Cold People: What Makes Them That Way?

(part 1)
Emotionally unavailable moms prompt their children to be "avoidantly attached." Published on May 31, 2011 by Leon F. Seltzer, Ph.D. in Evolution of the Self Characterization of "Cold" Doubtless, you've had the experience of interacting with someone who was--we'll say--"off-puttingly stand-offish." Detached, seemingly preoccupied, and not at all open or friendly, they seemed to hold you at a distance. And if you tried to say something to ease the situation, their response (though not exactly inappropriate) pretty much nullified your efforts. Or, you may have begun a romantic relationship that started out promising, but over time compelled you to confront the fact that the other person really wasn't letting you in. Despite all your attempts to "grow" the connection, to make it more mutual and heartfelt, he or she seemed to prefer that it remain as it began--uncommitted, relatively superficial, and impersonal. Any natural progression toward greater intimacy (at least emotional intimacy) simply wasn't happening. And your trying to cultivate more patience, to cut the other person more slack, or make allowances for their perhaps having an especially "private" nature, ultimately didn't seem to make any difference in your feeling uncomfortably removed from them. Hopefully, this is a relationship you walked away from. For odds are that, in both cases I've portrayed, you were dealing with a person who might best be understood as having what in developmental psychology is called an avoidant attachment pattern. This most useful concept--introduced into the literature by Mary Ainsworth who, along with her mentor, John Bowlby, represent the chief pioneers in the vital field of attachment theory--focuses on the nature of children's attachment to their earliestcaregiver as it crucially shapes how they'll relate to others later in life. Here, bulleted, are some words and phrases that collectively capture--on the surface, at least--the various dimensions of the "characterological coldness" I've been depicting (though, of course, no single individual is likely to manifest all these features): aloof, apart, stand-offish impersonal, disengaged, uninvolved; closed, shut-down detached, distant, remote (these traits, like so many others on this list, actually characterize a schizoid personality disorder, which--at their extreme--cold people can sometimes be)

haughty, or projecting superiority (though, if these narcissistic features are present, they could reflect the individual's outward demeanor, or self-deception, far more than how--deep down--they actually see themselves)

self-absorbed; insulated, passively withdrawn emotionally unavailable, inaccessible, unresponsive, indifferent, uninvested unfeeling, unemotional, affectionless; unsmiling--straight-faced (or stone-faced) cold-hearted--as in "cold fish" or (even worse) an "iceberg" or "ice queen" lacking in empathy and compassion untrusting, wary, guarded; angry, hostile; critical excessively independent and self-reliant

Before looking at the maternal caretaking causes of such coldness, however--as well as its short and longer-term psychological effects--I should briefly mention what avoidant attachment is not. For one thing, it shouldn't be confused with introversion (presently understood as an inborn personality trait tied to the brain's reticular activating system). Given similar deficits in their parenting, extroverts are no less prone toward developing this same kind of dysfunctional attachment pattern. Rather, introverts need to be appreciated not so much as aloof or emotionally unresponsive (as compared to extroverts), but as more reserved, socially reticent, and requiring more solitude. As children they undoubtedly tended toward anxiety-driven shyness. But in time most introverts grow out of this. In brief, introverts are hardly lacking in the capacity for intimacy. Once they're sufficiently comfortable in a relationship, they can show quite as much warmth and commitment as do their extroverted counterparts. Additionally, avoidant attachment ought not to be confused with any of the autistic disorders. The latter disturbances are now viewed as braindysfunctions that lead to selfisolating and socially detached behaviorsindependent of the child's upbringing. By contrast, researchers typically regard avoidant attachments--though to a limited degree influenced by one's innate temperament--as principally determined by the child's early home environment.

On the Primary Cause of "Cold" Personalities

So what exactly creates this strangely oxymoronic "avoidant attachment" in the first place? In such insecure, dysfunctional attachments, the label assigned to the primary caregiver (usually the biological mother) is "dismissive." What this unfavorable designation refers to is the mother's general unresponsiveness to her newborn. For the most part emotionally unavailable, distant, and withdrawn, she's averse to close bodily contact and physical warmth, which leaves the infant's bid for such essential nurturance routinely frustrated. Accompany this rejecting stance, such mothers (however covertly) can also betray anger--and at times even open hostility--toward the baby, and particularly when the child is making desperate attempts to establish an intimate connection with them. That is, when the infant is intensely seeking attention, affection, or succor, they're most likely to respond in punishing ways. And they demonstrate little tolerance for their child when the child is expressing negative emotions, particular their ownanger in reaction to being rebuffed. On other hand, when the baby is engrossed in exploratory activity, this mother-peculiarly insensitive to, or imperceptive of, their child's state of mind or feeling--is likely to interfere. And such intrusiveness prompts the child to feel violated, engulfed, or "suffocated." In short, she's unavailable and rejecting when the baby craves closeness and apt to behave invasively when the baby requires alone time. Attunement is a key concept in the abundant literature on secure parent-child attachments, and the dismissive mother is alarmingly misattuned to her all-too-dependent child. Obviously, such disharmonious parenting leaves the child feeling extremely frustrated, emotionally unfulfilled, and insecure. As Ainsworth et al. have concluded (see, e.g., Patterns of Attachment, 1978), in such a difficult interpersonal situation, this maternal (mis)behavior prompts the infant to develop an "approach-avoidance conflict." So how, exactly, do such unfortunate children adapt to such a discouraging, dispiriting, and depressing set of circumstances? That's the topic I'll be covering in part 2 of this post, which I hope will convincingly--and compassionately--explain the child's later "coldness" as an adult. Note 1: For the record, I should add that attachment theory also posits two additional unhealthy forms of attachment: namely, "resistant" or "ambivalent," and "disorganized/disoriented."

