of the matter; highly responsive or susceptible to a) easily hurt or damaged – especially emotional hurt. Or b) delicately aware of attitudes and feelings of others. Now notice the keywords – hurt, damaged, and delicate. Not exactly how I’d like to be described when I say that I am sensitive. When we move to the noun definitions, we get: 1) a person having occult or psychical abilities. Or, and here it is 2) a sensitive person. Nowhere is the definition describing sensory processing sensitivity, not even like - one with the personality trait of sensory processing sensitivity. So when you have a word that describes over a billion people on the planet and no specific description of them or accounting of them in the dictionary, that’s why we have a problem with the word sensitive. Even in the Urban Dictionary, there isn’t a clear definition of the popular cultural definition of sensitive that accounts for HSPs. Yet, all HSPs are aware of the stigma that goes with the term sensitive, as it is popularly used to describe people with HSP characteristics. For example, we are often seen as emotionally weak, neurotic, or drama kings or queens. As for HSP males, we are seen as effeminate, ineffectual, and often self-absorbed and odd. None of this, of course, is true. I sometimes think we are often framed by the least sensitive people by these worst possible definitions simply because they cannot see, hear, feel, smell, and taste the world the way we do. Their ignorance drives the narrative about who we are. Their impatience with our deep processing ways exceeds their capacities to value our thoughtfulness. Their lack of empathy causes their name calling, and their largely extraverted ways do not tolerate our need for solitary solace. So this lower twenty percent, although more adaptable, yet less environmentally sensitive, are calling the shots…for now. Reframing the word “Sensitive” It’s not likely that we will be able to rename the trait to something that describes us in better ways. We are too far down the road for that. And, I do not, repeat, do not fault Dr. Aron for her choice of words. It was a command decision at a point in time, it fit, and she went with it. And that is what we have to work with. We can make the term more acceptable within the HSP community first. We have to have a definition that is empowering and something we can all get behind. The challenge is creating either a derivative of sensitive or perhaps developing a description that evokes the gifts and a certain degree of positivity to the word without losing the original intention depicting a highly sensitive person. The new sub definition of sensitive should be focused on strong words that imply the strengths and sensitivity of HSPs that suggest giftedness and normality. For HSP men, associating these positive descriptors will help in allowing more HSPs men to embrace the trait when seen in the light of its positive attributes. We almost need a collective push to get that idea out there. How to make the word more palatable. The next step is to socialize the new definitions to the masses. I like Dr. Tracy Cooper’s idea of metaphorically describing high sensitivity to a finely tuned measuring device. It reinforces the precision in which we sense the world yet implies a quirkiness that often occurs in such finely tuned tools as finicky but very environmentally sensitive. The upside and the downside go together, with the downside needing a bit more attention, but knowing that it does not negate the worth of the tool. By socializing such metaphors and descriptions, we can teach the strong traits of HSPs and their practical use to society (as implied by our evolutionary purpose). We can then build acceptance within the non-HSP audience. Most importantly, we need to empower HSP men to feel good about the term considering the definition limitations of present masculinity. And, with that, HSP men need to own the word sensitive and proudly speak of it. Addressing the sensitivity deniers There will always be those who deny that highly sensitive is a personality trait, often referring to it as a splash of common disorders. Even among the scientific community, there are doubters. Nevertheless, we can only do what we can do by planting seeds based on the emerging validating science. Looking at the spectrum of sensitivity, we should move forward educating the top 20 percent of the population that are HSPs. This group will be the low-hanging fruit. It may be necessary to convince even some of our own about the trait and sell them on its positives. The challenges within the trait are there too. We need to educate and train HSPs on coping and living with high sensitivity, showing them there is a benefit to being an HSP. It’s hard to realize the gift when you are constantly fighting fires. Next, we move to the big middle – the hump in the bell curve—the big 60 percenters. The upper 30% of that population will be the most like us, and I think they will be most open to accepting the trait in others and to some degree within themselves. So this group, together with us, represents the upper 50 % of the environmental sensitivity spectrum. This is where the greatest work will be done – acceptance of terminology and the trait. And the reframing of sensitive. The next 30 percent of the spectrum is on the downslope of the curve. We may be able to make some inroads here, but as the curve slopes downward, we will not receive complete acceptance, but we can convince some with persistence. Then, finally, the lower 20 percent. I think this will be a waste of time. We may never be able to convince them of the science, they see the world from their own lens, and it likely has no tolerance for highly sensitive people. Let them go. We should use metaphors and analogies to explain the trait in reaching out to others. For those that can comprehend the science, feed them that too. We can mix, match, and develop parables that everyone can relate to in describing who we are and why we are designed this way. Acceptance comes from understanding. Since language is the currency here, precise and uniform terms are important. That’s why I believe reinventing the term sensitive is less likely than reframing. Finally, realize this is going to take some time. Maybe a long time. Perhaps, generations to let the message sink in. Share with the young first. We are helping shape opinions for the next generations. This effort may seem trivial, but it’s important not only for HSPs but for humankind. Well, now the cat’s out of the bag, we don’t get do-overs… The cat is out of the bag, and the horse is out of the barn as the sayings go. Coming up with other terms may be difficult, and I’m not sure after nearly thirty years, we want to do a reset on the base term. Then, perhaps, new names will arise and be cast for the trait as more research is made available. But, for now, let’s work with what we have. There is nothing wrong with the word sensitive. My short-term advice is to try not to be, well, sensitive about the word sensitive. And that includes me. We need to start showing some pride in the trait as a group. Be armed with facts and science to shield against taunts and doubters. Stay calm, and don’t let emotions run high. We can do this if our message is consistent and persistent. Please comment with your thoughts.  A Blog about Sensory Processing Sensitivity from the Worldview of a High Sensing Male
