Report 1

Jeni and I

Instruction to this report can be found at:

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy20/g20lecturenotes409b.htm#Instructions-report2

Applied Project:

Mapping the Threefold Self in Gender Relationships

By Davis Hanai

Jump to my Revision here

1. PREFACE

I was enrolled in Psychology 409a in the fall of 2004. Since the report 1 for both that class and this one are very similar, I got to choose any report from previous generations to do my report 1 on. I chose to do Report 2 from generation 20. The instructions for this report can be found at here.

My reports from last semester can be found here. The first one was about information processing (very similar to report 1 for this semester). The purpose of this report was to give me insights on my information processing abilities. It also gave me practice with the skills that are needed to succeed in this course. My second report answers several questions regarding driving psychology. The purpose of this report was to give the students a chance to do a more in depth study of driving psychology issues such as the threefold self and the three-step program for improving some of our bad driving habits.

The purpose of this report was to do a self-witnessing investigation of one of our relationships or that of someone we know closely. Our task was to see how the threefold self was interacting to form a “conjoint” self. Using the unity model of marriage, we would be able to see at what level of unity the relationship was interacting in.

2. INTRODUCTION: SELF-WITNESSING THE THREEFOLD SELF

What is self-witnessing?

Self-witnessing is a technique using objective and analytical methods to evaluate ourselves. It is a way to step away from our personas and see everything as an objective (or mostly objective) observer. Many of our actions and thoughts go unnoticed and self-witnessing is a way to discover these actions. Self-witnessing can take the form of videotaping yourself, recording yourself, jotting down on paper your thoughts as they happen, answering questions about yourself, or asking someone to help you observe yourself and point out certain things they notice about you. Self-witnessing is a great technique and can help you learn more about yourself or your relationship.

Report one for this semester is essentially a self-witnessing exercise. All of the pre and post ratings that we filled out were a way to see how we process information and give us insights on how our attitudes and expectations can change over time. We were able to self-witness how we approached an unfamiliar task, such as with positive determinism or negative apprehension.

Another great use of self-witnessing involves changing attitudes and bad habits when it comes to driving and road rage. In last semester’s psychology 409a, I learned so much about myself as I self-witnessed some of the bad habits I have when driving. One major problem I had was with having faulty cognitions about other drivers. I always assumed that when people cut me off or did something dangerous, they did it on purpose and where out to get me. After successfully self-witnessing these faulty cognitions on several automobile trips, I learned to be more understanding and objective in my cognitions. You can check out some of my work from last semester here.

I had some difficulty searching the generational curriculum for examples of self-witnessing and threefold self. This was not due to the fact that I could not find these topics being discussed, but because there was just so much information. It was hard to decide who did the best job. In the end, I found four reports which I thought accurately informed the reader about these two topics: self-witnessing and the threefold self.

Kathleen Matayoshi wrote a report in 1997 about the idea of self-witnessing. You can find this page at http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/409as97/atakahas/499/matayoshi.html. She illustrated the self-witnessing technique in regard to her driving habits. I thought she did a great job explaining her understanding of self-witnessing.

Another author who effectively elucidated self-witnessing was the writer from generation 20 with the pseudonym “shortcake”. This author’s short excerpt discussing self-witnessing can be found at http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bs2004/shortcake/report2.htm.

What is the Threefold Self?

During this semester, we have talked a lot about the threefold self. This idea has a lot to do with Dr. Leon James’ Unity Model of Marriage. Each of us has three parts of ourselves that are part of human behavior. The three selves are the 1) sensorimotor self, 2) the cognitive self, and 3) the affective self. The sensorimotor self is our physical actions such as walking, kissing, eating, etc. The cognitive self is all of our thoughts about life, relationships, others, etc. The affective self is our feelings such as anger, happiness, lust, etc. Both the man and the woman have this threefold self.