Cold People: What Makes Them That Way? (part 2)

Aloof individuals are just trying to protect their vulnerability Published on June 1, 2011 by Leon F. Seltzer, Ph.D. in Evolution of the Self

The Avoidant Adaptation to Parental Coldness In response to feeling emotionally disconnected from their primary caregiver, a baby's psychological defense mechanisms relate mostly to their efforts to protect themselves from the painful sting of rejection. And almost all of their safeguards to neutralize such maternal dismissal involve a kind of reactivecounter-dismissal. So, for instance, Mary Main, a student of Ainsworth and another key name in the field, notes (in a co-authored piece entitled, "Avoidance of the Attachment Figure in Infancy," 1982) that newborns who have a mother demonstrably uncomfortable with physical contact eventually stop responding to maternal efforts to hold them. And as Robert Karen, in his excellent introduction to the subject, Becoming Attached: First Relationships and How they Shape Our Capacity to Love (1994), describes it: "They don't cuddle or cling, and when held, they tend to go limp like a sack of potatoes." Clearly, the avoidantly attached baby has at this point decided that parental dependency is just too risky--especially since in most contexts open displays of dependency have led to hurtful disappointment. If, implicitly, the general message from the withholding (and possibly dissociated) mother is that separateness and autonomy are strongly favored, and that dependency is annoying, antagonizing, and thereby deserving of rejection, the child learns soon enough to make as few demands on her as possible. For to insistently "bother" her for love and have their efforts repeatedly dismissed only functions to contribute to thefear that they may be unlovable--and so expendable. It's only reasonable that children regularly rebuffed in their attempts to establish a stable, secure attachment with their mother would actively strive to reduce to a minimum their expectations for succor and support. And so they endeavor to "make do" with what little sustenance is available to them. Regrettably, under the circumstances, such an adaptation to their mother's parental deficiencies is unquestionably appropriate. And certainly it helps to decrease otherwise intolerable levels of frustration and defeat. In what I might refer to as "precociously pragmatic," the child establishes just enough proximity to the mother to avoid experiencing outright rejection--while at virtually every turn evading any risk-fraught opportunities for intimacy. The unsettling fear of being turned away yet again--and the grievous upset of such failure and loss--overwhelms the innate need to feel close and "attuned to" one's principal caregiver. As eminent interpersonal neurobiologist and psychiatrist Daniel Siegel summarizes the situation (inMindsight, 2010), if the parent doesn't reliably and sensitively respond to the child's signals for contact, "even ignoring these signals and seeming to be indifferent to the child's distress, [then] in order to cope, the child [adaptively] minimizes the activation of the attachment circuitry."

If we were to view this situation psychoanalytically, we might wish to consider Freud's key defenses of repression and denial. For babies who can develop strategies that allay their painful awareness of their mother's frequently dismissive stance toward them can at the same time reduce their disquieting and anxiety-laden emotions about such keenly felt rejection. And it's not only feelings of hurt, fear, and despondency that the child tries to bury beneath consciousness. It's also the anger--and even rage--at continually being denied the emotional comfort they've so strenuously sought (which at some level they may appreciate as their birthright). By denying almost all of their negative emotions--and doubtless those, too, of their dismissive mother--they somehow manage to assure themselves that things are all right, that they are all right, and that the little love they do receive is, well, good enough after all. And being able to successfully deny their fundamental need for nurturance inoculates them from further attachment pain. The bottom line here is that children, in their desperate attempts to secure whatever attachment bond may be available from their key caregiver, strive almost literally to make themselves over to become the child most likely to be accepted by her. So in the case of the avoidantly attached child, inborn intimacy-seeking behavior is replaced by behavior stressing separateness and independence--qualities that the child recognizes as strongly preferred by her. The thinking must be something like: "If I can just keep my distance and give her what she seems to want from me, then maybe she'll meet some of my needs." Obviously, the mother's needs and desires must take priority over their own if they're going to survive in such an emotionally impoverished relationship. And though the enormous personal cost of such self- (or soul-) sacrifice--especially viewed longterm--is inordinately high (as I'll show in the concluding section), it's still the best "deal" they can come up with.