In this article, I’m going to have some fun with prefixes. None of the words I’ll be talking about currently exist. Likewise, there is no evidence that any of the derivations of sensitivity exist or have been identified and named. This word exercise is just some experimental fun in word creation. Who knows, maybe someday these descriptors will be a thing. Please take this in the same spirit it is offered. In the past, I have described the various levels of sensitivity. (see Blog) The idea that sensitivity falls on a spectrum has gained traction lately with the Flower Metaphor. To quickly summarize, those individuals with the highest levels of environmental sensitivity are classified as Orchids, corresponding to the particular environmental requirements that Orchids thrive in. Next, we have Tulips, a hardier plant representing the vast middle of the sensitivity spectrum. Finally, we have the Dandelions, the least environmentally sensitive individuals, yet the sturdiest. But can we get even more granular than that? Yes, I think, with a little imagination, we can delineate even more types of sensitive folks. So take this commentary for what it is, part tongue in cheek and part quasi-scientific. The Broader Spectrum of Sensitivity In this post, we continue to elaborate on the sensitivity spectrum. Sensitivity applies to all humans. It is a human characteristic. To be more precise, we term high sensitivity at the top end of the sensitivity spectrum, the top twenty percent of the range. Can we account for some deviations of sensitivity not yet named? Does that add more gradation points on the spectrum? Using common prefixes and attaching them to our base word of sensitive, can we fine-tune even further the sensitivity curve to account for some uncommon types of sensitivity? Let’s see. How about the term – Asensitive? According to Webster’s the use of the a- prefix turns the term it precedes into not or without {term}. In the case of our exercise, would an asensitive person not be sensitive? Or could it be a highly sensitive person who removes themselves from the environment so as not to be sensitive? These individuals might be sensitive averse. They might display avoidant behavior to overwhelm, overstimulation, or withdraw simply to avoid too much sensory stimulation. How would you describe an asensitive person? What about the term Unsensitive? This term is not to be confused with insensitive, also called rude or cold. An unsensitive person would be, according to our word building lexicon, a person who would be the opposite of a sensitive person. It could mean the person was removed from being sensitive or ceased to be sensitive. For example, would a narcissistic person be unsensitive? Would an unsensitive person be described as thick-skinned? As opposed to the thin-skinned, highly sensitive person? Is an unsensitve person less focused on others (agentic) and a sensitive person more communally focused? Would unsensitive persons be genetically predisposed to being less empathetic? Does unsensitive correspond to the term unempathetic? What do you think? Could there be a term like Dis-sensitive? If so, what would be the difference between an unsensitive person and one that is dissensitive? One distinction might be that unsensitive people can be negatively sensitive and sometimes even hypersensitive as long as the stimulus is directed directly to them or about them. For example, even narcissists can be sensitive to criticism. Yet unsensitive people are still not able to be empathetic to others. The dis- or dys- prefix added to our term sensitive would imply that deprivation of sensitivity might be at play. Or perhaps a deliberate or constructed absence of sensitivity. Dissensitive people might be unaffected by their sensitivity either by mental health issues or sometimes a type of personal choice to simply not show any sensitivity to the environment, perhaps because of an extreme environmental upbringing. Kind of an artificial boundary issue in the extreme. And finally, what the heck would auto sensitive be? Here’s one we could have a lot of fun with. Adding auto to our root word might make this person self-taught on sensitivity or imply some type of automatic behavior regarding sensitivity. This might be someone who has learned to be sensitive beyond their normal place on the spectrum, hypersensitive or even highly sensitive. This individual may not normally be highly sensitive but uses elevated sensitivity to garner attention because it creates a reaction. Or maybe they have histrionic personality disorder, and it appears they are extremely sensitive to everything. Or is this even possible? Okay, so this little exercise has been fun. As more research comes out about sensory processing sensitivity, we’ll learn more about the trait and even some of the differentiation patterns. It may add even more granularity to the spectrum and cast light on deviations of normal sensitivity. Perhaps some words/terms will be used, but with more refinement. It may never look exactly like this or even at all, but I do believe at some point, we will start to see more detailed typology within the HSP community. What other terms might you use in describing sensitivity? Jot them down in the comments section. Please share your thoughts in the comment section.  A Blog about Sensory Processing Sensitivity from the Worldview of a High Sensing Male
HSP’s experience deep thoughts and deep emotions that sometimes are difficult to express in common language. Because we sense the subtle nuances in our environments, there is often a problem of not having the right nomenclature to express these thoughts, feelings, and emotions. Since language is our primary means of expressing these memes, HSPs being the creative souls that they are, find novel ways to use language for describing the difficult. It is part of our creativity that we would find ways to express ourselves with literary tools (figures of speech) such as similes and metaphors associating two or more things that are not normally related but could, by comparison, be similar. Likewise, HSPs can use poetic language to deliver nuanced information about complex concepts – a way of deciphering meaning to our complex world. Let’s look at a few of these devices. Similes Similes are figures of speech used to compare items using comparison words such as: like, as, so, or than. The comparisons made with similes are usually a more direct comparison and are often used much like personification (attributing human characteristics to animals or things). For example, “the fox was as crafty as a village thief.” The use of this figure of speech is straightforward, direct, and easy to follow. Similes are often used in literature and comedy, where a direct comparison may make more sense. It might be easier to use a simile in everyday speech than an elaborate or flowery metaphor to make a point. HSPs make use of this device to convey an object comparison more than deep meaning emotion. Metaphors Metaphors are used for rhetorical effect comparing things directly as well, but may provide additional clarification and subtle information at a secondary level. The word metaphor comes from Greek, meaning to transfer or carry over. That would imply meaning is passed over from target to source. from one object to the other. Sonja K. Foss describes metaphors as “nonliteral comparisons in which a word or phrase from one domain of experience is applied to another domain.” Metaphors require more work and can be deep and beautiful or hard, simple, and clean. Metaphors can contain more emotional content, which would include the nuanced world of information HSPs sense. It adds depth and dimension to idea exchange and added strength to this business of