How deep and fulfilling a couple’s relationship is depends on how much unity they have in their threefold selves. At the start of the relationship, men usually dominate and enjoy being in sensorimotor unity. At this stage the relationship is based on activities with no emotional attachments. Men generally feel safe at this stage. Men can sometimes be apprehensive to move into cognitive and affective unity. Woman, on the other hand, immediately seek cognitive and affective unity. The most fulfilling relationship can be achieved if the couple can reach unity in all levels of the threefold self. It is the man’s job to put aside his “male prerogatives” (such as man’s day out, independence, not sharing his feelings, not appreciating his wife, etc), so the couple can enter full unity.

I should also explain what it means to be in unity. When we say the couple is in unity, it almost seems they are one person. To outsiders, when a couple is in complete unity they may seem to act and think as one. This does not mean that both the man and woman drop all of their individual beliefs and ideas so that they think and do and feel all of the exact same things. Each partner holds on to their individual identity and beliefs, but their relationship grows and changes so that everything is in reciprocal unity. It is not that they think the same things, but that they think (and also act and feel) in a way that complements each other. When the partners are reciprocal is this way, it seems that they are acting as one. Both partners are always thinking about the other and what they would want, and act accordingly. We have to remember when we say unity, it does not mean “the same”, but instead “reciprocal”.

Mario Villegas from generation 21 does a good job defining the threefold self and the unity model in his answer to question 1. You can find his report at http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bf2004/Villegas/REPORT%20TWO.htm. This author later explains why he thinks that men have the same feelings as woman, but just express them differently and at different times.

I also thought Suzanne Howard, from generation 20, nicely clarified the idea of the threefold self. Her report can be found at

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bs2004/howard/report2.htm. Suzanne Howard’s report was also used as reference 4 in our class this semester. In this report she used a diary kept from a relationship of three years to describe the threefold self of herself and her partner. Using this diary she could evaluate the unity (or lack thereof) of the three selves within the relationship.

In my investigation for this report, I looked at a couple of areas in each of the threefold selves (sensorimotor, cognitive, and affective). My girlfriend and I both filled out a questionnaire with carefully constructed questions tailored to give insight about the relationship. Using this self-witnessing technique, I then evaluated our results to see where we would fall under the unity model of marriage.

3. MY EXPERIMENT

(A) Design of My Experiment

Before I explain my experiment, I think it would be pertinent to explain my relationship with Jeni. I first met Jeni in seventh grade at Kawananakoa Middle School. We were not really good friends then, but we talked to each other every once in a while. We then both moved on to Roosevelt High School and became better friends. About a year and a half after we graduated, we decided to start dating. We have now been together for more than a year and a half and currently live together. We are both committed to each other and share plans to someday marry and start a family. Right now, we are happy sharing a domicile, while we both pursue our educational and future job careers. We probably would marry right now, if we were not both poor college students.

I originally decided to do this report because I thought it would be interesting to see where my relationship with Jeni stood using the unity model of marriage. This self-witnessing experiment on gender relationships is as the instructions put it, “to keep track of how the threefold self is engaged or how it is operative”. The purpose of my experiment is too take an in depth look at my relationship with my girlfriend and see how it involves the three domains of human behavior (sensorimotor, cognitive, and affective). It will also show where we are at under the unity model of marriage discussed during this course.

After looking at the instructions for this report, which can be found here, I tried to think of my own questions to look at for this report. After I researched a bit and saw that almost everyone from generation 20 just used the questions that were suggested in the instructions and did not make up their own, I decided to follow suit. Since I had already made some questions to ask about different areas of the threefold self, I decided to also include these questions in my report.

The three areas I chose to look at follow the three different domains of behavior. In each domain I will study and observe two areas relating to that. For the sensorimotor stage, I looked at dominance and control areas (this was from the instructions) and I also looked at the sharing of activities between the us. Relating to the cognitive self, I looked at negotiation areas (from the instructions) and the sharing of ideas. Finally, in my study of the affective self, I studied trust and mutual dependence (from the instructions) and self-sacrifice.

