'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?’

 

  

My Toy is Broken and So Am I!

Dr. Albert Ellis uses the term ‘upsetness’ to describe a persons’ emotional discomfort when something unwanted has occurred. He says the intensity of the person’s ‘upsetness’ is not caused directly by the event or happening itself. Of course the event has a bearing on the emotional and behavioural outcome but that’s not the whole story.

Dr. Albert Ellis, creator of REBT

A young 7 year old student at my school was out of sorts; crying and quite inconsolable. After a while when he had gathered himself a little, we began to chat about what had happened. His favourite squishy toy had a small puncture and it was oozing its white fluid contents.

He clearly saw this as a significant unwanted occurrence that initially triggered extreme emotional discomfort. Why did he feel as he did? Or more specifically why was his emotional response to the situation so extreme?

Firstly, why is the child’s emotional response considered extreme? We can agree that the child was feeling upset but perhaps that may not best describe the intensity of his upset. A word that comes to mind is ‘distraught’ to describe his emotional state and this would register pretty high up on the emotional thermometer, where upset might rate lower.

The Emotional Thermometer

To feel annoyed or upset is, according to REBT (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy), a healthy negative emotion in that it doesn’t render the person incapable of going about their daily business. The situation would be deemed a minor inconvenience rather the catastrophe it appears to be in this case. Distraught, conversely, is regarded as an unhealthy negative emotion in that the person experiencing it may be disabled for a while; so upset they can’t go about the normal day to day things they would ordinarily be doing.

So why ‘distraught’ and not ‘upset?’ REBT describes a habit of thinking called ‘catastrophising’, where the person believes that what has happened is indeed a catastrophe; the worst thing that can ever happen! This is true for this young child, as at that moment in time he believes that the fact his squishy toy is broken is so awful a happening that he cannot abide the reality (to him) that it has happened.

Dr. Ellis explains when a person has constructed a belief that ‘things must always be as I want them to be’ and that it’s ‘not fair when they don’t and that it’s the worst thing that could ever happen!’ they will find themselves feeling distraught rather than upset when things go awry. Indeed, it may be so bad and awful (awfulising) that it cannot be tolerated (Icantstandititis!). It may be or become a characteristic of that person’s general disposition; something peculiar to him.

Ellis believed we are the architects of our own misery or happiness because we construct the beliefs that underlie our emotional and behavioural dispositions. If it is that this young child is constructing a self-defeating belief like ‘things must always be as I want them to be’ how can this be addressed? What can the educator, carer, counsellor do?

Constructivism

If we accept that our young students’ emotional and behavioural responses to unwanted events is due to his developing (in construction) beliefs about how the world ‘should’ work then we may be able to help him deconstruct and rework those ideas and perspectives to accommodate a more rational world view.

After the young person had gathered himself we talked about the possibility that even though his broken toy constituted a major disruption to his life, could he help himself feel better now and if other ‘bad’ things happen again?

• v  We established that what happened was true (a fact) i.e. his toy was broken.
• v  We agreed that we both thought the toy was broken and that others would also agree with us.
• v  We talked about what he thought about what happened and decided that this was not true for everyone; not a fact, because different people would think differently about it.
• v  We talked about other bad things that can possibly happen e.g. hurting his leg, his dog falling ill etc. and we constructed a list of possible problems. We constructed a catastrophe scale.
• v  We talked about where the broken toy event fits in the scale and we agreed that it registered far below other more serious possible happenings.
• v  We agreed that his broken toy event was not the worst thing that could happen and it wasn’t a catastrophe.

We wrote down old thinking and new thinking as follows:

• v  Old thinking: ‘My toy is broken and it is the worst thing that can ever happen. It shouldn’t have happened and I can’t stand it.’
• v  New thinking: ‘My toy is broken but there are other worse things that can happen. This is not the worst thing can ever happen and I can stand it’ (I accept it has happened).

Old thinking: Distraught. New thinking: Upset

The young person would have to work on himself because his default position is ‘things must be the way I want them to be’ but as time goes by and he works hard to remind himself, the ‘distraught’ emotional events will become rarer as he reconstructs his new, more robust way of thinking and believing! 