conceptual comparison. Often there is implied meaning beneath the metaphor, much like a layered cake, each layer adding definition related to the whole but able to stand alone if needed (by the way, that was a simile). For example, if someone was described – stormy and cold, that could mean that perhaps they are moody or destructive or unfeeling. Thus, the description carries a depth of meaning, which we might associate with a thing such as a storm. In many ways, that depth can be interpreted slightly differently by the individual sharing the information and the individual receiving the information. This is what makes using metaphors so much fun in writing. The metaphor eases the description of the target by moving something abstract towards something more concrete. So, for example, something that is conceptual can be described in everyday terms, which are easily grasped to help explain the more challenging concept. I enjoy a well-written metaphor. They delight the imagination and will resonate with me when I read them, as I am sure many HSPs do as well. Other literary devices: Alliteration The repeating sounds of alliteration are sensorily soothing and, although not commonly used as much anymore, would instill a meditative feel to a written piece. Thus, it is often used in poetry, rhyme, and lyrics. Alliteration is the conspicuous repetition of consonant sounds in closely placed syllables. For example, most famously, in the nursery rhyme, “Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers….” It may seem trite now, but if done well has a lyrical quality to it and has a consonant resonance. Hyperbole Hyperbole is a device used to exaggerate an idea or concept. It is often used to exaggerate a grievance (“your snoring is killing me”) because it is typically so emotionally fueled. When used in comedy or satire, it is never to be taken seriously but realizing that it is an outlandish expression, it blows something out of proportion for emphasis. It is often used in advertising, poetry, and literature. We use this so often in everyday speech that we are almost unconscious of its use. HSPs may use this to express a complaint by using an over-the-top expression to convey frustration. Euphemism A euphemism is a replacement word or expression. It typically replaces an offensive or potentially offensive word or phrase with something more innocuous. It’s cleaned up language to mask often words that are considered vulgar or not to be used in polite company. Perhaps the king of the swear words is fuck, often converted to freak, frig, frick, fudge, eff, or f-word. Euphemism can be used as understatement, substitution, metaphor, or slang. Wherever the language police congregate, you will find euphemism. Because HSPs are generally more empathetic to the sensibilities of others, we often make use of this technique to keep a conversation palatable. Onomatopoeia Onomatopoeia is an odd-sounding word for a device used to create a word to describe the sound phonetically that something makes or to resemble that sound. We often use this when describing animal sounds or loud noises, i.e., moo, cluck, meow, bang, boom, etc. This figure of speech is used most commonly with children’s books, in comics, cartoons, and advertising. It’s great for kids, which they find fun, but generally used sparingly. It’s great to match sound with meaning, with a word. Parody Although not technically a figure of speech, I like using parody to lampoon something or characterize something that, although serious, can be made fun of with satire or spoofing. In written form, it has ancient roots, going back to the Greeks, but this device can be found in music, film, and poetry. This is the great friend of those who either secretly admire something or find humor in mocking something. Some of the great parodies in film are those films by Mel Brooks or Monty Python. In music, I’m thinking of Weird Al Yankovic. When I was sixteen in Chemistry class way back yonder, I wrote a parody of Alexander Pope’s Rape of the Lock, called Ode to a Commode. It was written in the same style, different topic, but it was essentially a parody of a parody. “Oh, thou unheralded porcelain chair, nestled there in tiled lair….” I thought it was clever, but it is now lost forever. It is a lazy writer’s device but may be the sincerest form of flattery in many ways. It does take some creativity to execute. Maybe the HSP sense of subtlety helps here. Pun Puns are great word puzzles that intelligent people like to play with groanable results. The greater the groan, the greater the achievement. It is wordplay that exploits and teases out the multiplicity of meaning that words often have and creates a humorous side effect. They are derived in multiple ways, by using homophonic words (similar sound different meanings) within a phrase, homographic words (words that are spelled the same but have different meanings), or homonymic (words that share the same spelling and sound). The fun never stops as clever stylists mix and match and dig for the best or worst puns. George Carlin was a master at this, and on the visual side, so was Gary Larsen of the Far Side comics. These devices are all interesting in their own right (write- pun?), make language colorful, and aid in communicating nuanced and emotional language. They are not just for writing but are useful in everyday speech. What type of mind is required to excel with these devices? I believe an observant mind, thoughtful and deep, one that can associate word meanings with feelings and emotions. A mind that can draw on memory to help create these word associations. A mind like HSPs possess. What type of other literary devices do you use or believe would be commonly used by HSPs to describe their world? Please share your thoughts in the comment section.  A Blog about Sensory Processing Sensitivity from the Worldview of a High Sensing Male There has been a lot written about raising HSP children. Because they are more sensitive to criticism, the environment, and boundaries, what overarching principle should be in place to raise them? Under the right circumstances and environment, HSP children can thrive. In fact, under the right conditions, they outperform their peers in school, have lofty moral attitudes, have greater social competency, better self-regulation, and greater confidence and security. In my years of having my own business, BrainPilots, a neurofeedback and hypnosis coaching practice, the use of a particular type of neurofeedback system provides an interesting adjunct model to use on HSP children. It is a push/pull methodology. The tool, Neuroptimal™, uses EEG sensors to monitor the brainwaves of the individual's training, then pushes back feedback when the optimal learning opportunity occurs. Then it repeats and allows the client's brain to capture the anomaly in the brain and make its own correction. The assumption is that the individual's brain will autocorrect for the highest function in its own time and method. No guessing when to push instructions; just watch and feedback. It's an automated loop, and it works. Would this make a good method for raising HSP children? Let's see. Best practices for raising highly sensitive children. With the consequences so high in raising SPS children, what are some of the suggested best practices for raising HSP kids? First, we must acknowledge that raising a highly sensitive child is often challenging and can energetically be draining for the parent. This is a two-parent/partner project. Dr. Ted Zeff, In his book on raising highly sensitive boys (and this