The way I did this study was a simple questionnaire format. By writing down our answers we were making self-witnessing observations our relationship and our individual roles in it. I told Jeni to be as objective as possible when filling out the questions. I vowed to do the same. We both filled out the questions in different rooms so that we could be completely honest in our answers and not be swayed in any way by our partner. We then compared our answers and discussed any discrepancies about them.

(B) DATA

Here are the answers to our self-witnessing observations:

Activity Sharing and Dominance and Control Areas (Sensorimotor Self)

• Who gets hold and control of the TV remote?

Me: Jeni is a much bigger TV watcher than me, so she is usually in control of the remote. She usually chooses what to watch, but is very flexible if I want to watch a certain show or if I want the TV off so that we can go to sleep.

Jeni: Definitely Me.

• Whose choice prevails for what home movies to watch?

Me: We do the Netflix thing. So she gets to choose one and I get to choose one, and the other is one we want to burn.

Jeni: We both say what movies we want to see and a lot of the times we both want to see the same thing. When we disagree, we decide that whoever’s movie we see this time, we watch the other persons movie next time.

• Who chooses what restaurant to go to?

Me: We usually just take turns or magically want the same thing, I don’t think we have very many problems with this, we usually can agree very easily where to eat and are not too picky.

Jeni: We both say what we would like to eat and then decide what would best fit the food we would like to eat. Usually Davis just ask, “Would you like to eat here?” and I say ok.

• How much influence is each partner willing to take from the other regarding how to behave with friends or family, or others?

Me: Hmmm….I am not sure. I guess we would be accepting as long as it is not too outrageous. We don’t encounter this much.

Jeni: Willing; haven’t seen

• Who shows more affection as a whole?

Me: I show more affection.

Jeni: Davis

• How do they talk to each other and what does the talks reveal about their cognitions and affective self?

Me: We talk to each other about everything; we both claim to show all and hide nothing.

Jeni: We talk about everything.

• How much public affection is shown? Do they both choose when, where, how long, etc. these PDA’s occur?

Me: We are very affectionate and I think we both agree about it, if Jeni feels uncomfortable she would tell me and I would respect her decision.

Jeni: A lot; YES

• What activities do they enjoy sharing?

Me: We do everything together

Jeni: Taking our puppy places, doing chores together, watching movies, eating

Sharing of Ideas and Negotiation Areas (Cognitive Self)

• How do the two partners see each other’s dominance or control motivations?

Me: I think we are both strong minded and the sole source of our arguments are because we often think the other is trying to hard to push their ideas on the other. I am much more of a culprit in doing this than Jeni.

Jeni: When it comes to certain subjects that Davis feels strongly for, like morality, he does not back down very easily and often pushes his ideas forcefully. I can be stubborn.

• How do they show the “equity philosophy” in their relationship (e.g. how do they decide about sharing work, duties, money, responsibilities, etc.)?

Me: We try to be very fair in everything and no one makes a decision without first talking it over with the other.

Jeni: We share work and responsibilities by just doing the work to help each other out. Money is considered “ours”, not “mine” or “yours”.

• How does each react when one shows motivation to influence the other (e.g. in changing habits, beliefs, loyalties, personality traits)?

Me: We don’t like it all. I think I do this a lot more than her. Jeni doesn’t like it when I do that, but I think she understands I am just trying to help her grow in my own way.

Jeni: I often get defensive because I am stubborn. Davis, I am not sure. He will get defensive over certain topics.

• What does each partner think of the other’s opinions (dislikes them, ignores them, isn’t interested in them. etc.- or the opposite of these)?

Me: I think we value each other’s opinions and try to understand where the other is coming from, but we don’t necessarily accept our partners opinions as correct. We are both “hard head” and very opinionated and sometimes this can cause arguments, but we try to be as understanding as possible and never discount each others opinions

Jeni: We listen to each other’s opinions and talk about them if they differ.

• What do the two seriously disagree or argue about?