Adult Repercussions of Having Learned to Avoidantly Attach It should be apparent from what I've been describing that I perceive so-called "cold people" as, more than anything else, people who are shut-down, repressed, and out of touch with their deeper feelings. Further, emotionally alienated from themselves, they can hardly be expected to express to others feelings that they themselves are unable to access. This critical interpersonal problem is an inevitable result of their having adopted massive defenses to protect against maternal rejection. Feeling an acute need to relinquish core parts of the self to safeguard an attachment experienced as tenuous, their expressing-and then evenexperiencing--certain basic emotions is simply too threatening for them. And the very worse (and saddest) part of this extreme adaptation is that what they

conclude must be the best way to act around their mother can easily generalize to the best way to act around everybody. So if it makes perfect sense not to show particular emotions, or emotional needs, with their dismissive caregiver, then it probably also makes good sense to avoid these same feelings with others generally--or at least in the context of potentially "intimate" relationships.

So what are some of the most negative consequences for children whose first experiences were with cold, unresponsive mothers? As already indicated, they all revolve around "universalizing" this seminal relationship--to indiscriminately "avoidantly attach" to all those around them. Disconnected from many of their own feelings, such individuals frequently struggle to pick up on the nonverbal cues of others, to sense what they're feeling. Fundamental social awareness and sensitivity is lacking in them, for never having been properly attuned to maternally, their feeling (vs. thinking) side has never adequately developed. Because their caregiver couldn't grasp where they were coming from, or allow them a "platform" to safely express their emotions, they, too, are restricted (sometimes severely) in their own ability to tune into others. Additionally, if their mother intruded on them at times when they needed to be alone (e.g., to help formulate their own personal identity, apart fromthe distressing relationship so troubling them), the same wall they constructed to fend off such intensely felt violations may still be in place today. And this barrier can exist even though the presentday attachment figure (or would-be attachment figure) might be quite safe--and even nurturing--for them to get close to. Given that the amount of shared emotion between them and their caregiver was seriously wanting, and also that they frequently felt compelled to shut down any spontaneous expression of feeling they feared might be received negatively, the very capacity for avoidantly attached adults to experience positive emotional states-such as enthusiasm, excitement, pleasure, and delight--may be dwarfed. After all, as children, simply allowing themselves to let go and be themselves seemed like an unaffordable luxury. So, as adults, close relationships (though they really can't explain it) just make them uncomfortable. And they feel the same way about allowing themselves to depend on others, or to trust them. How could this not be the case when they could never feel at ease in their original "committed" relationship--nor could they comfortably rely on it, or put any faith in it. "Programmed" from the very beginning of their lives to anticipate--and guard against--rejection, as adults they're already primed to avoid anything that might possibly lead to its recurrence. And being so emotionally

sealed off from others virtually guarantees that they won't be sufficiently "available" to be vulnerable to such a threat. Yet, it must be added, this chronic self-insulation also forever denies them their heart's deepest desire--the loving connection that so painfully eluded them originally. Having so thoroughly repressed this longing, they're without any feeling awareness of it. In fact, as the "dismissive adults" they've become, they're even likely to think and speak pejoratively of anything so touchy-feely as, say, sharing, love, or togetherness. Avoidantly attached both as children and adults, such relational concepts as intimacy and interdependence are, frankly, alien to them. As Siegel puts it in Mindsight, poignantly intimating their denial and lack of self-insight, "The narrative of dismissing adults has a central theme: 'I am alone and on my own.' Autonomy is at the core of their identity. Relationships don't matter, the past doesn't influence the present, they don't need others for anything. Yet of course their needs [however unrecognized] are still in tact." And if they're women and eventually marry, they're likely (no surprise here) to relate to their newborn in much the same way as their mother related to them. Now dismissive parents themselves, they unconsciously train their own child(ren) to be avoidantly attached to them. In the end, it's a multi-generational tragedy: a seemingly endless loop of separation and loss. Depending, of course, on just how harshly dismissive the repeating situation started out, childhood victims of cold (or misattuned) mothering are likely to become cold adults, and then cold parents who inadvertently raise their similarly avoidantly attached children to become cold adults, and then cold parents . . . and so on, and so on. Note 1: Discussing the ultimate resolution to, or treatment of, this millennial problem would require a book in itself. So I suggest that anyone who'd like to explore this subject more deeply check out the substantial number of works dedicated to it (one of the most recent of which is called Attached: The New Science of Adult Attachment and How It Can Help You Find-and Keep-Love [Dec. 2010] by Amir Levine and Rachel Heller). Note 2: Although there was insufficient room to elaborate on the point, I might add that (as suggested by the bulleted list of traits in part 1) dismissive parents who are markedly rejecting, or emotionally absent, are more likely to produce children who eventually develop in men). Note 3: For anyone who missed part 1 of this post, here's its URL. Additionally, if you think others you know might possibly find this post illuminating, please consider passing it on. certain traits found in personality disorders--such as narcissistic personality disorder(somewhat more likely in women) and schizoid personality disorder(more likely