equally applies to HSP girls) that it important for men to be involved in raising HSP boys. Considering today, we have more same-sex couples, involving a trusted family member or friend of the opposite sex would be helpful for the HSP child to spell the primary parents if needed. It is important to not put the HSP child into situations where they can be humiliated or extremely uncomfortable, yet gently challenge them to learn by experience. Gentle discipline is very important in raising HSP children. Unfortunately, HSP children often internalize harsh criticism, and much can be achieved by explaining the discipline and toning down the emotion while disciplining an HSP child. Being aware of the environmentals for HSP children is key to understanding perplexing reactions from them. Loud, noisy, crowds, or environments where sensory overload is pronounced can affect the HSP child's behavior. Always remember that HSPs need alone time to recharge, revitalize and regroup. HSPs are perhaps the most environmentally sensitive of all humans. The proper setting is important for raising an HSP child. Just remember, HSP children are not all the same. Some are easier than others to raise, primarily because of the wide blending of personality traits that are shared with the HSP personality. Treat each child as an individual and learn who and what they are – more on that shortly. Perhaps the most important goal of raising a child is to develop a strong, confident self-image that will allow them to be who they are and enable them to live an authentic life, regardless of the challenges or obstacles. For HSPs, this can be a slippery slope. It all begins with acceptance. Help them to embrace the trait, however difficult that may be at times. By providing routines, calming respites from overload, emotional validation, guided self-exploration, and a celebration of their uniqueness, you will be providing a sound foundation for growth into adulthood. Studies have shown over and over that HSPs raised in a validating environment produce exceptional individuals. The converse environment has an especially egregious impact on emotional and behavioral development. Again, the environment is everything to HSPs. My model based on neurofeedback To add another layer to the above-mentioned HSP child-rearing methods outlined, I would like to add another suggestion for raising HSP children. This idea is based on my experiences working with clients in a neurofeedback or brain training environment. The model is based on how the neurofeedback loop works with Neuroptimal™ brain training. It is essentially a push/pull method, where the child tells the parent by their behavior and examples of what they are naturally drawn to, what to encourage in the child's development. This is the beginning of the feedback loop from the child to the parent. The parent must remain objective about the feedback, understanding that the child's developing personality sets foundational interests that should be encouraged. The child will also feedback the limits in which they can tolerate exposure to the new interests and reactions to the challenges. The parent then listens, observes the child, and provides guidance and necessary boundaries to provide a sense of safety and security. That is the push part of the model. The push is the continuation of the feedback loop. The child, receiving the feedback, recalibrates and adjusts, and provides more observational feedback to the parents. This is the pull part of the loop. The parents again listen, incorporates the aggregate feedback, and sends back guidance and boundaries. It is a continual dialogue between the child and the parent. The parent does not dictate to the child preset expectations but guides as the child explore their environment and the world. As with the aforementioned neurofeedback, the loop from parent to child is about awakening the child to the moment for best learning. The child, especially the HSP child, is not alone in navigating the world but is purposefully guided by an aware and present parent. This is a simple feedback loop but requires the following:
What does this mean to parents of HSP children? It means that as parents, we must acknowledge that we are dealing with a special child who has a keen sense and awareness of their environment and themselves. The methods employed in raising an HSP child will have lifelong consequences, perhaps, even beyond that of a less sensitive child. It behooves parents of HSP children that they allow the child to tell the parent who they are and to listen. But this requires diligence and guidance from the parent. You are still the parent, and the child will look to you for help in forming their ego/personality. Authenticity is very important to HSPs. Allowing the child to guide you as the parent in helping them find and become their authentic self is paramount in raising a happy, well-adjusted confident adult. Here's some good reading for Parents of HSP Children. Elaine Aron's book on raising highly sensitive children. https://www.amazon.com/Highly-Sensitive-Child-Children-Overwhelms-ebook/dp/B000FC1IJ0/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=hsp+children&qid=1630078377&sr=8-3 Dr. Aron's book on being an HSP parent. https://www.amazon.com/Highly-Sensitive-Parent-Brilliant-Overwhelms-ebook/dp/B07RB2ZQ5K/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=hsp+children&qid=1630078436&sr=8-4 Ted Zeff's classic on raising HSP boys. https://www.amazon.com/Strong-Sensitive-Boy-Ted-Zeff-ebook/dp/B004P5NVHA/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=ted+zeff&qid=1630078509&sr=8-1 Website for Parenting the Highly Sensitive Child. https://www.thehighlysensitivechild.com/ Please share your thoughts in the comment section.  A Blog about Sensory Processing Sensitivity from the Worldview of a High Sensing Male A term has surfaced recently into my consciousness: neurodivergent. What does this mean? There is a movement afoot to expand the view of what we consider normal brain functioning that would now include many developmental disorders that would be seen as dysfunctional in the past. The thought is to expand what we now consider a wider spectrum of mental diversity. Judy Singer, a sociologist who has autism, coined the term in the late 1990s to include these disorders as normal variations in how the brain processes and functions. The idea behind this diversity is to demonstrate that although to the general population, these "specializations" might seem aberrant, in fact, they may be considered strengths, areas of specialized focus. The argument for encasing the idea of normal divergence of human mental functioning expressed by these variations would consider them to be adaptations, which provide strengths and diversity to the human genome. Furthermore, many experts believe that because these adaptations remain within the human population, they have some evolutionary purpose and advantages. For HSPs, this should sound familiar. Normality This seems to beg the question, what is normal? It is reported that over a fourth of Americans and up to one-half over a lifetime suffer from some type of mental disorder. This would suggest that at some point, most of us suffer from some type of dysfunction, whether temporary or permanent. However, how much dysfunction is needed to be then termed abnormal? As Peter Kramer suggests, "If for many of the factors difference confers some degree of vulnerability to dysfunction, then we will find that we are all defective in one fashion or another." If we take into account the enormous diversity