Me: Like I said, we are both stubborn. Most of our disagreements are about hurt feelings due to what we each thought was “right” or “wrong”.

Jeni: Appreciation; giving up too easy compared to thinking I tried hard (this pertains to Jeni’s wish for me to help her get into shape. I can be very demanding in this respect and have high expectations for her. This has caused some pretty big battles and sometimes I wish she had never asked me to help her.)

• How much are the two partners intellectually influenced by each other?

Me: I think I influence Jeni intellectually very much. I can sometimes be very pushy with my ideas.

Jeni: It depends on the subject, but I think we both influence each other some.

• What do they talk about?

Me: Everything

Jeni: Everything

• How often do they share feelings, beliefs, ideas, motives, etc?

Me: Daily

Jeni: Everyday

• In what way do they share feelings, beliefs, etc.?

Me: We are always asking each other how we are feeling about something and what we are thinking.

Jeni: We talk to each other.

• How often do they have deep conversations about inner feelings, goals, wishes, wants, etc?

Me: Very often

Jeni: Several times a month

• How well can they judge how and what the other is thinking?

Me: I think we are getting better and better each day in being able to know what the other is thinking. Sometimes we feel so connected that one of us will just say something running through our heads and expect the other to know the context of what we are saying. We do this because we forgot we are two separate people and can’t read each other’s minds.

Jeni: 95% of the time we know what each other is feeling and thinking.

Trust and Mutual Dependence and Self-Sacrifice (Affective Self)

• How motivated is each partner to remember relationship things (dates one of them consider important, joint memories, intimate events, celebrations, the preferences of the other for various things)

Me: Very motivated. We are both pretty good at doing this.

Jeni: 100%

• How motivated is each to the idea of putting the partner ahead of everything else—friends, family, career, attachments?

Me: We are so committed to each other than nothing comes before each other.

Jeni: 100%

• How committed is each partner to the idea of total unity (e.g. feeling free to raise and talk about any topic, feeling motivated to eliminate all disagreements between them by wanting to change for the sake of the other, and so on?

Me: We have our battles and disagreements, but we have worked and continue to work to very hard to settle all disagreements in a civil manner. We are both changing and adapting to each other.

Jeni: 100%

• How much do each give up or do/willing to give up or do for the sake of the relationship?

Me: Everything

Jeni: We would both die for the relationship

• How motivated to stick together in the face of temptation, problems, and disagreements?

Me: We are fully committed to each other

Jeni: 100%

• How deeply do they feel they are right for each other?

Me: We both expect nothing more than to be with each other for the rest of our lives.

Jeni: 100%

• How central of a role do they see their partner in their future life?

Me: Very central.

Jeni: 100%

(C) Analysis and Discussion

First of all, I think Jeni and I were on the same page for everything. There were no real discrepancies that could be noted. Many of our answers were very similar or identical. So if we are not in unity in anything else, we can at least take comfort in the fact that we are in unity in how we see our relationship.

After reviewing both Jeni’s and my responses and talking it over with her, we decided that in some respects we are in the unity model but in others we are in the equity model. We seem to be in very much unity in our sensorimotor and affective selves, but seem to be in equity (and sometimes even the dominance) in our cognitive selves.

Unity in the threefold self with your partner moves from external unity to internal unity. At the first and most external stage, the couple only has a sensorimotor unity where they are in unity in their actions but the relationship does no go any deeper than this. Women find unity in this stage the most unpleasing. If the couple remains in this stage forever, they would most likely be in the traditional male dominance model (although you never know, there could be an exception somewhere in the world where a woman dominates the man physically).

The next stage is the cognitive unity stage. This is the basis of the equity model. The couple tries to be “fair” in everything. They take turns deciding what to do, respect that they have differing opinions, and take turns giving in. This seems to be the closest match for Jeni and my cognitive self. We both respect our differences in opinion, but we feel no need to agree with each other. Sometimes we can get into heated arguments because we both feel so strongly on certain things.