I feel so sad and angry! A students journey to positive mental health

Student C often found himself excluded from the class for his behaviour. He would sit quietly outside the room or he would find his way upstairs to speak to a person in leadership. The counsellor would engage with him and over a series of meetings together they worked out what the issue was.

Student C would declare often and in different ways that he was ‘bad,’ ‘dumb,’ ‘stupid’ etc. He was adamant about this and it seemed that he would not be moved from that position!

He was big in stature for his age, quiet and withdrawn generally which seemed to reflect the low estimation he had of himself. He seemed to feel angry, not towards others but more towards himself. When feelings ran high he could express himself in ways that were not acceptable but understandable. He might run his pen across his page of work or indeed rip the page out of his exercise book. He would write ‘STUPID’ across the brim of his school hat in texta. His frustration was palpable and his ideas about himself were entrenched and deeply ingrained.     

This would not change until he became aware of the beliefs he held, that were irrational, meaning not helpful; barriers to him achieving his goals.

We decided that we would give irrational and unhelpful ideas a name. We called intrusive and debilitating thoughts *Brain Bully thoughts. They were attached to Brain Bully self-talk e.g. ‘I’m dumb and stupid or bad’ for instance. We isolated one to work on and agreed that the idea of being ‘bad’ would be the place to start.

We talked about ‘being’ bad and what that meant. It was a global self-rating term, a word or idea that described his total being or his personhood. We also talked about the word ‘being’ and what that meant. We agreed that it could mean ‘the way I am’ i.e. I am my badness.

We then talked about how ‘I’m bad’ could be a Brain Bully belief. We noted how this thinking got in the way of his happiness and his ability to set and pursue his goals. This was the test we applied to the Brain Bully belief ‘I am bad.’ If it stopped us feeling OK then we could call it for what it was; Brain Bully thinking.

We continued to explore the idea that he was ‘his badness’ and where this idea may have originated. He said that he tried hard to do the right thing and when he didn’t behave as others thought he ‘should’ he felt responsible for how others felt. For instance his mum would say things like, ‘you make me sad when you do that.’ Or, ‘you make me mad when you do that.’ This message he had heard all his life so he believed he was responsible for how his mum felt i.e. he ‘made’ her mad and sad.

We had pinpointed why he believed he was a ‘bad’ person. He articulated his belief thus; ‘I am a bad person because I make my mum sad. If it wasn’t for me she would be happy. It’s all my fault!’ This is a heavy burden for a young person to bear. Where would we go from here? We’ve established that his irrational, Brain Bully thinking is connected to how he feels and behaves. His belief he is a ‘bad’ and ‘worthless’ person is connected to or accompanied by behaviours and emotions that are self-defeating i.e. sad (depressed?), anxious and withdrawing, destroying stuff etc. We established that his strength of feeling is connected to how he thinks (believes) things are or should be e.g. I should be ‘good’ but I am ‘bad’ (which I shouldn’t be!).

What then is a ‘good’ person? We talked about all the things that make us who we are and decided that we have many positive attributes and things we could get better at but it would be difficult to argue that we can indeed ‘be’ good or ‘be’ bad. Can we take one attribute or quality which is good or bad and then decide we are that attribute or quality? Can we claim to be good if we did something well? That would be illogical because though we have done well in one instance we still have things we could improve. So we cannot ‘be’ the thing that we are good at can we? And we cannot ‘be’ the thing we are bad at!

We established a new idea to challenge the Brain Bully belief that we can ‘be’ good or we can ‘be’ bad. We agreed to use (think) the idea that ‘we are OK no matter what. We are worthwhile no matter what.’ In other words though we might do ‘bad’ or inappropriate things we are not bad for doing them, we are still worthwhile. Student C would have to do a lot of work to change what he believed about himself but this was an important start. We set some homework for ourselves that when we stuffed up we would try hard to learn from our mistakes but we would refuse to believe that we were ‘bad’ for making our mistakes.

