Author Archives: scottschutzman

Seesaw

Remember riding a seesaw as a kid? Up and down, up and down. Just sitting there facing each other was no fun. The fun was in the wild swings.

But in life, these kinds of swings can become disorienting. It is human nature—and some would say the nature of the psyche itself—to compensate. In modern language, we might call it “overcorrecting.”

We see it throughout history. Napoleon became so associated with compensation for feelings of smallness that Jung later referenced what became known as the “Napoleon complex.” Centuries before that, Shakespeare gave us Richard III, who lamented that “dogs bark at me as I halt by them.” Feeling grotesque, unwanted, and cut off from love, Richard compensated through the pursuit of domination and power. The compensation was enormous, but the wound remained untouched.

In our own time, we see similar patterns play out in celebrity culture, politics, and everyday life.

As psychotherapists, we encounter these compensations constantly. The lonely, abandoned child grows into an adult who fiercely demands love and validation from everyone around them. The child who was bullied and made to feel small develops a persona of strength, toughness, or invulnerability. The compensation often makes perfect sense. It was created to protect something vulnerable.

The problem is that the compensation never truly resolves the original wound.

Instead, the wounded child is often pushed further underground. Psychologically speaking, the child remains abandoned, living in isolation inside the adult. The protective strategy becomes so dominant that it eclipses the very part of the self it was designed to defend.

Much of therapy involves gaining access to that hidden world. We begin to bring curiosity, care, light, and compassion to the places that have long been neglected. Over time, we can start to see how a strategy forged in the name of survival gradually became an anchor wrapped around the leg of the individual.

This is courageous work because recognizing the compensation is only the beginning. Giving it up is another matter entirely.

Like Linus’s blanket, these old adaptations have been companions for a very long time. They comfort us. They protect us. They tell us who we are.

The goal is not to throw the blanket away. Nor is it to eliminate the complex. Rather, the work is to integrate it. Slowly, often minute by minute, we experiment with new ways of being. We discover that we are larger than the strategies that once defined us.

The compensation becomes one part of the personality rather than the whole personality.

And in that widening space, something new becomes possible: a fuller, more integrated relationship with oneself and the world.

Progressive

Why the Progressive “Don’t Become Your Parents” Ads Hit a Nerve

Carl Jung wrote: “Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.”

We don’t choose whether we have internal voices—but we do choose which ones get authority.

A surprising place to see this is in something as light as advertising. The Progressive “don’t turn into your parents” ads work because, alongside their humor, they tap into a familiar anxiety: adulthood often feels less like becoming someone entirely new and more like noticing inherited patterns showing up in our own behavior. The joke lands because it exaggerates something real. Most people have had the moment of thinking, I sound like them, or I’m doing the thing I swore I wouldn’t do. This is less about identity “fusion” than it is about behavioral inheritance—scripts absorbed long before they can be examined.

In clinical work, a similar process unfolds when people begin to notice internalized voices: parental messages, cultural expectations, and early strategies for managing conflict or emotion. Making these patterns conscious is often the first step in loosening their grip, and in creating enough psychological distance to respond rather than automatically react.

A patient recently described an internal conflict in which one part of him resisted effort and another responded with unusually firm internal discipline. He found that treating the resisting “part” not with compassion alone, but with a clear internal boundary, allowed him to act effectively and sustain effort. The result was not self-punishment, but increased coherence and follow-through, and a noticeable reduction in internal negotiation and delay.

A similar dynamic shows up in self-regulation more broadly. Self-compassion is often emphasized as the antidote to harsh inner dialogue, but it is not always sufficient for behavioral change. There are moments where softness will not win the day and what is called for is firm, non-negotiable authority. Not cruelty, and not contempt—but direction. Think of a little boy who wants to cross the street while the light is red.

An inner critic says, “You’re stupid.”
An inner authority says, “Stop. Now, we wait.”  The critic=shame, the authority=love.

Both examples point to the same structure: the mind is not a single voice but a system of competing ones. Some are inherited, some are constructed and some are performative. The question isn’t whether they exist, but which ones get to set the rules.