The inmost stage is affective unity. In this stage both partner’s feelings are aligned with each other (but more specifically, the notes says the man strives to align his feelings with the woman’s wishes). They no longer make decisions, act, or think about something without first consulting an internalized self of their partner. This is the deepest level of unity, because at this stage it seems as if both partners are half-selves, not being able to function properly without their counterpart. The couple will always think about what their partner would like when they make a decision.

For example, men often have male prerogatives that they hold dear to themselves such as hanging out with friends in a way that excludes and does not involve his wife. I used to love going to the beach with my friends. Sometimes on the weekend, I would go to the beach with or without Jeni. If Jeni did not come she felt abandoned and if she did come, she also felt abandoned because I was doing something she could not participate in (bodyboarding). I realized that continuing this ritual was damaging our relationship so I gave up bodyboarding for our relationship. I still go bodyboarding every once in a while, but only when I am separated from my girlfriend by uncontrollable events (such as when she has work and I don’t) and I always get her permission first.

From our results and our understanding of the unity model (I used table 1d quite a bit to conceptualize where we stand, table 1d can be found here), Jeni and I are definitely at sensorimotor unity. With respect to our cognitive and affective selves, we teeter totter between the equity model and the unity model (and sometimes dominance). Cognitively, we both disagree about a lot of things, but we respect each other’s opinions (equity model). We are always striving to agree and incorporate our partners differing ideas (unity model), but often fail to accomplish this. Sometimes I am very pushy with my ideas and make them out to be “right” (dominance model). Affectively, we are almost in unity. We both have given up a lot and adjusted so that we are more reciprocal to each other. I have yet to take the step to align all my thoughts with Jeni, for I still hold deeply to some of my differing opinions. We do hold much of the same goals, commitments, values, and feelings for each other.

As I mentioned before, unity does not mean the same. Two principles, differentiation and reciprocity, learned from the conjugial love model created by Emmanuel Swedenborg teach this idea. First, differentiation says that woman and men are not alike in all parts. It says men and woman are biologically and spiritually different. The second principle, takes into account this difference, but says to be in unity these differences will be reciprocal. This is the whole nut and bolt, ying and yang thing. Both and a nut and bolt are different but they come together in a reciprocal way to serve one purpose. The same is for a conjugial marriage, the partners will be different yet will complement each other in every way. That way the couple will come together in one harmonious and synergistic way.

Jeni and I can explain our data very simply. We are in a committed and monogamous relationship and strive to be a better couple everyday. We do have our problems, which shows us we are not in total unity, but overall, we are happy and working toward a healthier, more meaningful relationship. The explanation for why we are not yet in the unity model for our cognitive selves, can be directed to me. It is mostly my fault, because I am so “hard head” and hold very strong feelings and beliefs about certain subjects.

I now have a greater understanding of gender relationships after all of the class discussions and readings. Using Dr. James’ model, we can see that there are three stages that married (or dating) couples can go through. They are the dominance, equity and unity models. We should not be satisfied by reaching the equity model and should continue to work toward total unity. I also learned that couples do not automatically start at the highest stage, we all have to go through all three stages, and the unity model is the highest level.

Biology and culture also play a significant role in gender relationships. Biologically, men and woman are different. This means they are different physically, mentally, and affectively. Culture also plays a big role in our gender relationships. Culture can determine such things as tradition, expectation, gender-typical roles, and types of relationships that we see as meaningful. The traditional male dominance (which is advocated by such people as Dr. Laura Schlessinger) model is a culturally created norm. Much of society is moving away from this norm, and instead looking for more equity. Maybe we will soon be pushing for the unity model.

The implications for the self-witnessing study I did, shows Jeni and me what we have to work on. We are very close, but we still have a lot of work to do. I for one, have to be less of a dominator with respect to our ideas and thoughts. I should be more accepting of Jeni’s views and try to adjust and find some sort of agreement with her. I am glad that this investigation did not paint a bleak picture for Jeni and me. Instead, it has given us encouragement to work for a more unified and healthier relationship.