So student C would train himself to believe that when he makes a mistake and his mum feels angry and she says ‘you make me mad!’ he will remind himself that he is OK no matter what. He will feel sorry for his mistake and try hard to do better but he will not put himself down. He will build the rational (self-helpful) belief of ‘I’m OK no matter what!’ This will help student C to feel sad and disappointed rather that depressed and angry.

We also gave a name to the rational and useful (self-helpful) thinking we were practicing to make new beliefs to replace the old Brain Bully beliefs that can be intrusive and harmful; *Brain Friend thinking.

Of course we acknowledged that when mum says ‘you make me angry’ that she is expressing a Brain Bully belief that hides somewhere in her mind. Student C understood what his mum was yet to realise!

Student C made great progress and one day his mum called and asked if she could come to see me …..

*Brain Bully and *Brain Friend are terms used in the early childhood teaching/counselling resource 'Have a Go Spaghettio!'©

Arthur Is On the Spectrum

I am a school counsellor and one of many great delights of my working day is the opportunity I have to work with students in the 'special class.' This term will mean different things to many people but to me 'special' is the time I get to spend with children from ages 5 -12 who present with a range of predispositions and learning and developmental needs.

One such student who is on the autism spectrum, will often seek me out for a chat as we call it. I might say I seek him out just as much because it is always a fun time. We met recently over an issue that he had been dealing with which I will refer to in a moment.

On the way to our meeting place we will speak casually about things and then Arthur will burst out laughing about something obscure but which connects to what we are saying but as yet I'm a step behind on the pick up!

On this occasion he asked if he could chat with me and we got onto all the different words we could think of that had a similar meaning to 'chat.' Like 'yarn' or 'let's have a yarn' which he was familiar with and he chuckled when we said the words accentuating our Aussie nasal twang! I introduced him to the word 'blather' a Scots word which has similar meaning to chat and yarn. I put on my best Scottish accent and said 'C'mon Arthur let's have a wee blather!' More chuckles. 'Heart to heart,' and 'chitter chatter' were also terms raised and which Arthur found amusing.

Arthur though was dealing with an issue of great import to him and his family and he found himself in psychological and emotional knots over the prospect of moving house. Arthur tended to overthink things to the point where it would effect how he felt and acted. As quickly as we had joined in laughter before his face was now transformed as his thoughts returned to what had become a rather large problem for him.

We had over recent years talked about how our thinking is connected to our feelings and actions and that we can make ourselves more upset than we need to be. Arthur agreed that many of his 'trains of thought' were leading up the wrong  'railway track' if I can use a railway analogy here. He knew his thoughts were unhelpful or Success Stoppers as we would call them. Brain Bully (his thinking) was making him uncomfortable; sad, angry and scared.

*Brain Bully (*Success Stopper) thinking can be challenged by evidence and his catastrophe scale told him that there were many worse things that could happen. We talked about the positives of his family moving house and he began to feel a little more at ease. He understood that changing his estimation of how bad his situation was, changed the way he felt about it. Arthur is an expert at self regulation and these yarns we have help him to re calibrate his thinking, fine tune his 'mind motor' which gets him back on track. 

Of course he will return sometimes to the black and white thinking world that will bring him temporarily undone and it is then he realises it's time for another 'wee blather' where again we visit a more rational world where the many shades of grey demand that we adjust our 'thinking sails' to the prevailing 'winds of change.' 

Arthur is learning that when he cannot change a given situation he can change his perception of it. And this is a very positive thing I tell Arthur and he says 'thanks for the yarn' as he chuckles his way back to class!

*Brain Friend/Brain Bully and Success Helper/Success Stopper thinking are copyrighted terms used in the authors resource materials 'Hav a Go Spaghettio!' and  'People and Emotions.'

More Resilient & Less Self Disturbable Students

I had the pleasure of working with a group of educators at a high school in the northern suburbs of Adelaide recently. The school has set up a well being hub where students can go for support if needed particularly of a social/emotional/behavioural kind.

The 'Hub'staff is sourcing ideas to support their students and one staff member who attended several of my workshops last year considered that REBT would value add to the 'Hub'mission to help students better manage themselves in day to day life especially when things go awry.

