Crime buster Governor Eliot Spitzer has fallen on his own sword, and his involvement in a prostitution ring has created a heartbreaking family tragedy. Although he raised the ethical bar in New York, he forgot to hold himself to this higher standard. Ignoring the consequences of his acts, and the people he would hurt, makes you question both his character and moral development. Now that he has resigned, he has a big job ahead - looking deep inside himself.

This scene - personal pain on display for all to see - has played out many times before in the political arena. There's a variety of ways to look at what motivates the betrayed wife, disgraced and humiliated, standing by her man. It could be denial, shock or an out-of-body fugue state. Perhaps it's what she always does, a function of her derived identity or in defense of her own aspirations. Or it may even be plain love, a long history together, concern for the children, a desire to keep the family together. In any case, it takes a lot of courage and the road to healing the wounds is long and hard.

To gain a better understanding of the potential effects of espousing a rigid morality and then living a life of reckless abandon, click on our Thursday, February 21st blog post. Learn more about cognitive dissonance by reading the Q&A by Carol Tavris, best-selling author (with Elliot Aronson) of “Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts.”

Don't forget to tune in here tomorrow, or anytime thereafter, for Carolyn Howard-Johnson's Virtual Book Tour - she'll be discussing her mid-life career change and how it led to her recently published books.

We had such an interesting email from Dina that we wanted to share it with you. She was commenting on the the virtual book tour we hosted for Carol Tavris. In reaction to Carol's thoughts about resolving conflicts with your partner, Dina said, "Right you are that finding common ground, or a 'shared story', can be the beginning to resolution. Most reasonable people would agree with that. The problem is finding a strategy for how to reach commonality. That's where most couples, even the most well-intentioned ones, get stuck. They don't know how to say what matters most without being hurtful. Or, how to problem-solve in a way that respects both people. None of that is in the marriage instructions manual."

Then Dina went on to say, "If it's okay, I'd like to share a bit of practical advice. First, decide what are wants and what are absolute needs. Often in conflict, we demand what we want because it's most convenient and desirable. It's human nature, and leads to arguments. (And, no, saying I need it doesn't automatically make something a need- sorry). Needs are essentials."

"Here's a simple example: I want to go to the movies. You want to go to dinner, and we only have time for one activity. Focusing on our desires only gets us stuck-movies, dinner, movies, dinner. Things change if we shift the conversation. If we talk about our respective needs- to eat, to be entertained and spend time together- we can generate more options to meet those needs. Like, going to a drive-in movie instead. Have trouble identifying your needs from wants? Ask yourself: why and so what? Why is that important and what will be different if I get it?"

Dina continued, "Second, make time to learn how to talk to each other. Loving negotiation is an essential part of marriage and a required skill for sandwiched boomers, male or female. Take a mediation course to boost your comfort and abilities to negotiate better. Even if a resolution isn't possible, your relationship will be enhanced by knowing how to say what's most important to you, listen compassionately and create realistic options."

If you would like to hear more from Dina - who says she is "on a mission to re-invent midlife marriage" - check out her site, http://www.thismarriagething.com, and let us know what you think.

We had an interesting interview with Carol Tavris, Ph.D. yesterday as she talked about how her book, "Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me: Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts)" relates to Sandwiched Boomers. She has given each of us a lot to think about as we deal with our own family-in-flux.

Carol's take on how to move past the "I'm right and you're wrong" scenario resonated with several of our readers. Their comments about how to turn an argument into a real discussion are worth highlighting here. One recognized that "letting go of 'right vs. wrong' seems to give rise to the real issues, and leads to resolving them without all of the blame." Another acknowledged that she was "particularly struck by the concept that in an argument both sides must be willing to stop justifying their way of doing things as the only possible way. I often find when disagreeing with my spouse that only until we each seek to understand where the other person is coming from can we truly find common ground we both can feel good about." When we are able to let go of the need to be right all the time, we can instead focus on actually listening to our children, parents and spouse to hear and understand their positions.

Another Sandwich Generation reader was reflecting upon her method of coping with the simultaneous time demands of her parents and children. She wrote, "I am the only child of elderly parents who are very needy of my time and attention. I often exaggerate or lie about being busy with my teenagers so that I don't have to spend time with them. Then I feel guilty. Is that cognitive dissonance and what can I do about it?" Addressing her feelings, Carol responded,"the guilt that you feel about lying to your parents is indeed a part of cognitive dissonance: it stems from the internal conflict you are feeling between "I am a good and loving person" and "I am lying to people who need me and avoiding them."

Addressing our reader's question about what she could do differently, Carol suggested, "think of ways to change the way you usually interact with your parents so that your visits are more pleasurable for you. For example, why not interview them formally about their history--singly and then together? That is, turn their focus from you to them. You might all enjoy the results."

What additional ways have you developed to deal with your own conflicts about how you allot your time and energy between all of those making demands on you? Share them with other Sandwiched Boomers so that we can all learn from your experience.

Today on our blog we are pleased to welcome Carol Tavris, best-selling author (with Elliot Aronson) of “Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts.”

Q: Carol, why do so many of us prefer to justify mistakes rather than admit we were wrong about something?

