I'm Worthwhile Crocodile Thinking - nothings good or bad but thinking makes it so!

 ‘Nothing’s good or bad but thinking makes it so’ says Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Alfred Korzybski said the ‘word is not the thing.’ If a child is not good or bad intrinsically but somehow determines they can be they’re not thinking straight according to Dr. Albert Ellis and others. Doing something well does not somehow suggest that it reflects how ‘good’ we are, that we are ‘good’ for doing good. Isn’t it more accurate to believe that ‘I did Ok’ but that has nothing to do with my OK ness? Believing we’re OK when we do well or others deem us to ‘be’ OK is what Ellis calls self – esteem, where he argues, we feel good when we do good or when others approve of us. He calls this conditional self-acceptance, where self-worth is determined externally; an externally controlled and determined sense of the self, good or bad.

Unconditional self-acceptance regards the ‘self’ consistently as one of worth even if one does good or bad or when others approve of us or disapprove of us. We accept ourselves unconditionally. Ellis would argue that this is a more substantial and evidence based self-assessment than relying on others to boost our ‘self-esteem.’

Alfred Korzybski said that when we assess our value based on an abstracted strength or failing and decide it defines us, we’re thinking ‘unscientifically,’ our self-assessment is not informed by the evidence i.e., we are allowing a particular aspect of ‘us’ and deciding it describes us in a global sense which doesn’t consider all the traits, qualities etc. that we possess. In other words, it doesn’t make sense, it is, as Korzybski says, crazy making thinking!

How so? If we conclude that we ‘are’ our smartness when we do something well, and it makes us a smart person how can this make us crazy?

I worked with a young person who presented with extreme anxiety and self-doubt as they had learned that because others assessed their capabilities in an area of learning as exceptional, they believed they had a reputation to live up to. They were obsessed with ‘what if’ thinking, what if I don’t get a good mark, what if I fail, what will people think of me if I don’t get a good mark etc. They began to withdraw, not take risks because if they didn’t live up to the expectations of significant others, it would mean that they ‘are’ failures. This is what Korzybski and Ellis calls crazy thinking induced, extreme psychological discomfort. This person has decided, errantly, that they need the approval and ‘esteem’ of others to be an OK person.

‘I’m worthwhile crocodile’ thinking teaches the young child that they are OK even when they don’t do so well at a task or when others inevitably disapprove of them. Their approval of themselves holds sway over the assessments of others. This kind of mindset will take on board the evidence, decide that ‘the word is not the person’ and carry on. They may take on board constructive criticism and advice, but their sense of worth remains strong, they accept themselves unconditionally!

OK Fred

This is typical of conversations I've had over the years working with young people. From early childhood to senior high school age the theme of most topics relates to the idea of 'being' and 'doing.' This exchange serves to illustrate the point that somehow Fred has decided that what he does is indeed who he is.

Dr Albert Ellis in his Alfred Korzybski Memorial Lecture 1961 on General Semantics and Rational Emotive (Behaviour) Therapy acknowledges that Alfred Korzybski, the originator of general semantics heavily influenced his own pioneering work. Korzybski spoke of the 'is' of predication and Ellis explains this here saying that:

' ... statements like, "I am good" and "I am bad" are inaccurate over generalisations, because in reality I am a person who sometimes acts in a good and sometimes in a bad manner.'  

The notion that one 'is' good or bad is an errant one which can harm the emotional and psychological well being of the person who holds it to be true. Ellis seeks to remind us that we are human beings who can act in ways that are 'good' or 'bad' but we are not what we do.

OK Fred is not OK!

Counsellor: How’s it going?

Child: Not good.

Counsellor: Why?

Child: I’m naughty.

Fred's condition of naughtiness is problematic because this is why he has been excluded from the classroom and he feels bad.

Counsellor: What does that mean?

Child: I keep interrupting. I'm bad.

Counsellor: You are naughty for interrupting? That makes you bad?