Craigmore High School

It is always a challenge when presenting to 'hit the spot' as it were so that people become engaged and interested in the message. Is this stuff useful to my practice as a teacher/counsellor? Will it benefit my students? What will be my strategy, the hook used to get everyone 'in?'

To start we looked at the philosophical underpinnings of the ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance. One significant influence on Albert Ellis' REBT was the work of the Stoics. EPICTETUS in 100 AD declared:

'People are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them.' 

People agreed that these sentiments resonated with them and that indeed it would be folly to believe that events were the sole cause of emotions experienced. Yes it was clear that people had some responsibility for their own emotional and behavioural foibles by dint of the views, entrenched habits of thinking that they possess. But they also readily admitted that they often reacted to events in an unhelpful and self defeating way. In other words they tended to attribute their emotional and behavioural discomfort to a thing or event.

So presence of mind or mindfulness is called upon in times of emotional stress. This entails checking in on what it is we might be telling ourselves about a situation. It may be bad but is it the worst thing that can happen? Can you handle the discomfort and see yourself through this impasse? Does our sense of self worth remain in tact?

People acknowledged that though we might understand the idea of mindfulness and mental health self care it was harder to constantly 'walk the talk'as they would default to old habits when their mental health guard was down. This we agreed needed constant attention as habits are hard to break. The hook of 'if this relates to our well being how important would it be for our students' had done the trick? Constructivism tells us that:

'... meaning (or truth) cannot be described simply as 'objective'; that is, knowledge does not exist independently from knowers but is socially and historically constructed. http://www.decs.sa.gov.au

What habits of thinking have our students constructed and are they by and large useful, rational ones? Can they negotiate a world of change and challenge? Is their idea of 'self' robust and healthy and hard to breach? What meanings have they made of their experience; what is their truth?

These are questions that the students themselves can learn to explore. Do they know that knowledge is co constructed in the contexts in which they are socialised? What are these constructions and are they beneficial or dead weights that drag them down sometimes to despair? Can they learn to unlearn these habits of thought and build new more helpful ones?

Anais Nin reminds us that there are as many truths as their are people whose meanings will be the engine which drives them towards their goals and desires to be happy and successful. There are those whose realities are based on rational assessments of themselves, others and the world and then there are those whose irrational beliefs contrive to stymie and hinder their progress.

“There is not one big cosmic meaning for all, there is only the meaning we each give to our life, an individual meaning, an individual plot, like an individual novel, a book for each person.”  Anais Nin

REBT and the ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance is a powerful tool with which to acquaint young people with their thinking nature. Is school bad? Some would say yes and others would say no. Am I dumb and hopeless? Yes if you believe you are because as Shakespeare's Hamlet is known to have said.

'Nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so!'

It all comes down to how we view(assess)ourselves, others and our world because when all is said and done the world is neither for us or against us; as Albert Ellis said 'it doesn't give a shit!' It's how we respond to events and others that is key and if we have a healthy rational perspective on the world we are in better shape to forge ahead. As Dr. Ellis said:

"REBT consequently specialises in showing people what their own basic theories about themselves and the world are and how these hypotheses often lead to destructive feelings and actions, how they can be forcefully falsified and replaced with more workable philosophies.”

It's time to teach this to children of all ages, as Albert Ellis reminds us:

'I think the future of psychotherapy and psychology is in the school system. We need to teach every child how to rarely seriously disturb himself or herself and how to overcome disturbance when it occurs.'

Education- the Finnish and New Zealand experience (the tide is turning)

The obsession with certainty in education is perhaps a characteristic of our western way of life. We seem to want to know without doubt that what we teach, how we teach it and how we measure its efficacy is backed by the evidence. The evidence says that we should do this or do that in schools and this is how it should be measured and reported on. These imperatives are thrust upon a weary and disenchanted mob of educators whose autonomy in the classroom has been surrendered to the experts and the evidence they claim is true. 

Pasi Sahlberg who is the former director general of the Ministry of Education and Culture in Finland and a visiting professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, has been appointed professor of educational policy at UNSW. He says:

“Maybe the key for Australia is loosening up a little bit, less top down control and a bit more professional autonomy for teachers.”