A: First of all, it's no surprise that people lie to others to cover up misdeeds, crimes, blunders and bad behavior - children do it as soon as they can talk, and we adults do it to protect our jobs, relationships, and reputations! But the kind of "self-justification" we talk about in our book is not the same as lying to other people. It's an unconscious mechanism that allows us to lie to ourselves, and it comes into play following just about every decision we make or important action we take.

The mechanism is "cognitive dissonance": the uncomfortable sensation we feel when an important belief or memory or decision clashes with evidence that it might be wrong. If you smoke, and you know smoking is dangerous, you're in dissonance, and you have to resolve it - either by quitting or by justifying your smoking ("it keeps me thin"). But the most difficult dissonance occurs when we - smart, ethical, kind people that we are! - learn we have done something dumb, unethical, or hurtful. The easiest way to reduce that dissonance is to simply blind ourselves to the evidence and justify what we did. "Sure I took my sister’s bracelet from mom’s estate, but I deserved that bracelet after everything mom gave her all those years." We usually do not feel consciously that we are "justifying"; we feel merely that we are right - because of the brain's need to preserve a coherent belief system and protect our view of ourselves.

Q: Are there any particular aspects of this process that affect "sandwiched boomers?"

A: You bet. One way is that in midlife, we become aware that we have lived long enough to write our life story: how we got to be where we are, who we are, what our parents did to us, and so on. As we write that "life narrative," we literally shape our memories to fit it. Elliot and I think of memory as a "live-in, self-justifying historian": as research shows, we tend to forget information that conflicts with our version of events, and remember information that confirms it. If your "story" is that you suffered your whole life because of your mother's selfishness or neuroticism, for example, you may overlook or forget the many good things she did for you - that information is dissonant with how you see her.

Also, notice that when many people tell their life story, they often start writing themselves out of their part in it - the part about their responsibility. "You mean I had something to do with starting that family rift? Don't be silly - it was entirely her fault." We say, "My dad treated me that way because of how he was"; we don't say, "Maybe he treated me that way because of the kind of kid I was."

Amazingly, our memories are a better sign of how we feel now about our parents or grown children than about what actually happened. This is why generations often get into fights about "what really happened." So "sandwiched boomers" are in a pivotal time: they are listening to their elderly parents' accounts of events, their children's, and figuring out their own. And wondering why there is so little overlap! The fascinating opportunity, of course, is that if we can put aside our own self-justifications and certainty that our story is the only right one, and ask our parents and children for their stories, we might actually learn something.

Q: What are the benefits and dangers of self-justification?

A: Self-justification is hard wired for good reason: it lets us sleep at night without tormenting ourselves about bad decisions, or roads not taken, or embarrassing mistakes. In fact, the people who can't reduce dissonance often suffer precisely because they keep beating themselves up over things that can't be undone. But the downside is this: If we blind ourselves to the possibility that the decision wasn't the best, that we did make a bad mistake, or that the road we didn't take might have been better, we can't change direction when we need to. We can't learn from the mistake or that impulsive decision. We can't stop traveling down the wrong road if we keep justifying it as the best and only road in the world.

Q: How can this refusal to admit we are wrong affect the relationships with our family-in-flux?

A: Most quarrels between couples, within families, and across generations boil down to "I'm right and you're wrong." But if both sides are willing to stop justifying their way of doing things as the only possible way, they can become less self-defensive, more ready to hear the other side's views, and, who knows, more able to correct some of their own failings. If people can let go of the need to be right, and focus instead on how to solve the problem that they keep quarreling about, they are going to be a lot better off.

Q: So how can we learn to admit our mistakes?

A: First, we have to take the sting of dissonance out of it. We can understand that mistakes, bad decisions, or lapses of judgment do not mean we are stupid or evil; they just mean we are human. So the task is to find the path between: (a) justifying the mistake and pretending it was the best thing in the world to have done and (b) punishing ourselves with constant remorse and embarrassment. The middle way is not to minimize or ignore the mistake, but rather to face it and try to figure out how and why it happened, so we won't make it again. Almost anyone can learn to do this. It is not a deep-seated personality trait but a malleable attitude about the self.

Q: What good comes from acknowledging when we are wrong?

A: We become more human, more sympathetic, when we come down off the pedestal of self-righteousness. In our professional lives also, progress depends on our having the ability to say, "this theory doesn't have the data to back it up" or "this procedure isn't working," instead of clinging to it out of professional pride.

Scientists are trained to look not only for evidence that supports what they already believe, but also for evidence that disconfirms it. If more of us pushed ourselves to do this, think of how much more effective we could be. We'd be able to see the world more clearly, more truthfully, rather than through the distorted dark glass of self-justification.

Q: What do you think is the best way to admit mistakes?

A: A simple "I made a mistake; I'm sorry" goes a long way toward defusing anger and setting the stage for reconciliation and problem solving. This is especially important across generations, because our culture encourages so much parent-blame and buck-passing. Setting down the burden of blaming others, and letting go of the need to deny our own part in our own life story, can be liberating and exhilarating. It allows us to come to terms, make amends, build bridges - and move forward.


Carol, thank you for joining us today. We have enjoyed reading your stimulating book and hope that our readers will find it fascinating as well. We look forward to talking with you again.