of the human genome then certainly defining normal becomes more problematic. Does normality imply that one is free from dysfunction, or can we now agree that as we all share the human experience, we are prone to divergent functioning, which must be accounted for as part and parcel of what it means to be human? As Kramer states, "the awareness that we all bear flaws is humbling. But it could lead us to a new sense of inclusiveness and tolerance, recognition that imperfection is the condition of every life." Could then this be implied that our "dys-perfection" be the fruit of our human existence and a key contributor to overall human adaptation and survivability? Neurodiversity attempts to cover a wide range of developmental disorders, principally: Autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Dyslexia, and Dyspraxia. Autism is a spectrum disorder classified as a complex neurodevelopmental condition that includes impairment of communication and social skills, combined with repetitive behaviors, and impaired learning and executive functioning. ADHD covers a wide range of attention and organizing skills deficits that often manifest as impulsivity and distraction. Dyslexia refers to reading or writing problems that cannot otherwise be explained by a lack of intellectual, learning, or sensory issues. Dyspraxia refers to a condition in which impairment occurs in the execution of motor skills and the ability to execute a plan of action. In addition, some dyspraxic individuals may experience Sensory Integration Dysfunction, which creates oversensitivity or under sensitivity to physical stimuli. Dyspraxic individuals may also experience what is considered a type of sensory overload, which causes panic attacks. If seen in the light of neurodiversity, are all of these behaviors adaptations? One theory proposes that these disorders result from environmental factors due to early childhood stress and trauma. Yet, complex human behaviors are rarely just products of the environment but a complicated interplay between genetics and environment. Even in their seeming dysfunction, these disorders can show the amazing adaptability of humans. It is noted that people with dyslexia can adapt to their struggle with reading to develop efficient and remarkable visual memory, which aids in reading and comprehension. In his book, Attention Deficit Disorder: a Different Perception, Thom Hartmann argued that an accounting of ADHD might be to describe the disorder due to an adaptation from a characteristic of earlier hunter-gatherer humans now stuck in a farming society. The idea that adaptive characteristics from a different, older cultural milieu did not translate well into a society that had moved on from nomadic life to a more stationary life. The genetic traits once useful in hunting animals, i.e. hyperfocus, were no longer as important and useful in raising animals and crops. Yet, the trait survived to bring us individuals with ADHD. Hartmann argues that ADHD is not necessarily maladaptive nor a disorder but needs to be seen in the context of its original purpose. There is some research supporting this hypothesis. Again, the point is, what is normal? Ways in which HSPs may be considered to be non-normal. Studies have pointed out that often highly sensitive people may be confused with having a variety of disorders including autism, schizophrenia, social anxiety disorder, and are prone to episodes of depression and moodiness. In fact, the trait of Sensory Processing Sensitivity has been referred to as introverted emotional temperament, chronic cortical/cortisol arousal, hypervigilance, and innate shyness. Thank God for Dr. Elaine Aron giving it a much more positive framing. Nevertheless, we are a minority population within humans, which makes us a little non-standard. Many HSPs report, along with other people that are not highly sensitive, that the trait is problematic at times, making life complicated and challenging. When overwhelm kicks in, SPS can be considered debilitating to some HSPs if they do not know how to handle the overstimulation we often experience. In addition, there is a certain amplification of life's experiences, which may lead to depression, anxiety, and fear-based limitations. Then there's the social isolation that often accompanies our introvert dominant personalities, and for the extraverted HSPs, the dealing with the need for downtime. Yet, taken as a whole, can we say the trait is a dysfunction? I think not. I still hold true the explanation of Dr. Aron, that the trait is an evolutionary adaptation necessary within our species. It continues to proliferate through time and does have a purpose. As Dr. Tracy Cooper often says, we are a fine-tuned instrument. Fussy at times, but necessarily so, to bring about the sensory detecting purposes of our nature. To be able to detect the subtle, the nuanced, and the environmental nuggets others miss. Is our trait (SPS) a form of specialization? Yes, most definitely. When you consider the HSP's ability to think deeply, deeply consider, and deeply feel, that alone makes the trait a specialization - an adaptation, if you will. And that is on the backend of the processing; if you add the ability to consider and sense the subtleties in the environment to feed that backend, you add a depth and dimension that adds value to observation and deduction. To then tie it all together, you add empathy--the social emotion, which gives HSPs relatability and the ability to sense others, aid others, feel others, gives us a potent arsenal of capabilities, that despite our challenges, make us specialists amongst humans. We are the canary in the coal mine, the early warning system, and to use a crude metaphor, the pebble in the shoe, warning our fellow humans of impending trouble. We may be a pain in the ass to some, but we are necessary. If that is dysfunctional, then why hasn't nature selected us out? Every day and it seems more so now than ever before; we expand the terms to being human. Neurodivergence attempts to continue this trend. Why not move beyond developmental disorders and include rare personality traits or minority personality characteristics such as SPS? Doesn't that add to the complex stew of human personality traits? So, what if we are neurodivergent? Should we be? We are just what we are and what nature intended for us – all of us. What if we called it “neuroinclusive?” Please share your thoughts in the comment section.   A Blog about Sensory Processing Sensitivity from the Worldview of a High Sensing Male
Most HSPs I know assume that we as a group are mostly introverts (which is true, about 70%), quiet and observant types. This idea often serves us well in assessing situations and navigating through life. One of our primary traits is the trait of observing and then processing – deeply. This deep thinking is often, and I would say mostly, done quietly. So, a model for most HSPs might be watching, sometimes listening, then remaining still and quiet to aid our thinking. We also know that all HSPs are not introverts; however, we are all observant. Sometimes we observe and do not voice our opinions for various reasons. I suggest a few in the next section. Queen Elizabeth I of England had a motto in Latin: Video et Taceo, which is translated to mean “I see and remain silent. “ Although her motivations for its use might have been different from what a typical HSP might have, it seems a fitting motto for highly sensitive people. How can this be interpreted? There is a multitude of ways this phrase can be interpreted. Let’s look at a few.