Mr Sahlberg on his travels in Oz is reported to have said that he was broken hearted to see students in schools buckling under the stress of high expectations, presenting with anxiety and stress related crying and vomiting. This prompts me to consider how the school curriculum itself and its reliance on testing and assessment puts undue stress on the students who we claim ‘are at the centre of all we do’ is an antecedent to mental ill health.

Pasi Sahlberg

In his neck of the woods standardised testing is almost universally rejected and there is more of a focus on play. Teachers are required to have masters degrees and they maintain a high level of autonomy. Students start school at seven years of age and may never be exposed to any kind of assessment! Yet Finland when compared to other OECD countries based on key education metrics including literacy and numeracy (Program for International Student Assessment – PISA) is the strongest performer!

So what happens in the years before students start formal schooling at the age of seven? There is a focus on health and well-being and play is considered to be a natural way for young people to learn how to relate to others, develop their problem solving capabilities and to build and maintain positive mental health. All this without ever having been tested on anything!

Kirsti Lonka, Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Helsinki asserts:

‘Without creativity, a sense of wonder and play, none of the great achievements in science or art would’ve been born. When we know how to foster these skills in schools, our children have the best opportunities to grow up to be happy and skilled people.’

Meanwhile back in Australia students start school at age five, and they are acculturated into the regime of NAPLAN, ongoing assessment, competition and school league tables where schools are focused on results and teachers are under too much control. Is it any wonder that our students from the early years onwards are presenting with issues of anxiety, depression and anger? Is it possible that the school is a risk factor for the social, emotional and behavioural problems that children develop?

Since NAPLAN was introduced ten years ago reading and numeracy have improved slightly and writing skills have gone down and despite all the resources that have been invested in our system of education we haven’t hit the lofty heights of excellence we were hoping for.

In New Zealand change is afoot as the new Prime Minister moves to incorporate aspects of the Finland model into its approach to education. The National Standards of Literacy and Numeracy has been abolished for years one to eight and schools will choose their own way to assess children’s progress, allowing educators more autonomy and control over what they do. Minister Chris Hipkins says that schools will still collect a range of data to track student performance but it will not go to a central database to create school league tables (Labour's education plans revealed). The aim is to focus more on learning and less on excessive assessment.

There is a wide body of evidence that a significant number of children experience a mental (ill) health condition. Educators don’t need statistics to know this as they work daily with students who present with a range of emotional and behavioural dispositions. A fair question would be to ask if these conditions are caused and /or exacerbated by the imposed learning and assessment regime. Sahlberg and his New Zealand counterparts might agree with this proposition. Beyondblue has published the following statistics to consider:

‘One in seven young Australians experience a mental health condition. Breakdown: 13.9% children and adolescents aged 4-17 years experienced a mental disorder between 2013-14, which is equivalent to an estimated 560,000 Australian children and adolescents.’

If the hypothesis above has any credibility then it may be asked; what is the function of mental health education and promotion in schools? The answer is always that we want our students to be happy and successful but perhaps educators and school counsellors might in part be addressing the response of students to the stressors they experience in the learning context. In this sense it could be the case that school is bad for some kids because they have been introduced to formal learning too early and they haven’t had enough time to build those foundation competencies and attitudes that are conducive to long term success in a school setting; they’ve had not enough time to play.

Michael McGowan in the Guardian, Australia tells us:

‘Research has demonstrated that play in the early stages of development can engage children in the process of learning and studies in New Zealand have found that by age 11 there was no difference in reading ability between students who began formal literacy instruction at age five or age seven.’