Child: Yes

Counsellor: So you are naughty Fred? You are bad Fred?

Fred has decided that his naughtiness is linked to badness. Doing is being!

Child: I’m bad Fred because I do bad things.

Counsellor: How does that make you bad?

Child: I am bad because I interrupt a lot and the teacher doesn’t like it.

Counsellor: If you do things people don’t like you are bad. Can bad Fred be good Fred?

Bad Fred does things the teacher doesn't like. He wants the teacher to like him because what he does is who he is.

Child: Yes. When I don’t interrupt I am being good.

Counsellor: So there is good Fred and there is bad Fred. Is that right?

Child: Yes. When I’m good the teacher likes me.

Counsellor: People like good Fred but they don’t like bad Fred? It sounds like you are two people, bad Fred and good Fred.

Fred is saying that there are two of him. His sense of self worth ebbs and flows between feeling OK when others like him to feeling bad when they don't! (conditional self acceptance)

Child: I’m not two people at the same time am I?

Counsellor: Well no. That’s why I am trying to understand what you are saying about yourself.

Child: I am Fred and I can be bad and I can be good that’s what I mean.

Counsellor: So when you do something the teachers like you are Good Fred but when you do something she doesn’t like you are Bad Fred. Is that right?

Here we are trying to get a sense of what doing is and what being is. Are they the same?

Child: No I’m just Fred!!! I am Confused Fred!

Counsellor: You are Confused Fred who can be Bad Fred and Good Fred! That’s three Fred’s! Only joking Fred. When you said ‘I’m just Fred’ I think you speak the truth. There’s only one Fred and you are he. There’s no other like you.

Child: I know that.

Fred is unique. It is impossible to rate his worth totally good or bad based on a particular characteristic or behaviour.

Counsellor: Ok. Doing something ‘naughty’ like interrupting is a behaviour. It’s something you do. It’s an action. Does that make sense?

Child: Yes I understand what you say.

Counsellor: When you say ‘I am bad because I interrupt the class you believe YOU are bad because you made a bad choice. Doing something is not the same as being something.

We are making a clear distinction between doing and being here.

Child: So I am not bad but my actions might be bad is that what you are saying?

Counsellor: Yes. You are OK even when you ‘do bad’ or when you ‘do good.’ So can you be Good Fred and Bad Fred?

Child: No. I am Fred. I am worthwhile Fred. I am OK Fred who makes mistakes but I'm always OK.

This establishes that Freds worth is never contingent on a particular behaviour or personal quality or characteristic. 

Fred is on the way to feeling better about himself but where did he get these ideas in the first place? When others judge your behaviour they connect what you do with your being or your 'essence' or as Ellis says your 'you-ness.' Who is doing this? The childs parents and teachers and other people in Freds life reinforce these ideas via the messages they send, verbally and otherwise e.g. simply by saying 'good boy' to someone who has done something well is conveying the idea that doing good equates with being good.

Michel Foucault a philosopher and social theorist considered how power and knowledge is used to assert control over the individual in society via its institutions. He asserts that:

‘Children learn to ‘recite the repertoire of technologies of the self which constitute the ideal student of their literacy classrooms.’(Foucault 1988)

The ideal student is one who does as he is expected and has the qualities and competencies desired to 'be' successful and to reach full potential. What are the 'technologies of the self' and whose 'repertoire' is the child reciting?

I take this to mean the kinds of discourse that characterises the culture of the classroom, this will include the types of feedback the teacher provides to behaviour observed, the attitudes and actions that the teacher responds to and therefore reinforces. The idea that a student could conflate being with doing is possible if a student is said to 'be good' when they 'do' something acceptable to the teacher. This idea is conveyed by telling children they 'are' good for 'doing' good.

We can all take care to be aware that what we are saying when we are saying it is correct and conveys an accurate and useful message i.e. 'You did that well. Good job.' This refers to the actions of the person and not the 'essence' of who that person is.