So, how does this apply to highly sensitive people? What stood out about this succinct phrase was the emphasis on watching, listening, and pausing, not responding immediately, but rather thinking, pondering, processing. Isn’t this what HSPs do naturally? Aren’t we generally the quiet, contemplative, sensitive types who are NOT the loudest in the room? Doesn’t keen observational skills require almost a quiet attention to detail? Doesn’t talking, speaking interfere in some ways with observation and learning? I think that this style of learning and observing is natural for highly sensitive people. Because listening is not a passive process and is now considered active, as is speech, there can be some interference in learning if the two overlap. For example, in learning languages, it was often regarded as critical to have the student speak early on in the learning process to solidify elocution. Now, the thinking is that more time initially needs to be spent actively listening before speech attempts to learn the mechanics of the language before attempting meaningful speech. If you think about that, it makes perfect sense. Isn’t that how you learned your native language as a child? You listened long before you spoke. Comprehension is enhanced with extended listening. Listening for speaking does not fully utilize memory, which is a requirement for learning long term. However, listening for comprehension lays a solid framework for later learning to speak and uses both short- and long-term memory. You could almost slap a post-it note over the whole thing with the phrase Video et Taceo. Environmental sensitivity factors shape learning styles. These factors help an individual to navigate their world. Some of the individual’s learning style is foundational, i.e., genetic, but other factors come into play due to the environment. Is it then possible that a “video et taceo” style of learning or operating is native to HSPs? Think of our quiet observational nature. One could argue that Video et Taceo would generally be a good motto for HSPs. Some would argue that being quiet is not always a virtue. But it seems for HSP being quiet is almost a native state, certainly for HSP introverts. Perhaps, being silent is a precursor for wisdom, foregoing the constant chattering of idle dialogue, to devote more brain time to observation and learning. My father used to say to me when I was talking too much, “Son, do you have something to say, or do you just want to say something?” Silence is golden or, so we are told. Can HSPs use our silence and observations to add value to the world? At what point do we break the silence and speak our truth? How long do we let our observational brew percolate before serving up to an unsuspecting world? I sometimes wonder if we can be too silent for too long. What use is the wisdom we glean from the environment if we don’t share it? Just like with learning a language, at some point, you must attempt to speak, however feeble that may be. Breaking the silence is like breaking wind; you can only hold it in so long. A multitude of quotations from wise humans. What is your favorite quotation on silence that encapsulates your personal philosophy? Reply in comment section.
Please share your thoughts in the comment section.  A Blog about Sensory Processing Sensitivity from the Worldview of a High Sensing Male
What do you think it is that makes HSPs so self-reflective? We inherently have the internals for deep processing, deep reflection, and deep emotional churn, but is this all that is at play here? Is this a sufficient explanation? In reading Michael Pollen’s book, How to Change Your Mind: What the New Science of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, and Transcendence, I discovered a term that intrigued me. He speaks of the default mode network (DMN) and how psychoactive plants and drugs interfere with the function of the default mode network in the human brain. The DMN is a brain network of various brain structures instrumental in creating moments of self-reflection and daydreaming when the brain is engaged in a task-negative state. It is where our minds go when we are not in goal-seeking, active task mode. It made me wonder if this is a state that HSPs are prone to enter more than non-HSPs. This type of reverie and disengaged self-reflection reminds me of the rumination many HSPs get caught up in regularly. If so, does this explain our tendency for long periods of deep reflection, and are we naturally drawn to this state because of our deep processing capabilities and the need for self-reflection? What is the Default Mode Network? Hans Berger first proposed a default mode network, the inventor of the electroencephalograph (EEG), to account for his observation that the brain, even at rest, is busy. Marcus Raichle of the Washington University School of Medicine later coined the term default mode network. DMN is characterized by daydreaming, future-looking thoughts, gauging other’s perspectives, and especially with self-reflection. An output of DMN state is often spontaneous thinking which can lead to creative thinking. DMN seems to begin developing in the human brain around ages nine to twelve. DMN may also be implicated with disorders such as Alzheimer’s, Autism and Schizophrenia, by reduced activity of the DMN. Even in the DMN state, the brain consumes about 20 % of the body’s energy, much more than any other organ. DMN is not still fully understood. The Purpose of the DMN The DMN is now often associated with the social brain and the social understanding of others. It appears to be involved with emotion perception, empathy, theory of mind, and morality. This leads to aiding in understanding others, understanding self, controlling self, and processes that control the social interface between self and others. Its tie to memory also aids in making predictions about the behavior of others and provides a framework for moral judgments of other’s behaviors. It is also most notably tied to the notion of ego or self-identity. The ego is our self-definition of who we think we are, regardless of how subjective and incorrect that definition may be. In other words, when the brain is not task busy, it often turns inward to think of itself. The operative word here is daydreaming, something that HSPs do regularly. Another reason to suspect that DMN has special meaning for highly sensitive people. To me, this sounds much like a type of twilight thinking mode, a reverie state, much like twilight sleep, that few moments of in and out of consciousness we experience just before bedtime. This mode of thinking sees the world through our perceptions and ideals, sometimes to exclude external feedback. I have often mentioned this in the blogs and my book, Confessions of a Sensitive Man. As deep-thinking individuals, we often create ideas of ourselves that have no social confirmation because we hold them tightly to our vests. We lock ourselves in these self-contained prisons and never test our theories in the outside world. We are, perhaps, locked in our DMN based logical loops. What is the relevance to HSPs? Are we more prone to activation of this state than most of the population? Just following anecdotal social media discussion group conversations would indicate that this may be the case. Many HSPs, especially introverted HSPs, would find comfort in this type of state – brain at rest, task neutral and reflecting on self, and predicting the behaviors of others. A controlled state of mind, where outcomes are constantly evaluated in a safe place, evaluating memories (rumination) and developing strategies of future behavior. A staging ground in facing the world. I am not placing a value judgment on this, simply looking at the likelihood that this would be something that many HSPs, myself included, would find comforting in our downtime. It is also a place of spontaneous idea generation, resulting in some very creative ideas and could explain our tendency towards creativity. Conversely, it