This is certainly food for thought for those who drive and direct what schools do in Australia. Finland and New Zealand educationalists would perhaps agree with Susan E Noffke in “Revisiting the Professional, Personal, and Political Dimensions of Action Research" who comments on:

-        ‘… the widespread influence of neo-liberal policies which have resulted in a culture of ‘performativity’ (Ball, 2003). One prominent example is the attempt to reduce the parameters of educational work to doing only that which results in gains in the narrow band of standardised achievement test, and the ‘mapping’ of curriculum and instructional strategies against that which is tested.’ P.18

Susan E Noffke

A culture of ‘performativity’ sees schools teach to the requirements of a national testing regime. Teachers may feel pressured to organise the curriculum around skilling the children to do well in exams which may in turn narrow the teaching and learning process. What teachers are saying about NAPLAN

‘NAPLAN preparation is taking up a lot of time in a crowded curriculum, that there are other curriculum areas that are seen as not as important because they’re not tested. That they teach more to the test, so they make sure that they cover the knowledge that’s on the test, and that means that they’re not teaching other things.’

This was 2012 and one wonders if anything has changed? But we persist in our schools to put a heavy premium on assessment and though unintended the outcomes are plain to see. Perhaps the winds of change are gathering momentum. The Finnish and New Zealand experiences are wafting on a breeze of hope for the future.

Building Confidence - accepting oneself unconditionally

Even the most competent and composed amongst us will say how we have battled or continue to battle our inner demons of self-doubt and low self-worth. Some would measure their self-worth against goals achieved and how popular they are with others. This kind of ‘confidence glow’ can be temporary if one is inclined to put all of their psychological well-being eggs in the same ‘self-esteem’ basket. Albert Ellis, creator of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy, famously stated:

‘Self-esteem is the greatest sickness known to personkind because it’s conditional.’

We condition ourselves when we rehearse and re rehearse certain ingrained thought constructions that are unhelpful or helpful to us. Ellis claims, and I agree, that if a person’s self-worth is contingent on how others regard them or how well they do at tasks it can be very harmful. They will feel OK or not OK depending on which way the self-esteem winds blow! This is what Ellis called conditional self - worth, how one esteems oneself when they are approved of and when they do well; self-esteem.

What then is the psychological antidote to the self-esteem scourge? How do we start to help those students whose confidence waxes and wanes in response to the approval of others?  Perhaps it would be useful to note some of the consequences of coming down with a bout of the dreaded self-esteem bug – approvalitis!

People who conditionally accept themselves are much more likely to experience mental ill health than not. Why? They tend to put all their faith in how others value them and if this isn’t forthcoming they feel down, undervalued, and disapproved. They might say to themselves:

I’m worthless.

No one likes me.

I’m a failure

… Etc.

If a person’s significant other withdraws her friendship and approval this can have an adverse impact on her. The fact that she has been unfriended is a fact, there is evidence to support this conclusion. However the belief that this then means she is worthless is a position that can be challenged. It is here that the teachers and counsellor’s work begins because the goal is to help her understand that her worth was never given to her in the first place so it can’t be taken away. She has constructed these ‘thinking rules’ so she can deconstruct them if she works hard at it. The question is how? As Eleanor Roosevelt said:

‘No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.’

Another question is if she gives another person consent to make her inferior how does she know she is doing this? The job is to help her understand that whilst others may reject her in fact, it is a myth to then believe she is worthless because she has been rejected. It is the goal of the educator to help her replace her fragile self-esteem belief with the more robust and evidence based unconditional self-acceptance habit of thinking. This will not change how life unfolds but it will lessen the impact of unwelcomed events will have because she is more psychologically robust. Dr. Jonas Salk who developed the polio vaccine talked about the idea of psychological immunisation:

“If I were a young scientist today, I would still do immunisation. But instead of immunising kids physically, I’d do it your way. I’d immunise them psychologically. I’d see if these psychologically immunised kids could then fight off mental illness better. Physical illness too.”

Constructivism explains how people acquire knowledge when they interact with their environment. Knowledge doesn’t exist somewhere outside the individual to be absorbed but rather it is co - constructed between the subject and others in various contexts. The idea is to acquaint the student with this idea; that they have constructed the beliefs that inform what they do and how they feel in response to life’s challenges. If they feel anxious or down then they may well be tethered to a self-esteem belief i.e. conditional self – acceptance. I will refer to one who thinks this way as a ‘self - esteemer.’ We want to challenge and change this ‘thinking rule’ to unconditional self-acceptance (USA), a ‘self-accepter’ rule.

