Skip to main content

'Do you need an ambulance?' When small problems seem like catastrophes

A teacher colleague invested a lot of time teaching her year 3 students that thinking, feeling and behaving were all interconnected. As Albert Ellis, creator of REBT said (I paraphrase here):

‘We make ourselves more anxious than we need to be when we think events and things are worse than they really are.’

The teacher did a lot of groundwork to persuade her young group that they make themselves more upset than they need to be. She read books that had characters who helped themselves get better when they changed the way they thought about something. She reminded them often that it was their/our estimation of an event, how we thought about it that was key. ‘If they came to know this they can do something constructive about their discomfort,’ the teacher thought.

She changed her language; rather than asking ‘what makes you angry?’ she would say ‘what are you thinking about what happened that’s making your feelings so strong?’ She didn’t say ‘don’t be angry’ either as she knew her students couldn’t ‘be’ the feelings they were feeling.

How many times do we say ‘it/they/she made me angry?’ Can something ‘make’ us as angry as we feel? And the claim ‘I am angry?’ Does the assertion ‘I am scared’ make sense? Can I ‘be’ the feeling (s) I experience? Food for thought eh?

‘Message to self,’ the teacher would say inside her head:

"Teach the think – feel – do connection. Stop saying ‘it’ makes ‘me/you’ angry. Stop saying ‘good boy/girl’ (doesn’t make sense)"

So the teacher had done a great job of teaching the students that their estimation of events, their perception of what’s happening, had made the strength of emotion they feel about an event and not the thing/event itself. She had acquainted them with the notion that they could have a fair amount of control over how they feel and the actions they take. She asked them questions like:

‘What’s stronger; angry or upset?

Do I feel angry or am I angry? What’s the difference?

‘You make me sad!’ What does this mean? Is there another way to say this?’

 

The classroom discourse moved away from person specific to more behaviour or competency specific i.e. she addressed behaviour and not person in her feedback. She taught her students that what they did was up for assessment but their essence or personhood was not. She weaned herself off of using person specific terms like; good boy/girl, naughty, smart, cute etc. and focused more on what the children did. She was mindful that a person’s worth was a given, that they were always worthwhile whether they did ‘good’ or did ‘bad.’ “Doing ‘bad’ can’t make you ‘bad’” she would start each day by saying and she would add “doing ‘good’ doesn’t make you good either. You are always worthwhile!” This was a constant reminder to students that their ‘okayness’ wasn’t attached to someone’s assessment of their person.

She began to notice that those children who were generally withdrawn or lacking in confidence began to try new things. Some were putting their hands up more to ask questions; they were taking more risks. She asked herself why? But she knew why didn’t she? It was the new and developing regime she had introduced based on the philosophy that:

“People are not disturbed by things, but by the views they take of them.” Epictetus


Her children began to understand that big problems were only as big as they thought or imagined them to be. If a problem was big or not was a decision they could make by assessing its ‘badness’ against other possible happenings. She helped each child to construct their own ‘catastrophe scale’ where possible problems could be organised according to how ‘bad’ they were.

So back to the title of this piece and the ambulance reference. The children were asked in many different situations if what was happening was as bad as they thought it was. Some children referred to their hard copy catastrophe scale (CS), whilst others used the one they carried inside their heads; their virtual CS. If Sofia said ‘I don’t have my hat today and it’s a massive problem because I have to stay in the shade at playtime,’ her CS would tell her that there are far worse things that could happen and her teacher would say ‘Sofia, is it so bad that I should call an ambulance?’



 

  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Grieving the Loss of Self When Narcissistic Feed Dries Up

Professor Sam Vaknin is an authority on narcissistic personality disorder. His videos are informative and well communicated which helped my understanding of this condition. A narcissists  'feed' dries up when the supply of others adulation and affirmation withers and stops. A crisis ensues when the narcissist realises that incoming approval has diminished and their idealised self is under attack. The contrived and carefully constructed 'self' is no longer acknowledged and valued by external sources. They cease 'to be' because the sources feeding their self sees through the narcissists grandiose and phony veneer. The self they have concocted and which demands the positive regard and affirmation of those they have trained to adore them, is but an irrational virtual representation of the real world. There's a disparity between the narcissists version of reality and how things really are, projecting a world of fantasy replayed on a loop inside their heads, feedi...

APPROVALISM – the philosophy of the ‘love slob’

An approvalist is one who practices the philosophy of Approvalism. An approvalist lives life for the service of others seemingly without thought for self, ministering to the needs of others, making life ‘better’ for them. A good approvalist needs to do for others and her worth is measured according to how others view her and how helpful she can be to others. Approvalists say ‘yes’ to others demands and requests and are ultra sensitive to the needs of others (they must be rescued and saved). If they don’t perform to their own lofty expectations or (quelle catastrophe!) others don’t seem to value them (as they should) then they tend to harshly judge themselves as being ‘bad’ and may down themselves harshly! They will think, ‘I should have known that he needed support. I should have been there. I should have done better. I am a loser. It’s my fault he is in such a mess.’ They may also experience deep anger and direct it towards those ‘who do not appreciate me, after all shouldn’t they ...

Positive Psychology and Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy

The ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance illustrates how feelings and behaviour at C are determined by what happens at A and B i.e. what we believe (B) about what happens (A). This is an A+B=C philosophy. What happens when our constructed view of ourselves equates to an A=C way of believing e.g. failing at A makes me feel depressed at C and causes me to give up. An A=C philosophy ‘If I fail at A I feel really bad at C 'it' (A) makes me angry and sad’ is problematic for our less resilient kids because they are unaware that constructed beliefs at B have a lot to do with it! 
A is what happens e.g. 'someone has rejected me!' and C is how I feel and act in response to A e.g. 'I feel really sad because she has rejected me so I stay at home etc' The depth of despair and how long it lasts will depend on how self accepting the person is. If a child ‘needs’ the approval of others he/she is at risk of depression, anger, anxiety because...