could lead to too much rumination, which is often the antecedent to depression and anxiety. Can this state be induced and controlled? Since the brain “defaults” to this mode when we are not actively engaged in task-positive activities or goal-seeking activities, whenever we remain in a task-negative situation, we are going to be in DMN, unless, of course, we are asleep. The extent that we are more “active” or “non-active” may be the determining factor as to whether we are in DMN or not. It is interesting to note that meditation, a task that would seem task neutral, helps facilitate the entering of DMN and can positively affect both DMN and TPN modulation. In a Buddhist sense, the DMN can be like the monkey mind, scattered and full of intrusive random thinking. Meditation is a way to help harness the monkey by applying mindfulness to aid in controlling daydreaming for purposeful pursuits. Daydreaming can be positive constructive (creativity seeking), or guilty dysphoric (obsessive anxiety), or attentionally out of control (scatterbrained). If we use the DMN for constructive pursuits, we are fully utilizing its positive capacity. Since the DMN is both forward and backward seeking (attachment to memory), it can keep us from staying in the present moment. It can also take us down well-worn neural pathways that can lead us to anxiety, worry, and pessimism. The DMN can be overactivated, leading to hyperconnectivity, which sounds like something many HSPs should be familiar with, much like our overstimulation. How do we control this? For one, we can alter our consciousness with mindfulness mediation. What has also been suggested is the use of mind-altering plant medicines (i.e., psilocybin, mescaline, ayahuasca, et al.) Psychedelic drugs deactivate the DMN’s integration function within the brain, a homeostatic state that leaves us in a state of “baby “consciousness, a primitive functioning state. I’ll leave that for another day’s discussion but mounting research in the use of psychoactive plants is showing promise for this in a controlled way with therapeutic supervision. Another option is to change the neural pathway route by invoking TPN-related tasks. This is essentially leaving DMN mode by thinking outside of the box, in essence creating new thoughts. This may lead to another option that utilizes unfettered creative thinking. Thinking abstractly, like purposeful playfulness, opens the door to new ideas and breaks the sameness of DMN thinking. I liken this to hopeful, optimistic thinking. Finally, we can change the channel by focusing on the positive past versus the negative past. Focus on successes and not dwell on failures. A recent study highlights the observation that tactile stimulation appears to deactivate the DMN as well as does the use of visual and auditory stimulation. So, get out there and hug someone, with their permission, of course. Watch a movie or listen to some meaningful music if you get trapped in DMN no man’s land. Are there any benefits to this state? It appears that DMN is part of the standard equipment with human brains. It has both positive and negative attributes, which we should all be mindful of. It seems clear that harnessed with mindfulness being in DMN mode can lead to moments of creativity and reverie. Its use of memory to look backward and forward can, without your control, lead to depression or anxiety or positivity and confidence, depending on your controlling the focus. It appears to some extent to be a gateway to the unconscious or at least unconscious long-term memory. That can be good or bad, depending on what is retrieved. And it appears to be a fine line between states of dementia, PTSD, depression, and Autism. Nevertheless, we should be aware of when we are in DMN and how it is affecting us. By reducing unbridled DMN thought creating, we can allow ourselves to experience the present moment with greater objectivity, which Shapiro calls “re-perceiving.” With focused attention via mental training to reduce competitive distraction and daydreaming, we can spend some of the negative DMN time on something more optimistic and positive. Although I must be honest, I do love my daydreaming time. Please share your thoughts in the comment section.  A Blog about Sensory Processing Sensitivity from the Worldview of a High Sensing Male
One of the common misperceptions about Highly Sensitive People is that they make poor if not reluctant leaders. It's not that they don't have the chops to be good leaders; it's more like they would rather avoid the hassles of leadership altogether and get on with their work in a solitary and workmanlike manner. There are challenges for HSPs in leadership positions, especially in high-profile and large organizations. The weight from enormous pressure, the constant bombardment of expectations, and the steady flux of amplified and dynamic objectives would overwhelm almost anyone and could easily drown an HSP. The drain of our energy, the hassles of always dealing with people, and the weight of managing would seem to erode our strength. It’s no wonder many HSPs shy away from leadership roles. Besides, the traditional industrial leadership models of the 19th and 20th centuries, with its' adherence to top-down authority, would have little appeal to highly sensitive people who would prefer more egalitarian and cooperative methods of leading others. The latter half of the twentieth century began to see the implementation and development of more humanistic leadership styles, styles that would be more authentic, empathetic, and appealing to HSPs. Today, more companies follow these new leadership models that would make it easier for HSPs to become effective and compassionate leaders. Let's look at some of the options available and compare them to the older traditional models. What are the options? First, traditional styles or top-down models of leadership emphasize a more autocratic and perhaps more bureaucratic model for leadership. These types of leadership styles place enormous focus on the top of the leadership chain. The boss is the boss. Autocratic styles focus on the person at the top who generally has command and control of the whole enterprise. The focus here is on results and efficiency – very machine-like. On the other extreme -Laissez-faire or hands-off management styles, while seemingly giving more control to the workers, delegates the results to others while providing little or no supervision. This style depends on accountability, creativity, and autonomy. Many HSPs might find the delegation part appealing, but this may create distance between the leader and the employees, not fostering rapport with the leader. Like managing from a castle turret, surveying the serfs plow the fields in the distance below the disconnect would be obvious to HSPs. The Pacesetter leadership model is a performance and goal-oriented leadership style, which can be pushy and lead to stressed-out staff. The emphasis on fast-paced results and hard-driving staff objectives. Do you see a pattern here? More focus on the goal and less on staff wellbeing and empathy. Again a less compassionate style of management. Still, another performance-oriented leadership model is the transactional leadership model. If you like to micromanage, you are into the corporate structure, focused on metrics, and like staying focused on short-term objectives; this might be your style. However, I suspect many HSPs wouldn't like this either. The above management styles are more traditional, emphasizing top-down management, not very receptive or open, not very emotionally aware, and certainly not focused on staff wellbeing. These styles don't appeal to creative thinking or real independence, out-of-the-box thinking, or as one CIO I had worked for once said, 'following forward' thinking. These traditional styles are more tactical, short term, lack supportiveness, and empathy. They are more “me boss, you employee”, which means what the boss says is the law, and you had best be