I have posted many blog posts which suggest ways in which we can assist students develop unconditional self - acceptance e.g. Psychological Immunisation and Little Jack Horner and here I offer another suggestion. This is a lesson I developed to teach students about constructivism and how it relates to USA. These ideas can be used with students from mid – primary onwards.

First establish what unconditional self-acceptance is e.g.

When we accept ourselves unconditionally it means that anyone’s opinion of us (good or bad) is just that, an opinion and cannot define our ‘total’ selves because we are made up of maybe hundreds of different traits, qualities and characteristics none of which alone can describe us totally. We all make mistakes but we are not totally bad. The positive qualities still remain. In other words we are not our mistakes just as we are not our successes. We are just worthwhile no matter what! We want to help our students develop the ‘thinking rule’ that; ‘what I think of me is more important than what you think of me.’ This is not an arrogant position but one which is supported by what we know about ourselves and how well we accept what we know about ourselves to be true and factual.

Next hand out enough white and yellow Lego blocks to groups of two or three to construct a small wall.

Ask the students to do the following:

Please build a wall that best reflects what we know unconditional acceptance to be. Remember we can make mistakes and we may have qualities that aren’t perfect but in the main we are all OK. The white blocks represent our positive qualities and capabilities and the yellow represent those things we can work on if we choose.

•  Some may construct a wall predominantly of white bricks and a few scattered yellow ones.
• Others may have different ideas e.g. a wall constructed solely of yellow
• Others may construct ones completely white.

Encourage the class to consider the various construction’s and ask them to explain why they have made their walls as they have e.g.

Which wall best represents the idea that we are not perfect but that we are always worthwhile?

If yellow bricks represent things that we are not so good at what does a wall made of all yellow bricks mean? Is this true?

What are we thinking if our wall is made entirely of white bricks? Is this possible? Can this be true?

We want our students to see what ‘worthwhile’ looks like. If they accept what is represented by the wall constructions they can see that no matter what they are always OK (represented by option 1 above). They can then start to practice the belief of unconditional self-acceptance. It may just be a daily reminder to think e.g.

‘I will make mistakes but I am not a mistake.’ Or

‘People may not like something about me but I have hundreds of good qualities. I am not their opinion.’ Or

‘What I think about me is more important than what others think about me.’

Option 1 indicates a healthy appreciation that a person has many more positive qualities and attributes than negative ones and may regard those as areas for improvement. This reflects a rational view that even when we make mistakes or others think ill of us we are always OK. This is the hallmark of the ‘self-accepter.’

Option 2 represents a view that ‘I am not OK. Most or all of me is not good, therefore I am not good.’ This wall construction is an irrational idea because it denies the preponderance of positive qualities that a person has. It is important to provide evidence to a person thinking this way that this is not a true and accurate self-worth picture. This self-view represents the beliefs of a ‘self esteemer.’ This belief underpins a tendency to feel down often and/or anxious because this person believes that she’s bad/hopeless/unlovable.  

Option 3 suggests that there are people in the world who are perfect. This is an errant perspective that cannot be supported with evidence. Is there a person for instance who has never made a mistake? This belief causes anxiety and depression if such a view is held by a person who strives to always e.g. get 10 out of 10 for a test or who could never handle any kind of constructive advice because this would mean that she wasn't 'perfect' and then others would see how 'bad' she is and that would be a 'catástrophe!

Remind your students that we construct our beliefs just like we construct a wall. Our ‘thought walls’ are made with the bricks we think are the right ones. What we believe to be true can be helpful or unhelpful and believing that we are always worthwhile is true and if we don’t believe this we can mentally deconstruct the old wall and build a new one that best represents who we are!

We are ‘self-accepters’ and we build strong and powerful ‘thought walls!’

Not perfect but strong!