4. CONCLUSION

Jeni and I are somewhere in the middle between the equity model and the unity model. This assignment helped to expand my knowledge and understanding of gender relationships. Researching the unity model theory, I was able to discover what I previously thought about meaningful relationships. I never really thought about stages of marriages before this semester. All I knew was that in a committed relationship, both partners have to be happy and satisfied, and if they ever did not have these two things, it was time to break up. Now I have a new way to look at my relationship with my best friend.

I think this assignment was useful because at the beginning of the semester, I thought that the equity model was the best type of marriage. Now I realize that there is a higher level that can be like an everlasting “honeymoon stage”. This is what Jeni and I want more than anything, and we will work to achieve this. Although I do not agree with everything proposed by the unity model (mainly that the man should be the one to relent to the wife’s wishes. I think it should be more of a compromise between the two for everything), it is useful tool to evaluate one’s relationship and to see what the couple has to work on to improve the quality of their relationship.

5. FUTURE GENERATIONS

The first piece of advice I would like to give future generations, are for those who plan to take more than one of Dr. James’ courses. Don’t expect that it will be an easy job just because you took his class before. I had to work extremely hard for this first report. The biggest difficulty was the fact that at the point I had to write this report, we had not gone over much of the material for the class. It was harder to conceptualize the ideas this early in the course, so it made writing adequate answers difficult and time consuming. Another problem was my procrastination. Without having weekly tasks to complete, I fell behind and had to play catch up.

I would suggest a way to investigate this topic further would be fill out some of the tables in the lecture notes. Table 1d is a great table to use. I think the students could understand the concepts more adaquately if they tried to fill in the boxes with their own examples of how the threefold self would interact in relation to a specific example.

Another way that future generations could further investigate this topic would be to see if there are any groups advocating the unity model of marriage. Further generations could also give surveys to students around campus and see if they agree with the unity model of marriage. If they don’t agree, maybe these students could suggest ways that we could improve it or make it more acceptable to the general public. Future generations will gain much knowledge and understanding by taking this course. They just have to stay on target (especially if this is their second time taking a 409 course) and try to relate it to their own experiences.

6. Revisions

I would like to add an addendum and write about the validity of my data, analysis, and conclusions. I would never claim to be a professional at categorizing certain things to be characteristic of different models, but I tried to be as objective as possible. I think that I analyzed my data as accurately as I could, considering my limited experience and understanding of the three different marriage models.

One threat to validity, could have been bias from the test taking itself. Sometimes, when people know they are going to be observed or evaluated, they act differently without realizing it. They may try to make themselves look better or present themselves in a different way. Even though Jeni and I filled out the questions in different rooms, we may have inadvertently answered the questions to portray our relationship in a better light.

No one likes to admit they are in a failing relationship, so maybe Jeni and I tried to make our relationship look better than it is. But I honestly feel our relationship is really that good. I do think we are in unity for most things. We do everything together and feel the same about our relationship. Although we do have some problems, we are always dedicated to working them out.

When evaluating, I may have also overlooked some aspects. If a more efficient analyst (such as Dr. James) studied the data we got, he may have gotten a different conclusion about where our relationship stands. I am also somewhat confused about some aspects of the unity model (like the men being the ones who always have to align to the wife), and maybe a better understanding could have allowed me to make a more accurate conclusion.

I am not a professional analyst nor do I have the statistical background to scientifically analyze the data. I learned in my methods course this semester, that sometimes the fastest ways to analyze data is to just eye ball the data. That is what I did. I looked at the general trends and tried to come to a conclusion on where my relationship stood. I do not claim that my conclusion in scientifically or statistically (especially with something as dynamic as relationship interactions) significant. I may have had some bias, even though Jeni and I tried to be as objective as we could while doing this research experiment.

Feel free to check out the Class Homepage

or My Homepage