compliant and obedient. Perhaps, a gross oversimplification, but still lacking heart. Newer More Open Styles of Leadership (Humanistic) The newer leadership styles focus on a more democratic, participative, and more cooperative leadership style that I think would appeal to more HSPs. These styles range from Transformational Leadership models, Servant Styles of leadership, and Authentic Leadership models. Transformational Leadership Style This style of leadership is all about inspiring your teams to achieve and reach their untapped potential. As the name implies, it is about transforming and exceeding team expectations and perceptions of their capabilities. This leadership style often requires a charismatic leader who invokes inspiring goals, energizes the team by example, and provides challenging objectives. These leaders often maintain high ideals of ethics and morality, cooperation and harmony, authenticity, and freedom of choice. All the outcomes of this style would promote an environment that would play well with HSPs, although I wonder if this is a leadership style that many HSPs might adopt. The energy levels needed to keep the team inspired might challenge many low energy HSPs, and the drain emotionally could be problematic. Servant Style Leadership The next leadership style is perhaps the most empathetic of the leadership styles surveyed, Servant Leadership. In Servant Leadership, the leader's primary goal, not surprisingly, is to serve. The servant leader puts the employees first, creates an environment for employee development, and encourages them to perform at their best. This management style was pioneered by Robert K. Greenleaf, who was inspired in an almost spiritual way to create this model by making the leader the servant of the team. The theory is that the team will be inspired by and motivated to serve themselves, thus creating an environment of service, each helping the other. Terms often associated with this leadership style are altruistic, healing, wisdom, stewardship, honesty, trust, integrity, and empowerment. Now we are getting into the wheelhouse of HSPs. This empathetic and compassionate model results seem to impact employee life, goal achievement, success, and, most importantly, engagement. Most impressive about this model is the effect on the environment – a receptive, open, and accepting work landscape. What are the qualities that make an excellent Servant leader? The ability to listen and show great empathy, promote healing and awareness, use persuasion instead of coercion, promote a long-term vision, show intuition and foresight. The servant leader is a steward of the organization, committed to the staff's growth and edification, and works to build community. Wow! Where do I sign up? Authentic Leadership Style Another new leadership style is called Authentic leadership. I like this already. Authentic leaders are positive individuals that display self-awareness, transparency, balance, and a consistent moral foundation that influences decisions and actions. Authentic leaders tend to be more optimistic and display hope and resiliency. Authentic leaders often take the strategic view of goals (vision), maintain a steady helming of the organization, show a certain impeccability of character, know themselves and their values, and strip bare to be transparent as possible to those they lead. These core values represent integrity and open communication. They lead by example. Authentic leadership seems to me to more a personal style of accountability than an organizational steering model. I like it as an HSP because it embodies the characteristics, I aspire to myself. Perhaps the model of attributes an authentic leader needs to motivate and lead a conscious and self-aware organization effectively makes this more appealing to me as an HSP. Taking the Best of Servant and Authentic Styles Both Servant and Authentic leadership models seem more twenty-first century, more modern, more humanistic than the older traditional models. They reflect what I see as HSP values. Perhaps the two are slightly different aspects of a new and, shall I say it – sensitive and empathetic management model. The overlap is quite pronounced. Yet, one seems to empathize the leader's role; the other emphasizes the new style leader's qualities. Both seem right for our times, and both seem right for HSPs. Can HSPs become influential leaders by adopting some of the new empathetic leadership styles? Yes, I do think HSPs can and should be influential leaders. What we do well is to be nurturing, intuitive and empathetic people. Generally, we are excellent in one-on-one situations – coaching and mentoring. But can we step up to leading larger groups of people? As leaders, do we create the environment best for us, or do we gently mold a lousy environment to our liking and others' benefit? In the right places, we thrive; in the wrong environment, we struggle. Yet, I believe influential HSP leaders show up in the right places at the right times. We have all the qualities of authentic leaders. We have the same motivations as the ideal servant leader. The time is now for HSP leaders to arise. Dr. Tracy Cooper refers to this perfect blend of HSP mindset, authenticity, and Servant leadership as Quiet Leadership. He proffers the idea that the time is right for us to take on this role. He is right. To be sure, all HSPs are not inherently leaders, which is fine. No population has all leaders with no followers. And many HSPs, no matter what style of leadership, don't want the hassle that leadership brings. It is, after all, a lot of responsibility and added pressure. But there are many HSPs out there who can make a difference in business, politics, academia, and in life if given the right encouragement. It's just confidence meeting the right environment. Let me end with a few closing notes. One assumption that we see in all these styles is that all that is needed is the right leader, and an organization will miraculously thrive and grow. Even when the leader fosters a supportive environment, the employees must also be willing to buy in, and not all will. Call it organizational cynicism or burnout on new leaders, but a leader and organization dynamic must be in sync and harmony. Another question is that the higher the interpersonal style, the subsequent effectiveness may be influenced by organization size. Smaller organizations may adapt more quickly to the Servant leadership model over larger, more bureaucratic, more diffused environments. Think one leader, many employees, means less direct interaction, less influence. Any of the humanistic models must be authentically emplaced within the organization. That means two downs, three downs, and beyond must be authentic as well. Otherwise, it becomes less real and more "management by airline magazine or mandate from on high." Organizations will see through that immediately. Finally, at the end of the day, like it or not, organizations that are profit-centered must strive for profitability or, as they say, perish. As idealistic as I am, this can't be only about being an awareness retreat. Nobody will be feeling good when the organization goes bankrupt. Business goals must be met, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Nevertheless, there needs to be a blend of business, organization dynamics, and humanity. John Rockefeller meets Carl Rogers. Please share your thoughts in the comment section. |
AuthorBill Allen currently lives in Lutz, Florida. He previously lived in Bend, Oregon. He is a certified hypnotist and brain training coach at BrainPilots.com. He believes that male sensitivity is not so rare, but it can be confounding for most males living in a culture of masculine insensitivity which teaches boys and men to disconnect from their feelings and emotions. His intent is to use this blog to chronicle his personal journey and share with others. 
Archives
April 2022
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed
Proudly powered by Weebly