The Rules That Guide Us

We have rules that guide our behaviour many (if not all) of which we are unaware! Psychologists tell us that we behave as we do because of certain rules we have constructed over time. These rules are so deeply ingrained in our subconscious that we would find it hard to articulate the rationale for doing what we do or feeling how we feel. The great Albert Ellis said:

“Too many people are unaware that it is not outer events or circumstances that will create happiness; rather, it is our perception of events and of ourselves that will create, or uncreate, positive emotions.” Albert Ellis Quotes

Where do these rules come from? Do we learn them from others and if they are unconscious ‘belief rules’ how can we get to know them? I think it’s true to say that our ‘rules of engagement’ with the world around us are indeed learned but what’s the likelihood of ever learning what they are? This would be insightful, new knowledge which would have benefits for the learner. What if some or most of these ‘thinking rules’ were unhelpful or self-defeating? Knowing this we could then, if we so chose, find better ways of seeing the world; perceiving it in a different way.

Our reality is forged within the contexts in which we are socialised. Every interaction we have with others and with our environment, our ‘habitus,’ will determine how we view ourselves, others and the world in general.

‘Habitus is one of Pierre Bourdieu’s most influential yet ambiguous concepts. It refers to the physical embodiment of cultural capital, to the deeply ingrained habits, skills, and dispositions that we possess due to our life experiences.’ Habitus

Our learning within our ‘habitus’ is connected to events and happenings but do they themselves constitute our experience of them or is there other things to factor into the equation? When we are subject to an event or happening we are called upon to assess that happening. What does it mean? If a young person (let’s call her Sally) consistently sees positive examples of interaction between others and herself where each player shows respect and kindness to each other she will draw certain conclusions about what she experiences, she will attach meaning or meanings to those events. These meanings are constructed by the individual in relation to what is happening around her.

‘People construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world, through experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences.’ Constructivism

What kind of ‘thinking rules’ might the young person have constructed which will inform and direct the choices she will make in various situations? According to Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT) theory created by Dr. Albert Ellis in the 1950’s we construct ‘habits of thinking’ that can be either helpful (rational) or unhelpful (irrational) in pursuing the goals we set ourselves. Those that are helpful to us are characterised by attitudes that accommodate the unfairness and unpredictability of life. For example when confronted with a problem, the resilient person may feel disappointed/inconvenienced. Another person who is less resilient may experience extreme anger and embitterment. These contrasting dispositions are linked a particular mindset of each individual which each has constructed and which guide how each feels and behaves.

Sally would believe that:

She doesn’t expect things to always go her way and when problems arise she can handle the inconvenience. The situation is not catastrophic, there are many more issues that cold be worse than this. Life can be unfair but she expects that his can be so!

Another might believe:

Things must be the way she wants them to be. This should not happen and she can’t stand this big imposition. Life is unfair and bad things always happen to her! This is the worst thing that can happen!

Each perspective or estimation of the event will result in different behavioural and emotional consequences for each. The event is not entirely to blame for the behavioural and emotional outcomes experienced by the person. According to Marcus Aurelius:

“If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.” Marcus Aurelius 180AD

Stoic Philosopher Marcus Aurelius

These ideas have been around for millennia and Albert Ellis incorporated this philosophy in his Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy counselling/psychotherapy model. Can these principles be conveyed to students in the school setting?

They can and have been introduced to students in many schools (preschool – year 12) around Australia very successfully. Giulio oversees the implementation of Rational Emotive Behaviour Education in his school in South Australia. This is the fourth year this whole school mental health education/promotion/prevention program has been in place and outcomes have been very positive to date for students. He has set up the Centre 4 Rational Emotive Behaviour Education which provides free professional learning to educators, counsellors and allied agency workers. This is the third year of its operation and feedback is always very positive in terms of its usefulness to participants who attend the ten workshop program.

The workshops cover the understanding and application of REBT in the school setting. The application of REBT in daily teaching practice is called Rational Emotive Behaviour Education. For more information about workshops and other questions regarding REBE please contact Giulio on lozzog@gmail.com.

You can also visit his blog REBTOZ for more information and blogs about REBT/REBE. You might find this article about how to teach REBT using Shakespeare’s Hamlet useful CBT Today, Volume 43 Number 1 or using nursery rhymes to illustrate REBT principles here Psychology Today.