I didn’t do it!

Why it is that some can’t acknowledge a mistake or oversight when a simple admission of ‘yes it was me’ would be quite the ordinary thing to do. Everyone would understand; don’t we all make mistakes? Remember the Fonz from Happy Days? He couldn’t say sorry because the Fonz was perfect so how could he ever make a mistake?

There’s a person I knew once, who was a bit Fonz like in his estimation of himself, though nowhere near as endearing, who would not acknowledge any wrong doing or mistakes that he may have made and would cast aspersions elsewhere on others who were not ‘as fastidious’ as he!

This person however was very vigilant and sensitive to the behaviours of others. Once, when a person ‘committed’ a minor, innocuous ‘infringement’ of expected norms, he said to the miscreant, ‘it was you who left the fridge door open in the kitchen! I know it was you! Just don’t do it!’

Now, you may be thinking, 'surely that can’t be true, so much fuss over a simple everyday happening?' No, it was characteristic of this person, always predictably intransigent in his attitudes towards specific others (he had his favourites!).

What assumptions did this person make about others? Albert Ellis, creator of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy, would suggest there are some, what he called, ‘musturbatory’ thinking going on here. These black and white beliefs see people and life in black and white terms, either this way or that way; no in between grey area thinking allowed! A ‘musturbator’ was he! Many would opine that he was just an ordinary, everyday bully cum tyrant whose toxicity was palpable. Many would also comment on how the workplace was that much better when he was away! 

Essentially, according to REBT, our non-Fonz like manager, expected people to behave as he thought they should, no ifs nor buts! And if they didn’t? They were bad people (unless a favourite!) who deserved everything they got!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parenting and Language - an REBT perspective

'I cant stand it when people don't acknowledge me when I wave to them!' says the TV celebrity. 'I can't stand rude people. They make me so angry!' So exclaimed well known celebrity X on a popular morning show. What is she declaring when speaking so? What shoulds oughts and musts are implied in this statement?

Rational Emotive Behaviour Counsellors would, as Albert Ellis put it, 'cherchez le shoulds' in the counselling discourse. What 'thinking rules' underscore her tendency to judge another's personhood (they are rude!) based on a particular disagreeable act? Why would such a behaviour be so disagreeable that she couldn't stand it? What is making her so mad?

Irrational Perspective

1. A person can act badly but does this make her totally bad? If someone acts rudely is she a rude person? Thinking rule: She should acknowledge me! (No she shouldn't)

2. Why can't she tolerate what is a relatively minor inconvenience. Surely there are many more problems that carry more weight in terms of their 'badness.' Thinking rule: 'I can't stand it when I don't get my way. I should get what I want. This is a catastrophe!' (no you shouldn't and no it's not)

3. How does another person make her mad? Wouldn't annoyed be more commensurate with what could be perceived as a minor inconvenience? Thinking rule: 'Other people are responsible for how I feel and behave. They should not do what they they do!' (no they're not and why shouldn't they?)

Rational Perspective

1. People can not notice me for a myriad of reasons either intentionally or unintentionally. They are not bad people for doing this. Thinking rule: 'I prefer people to act courteously and respectfully but they don't have to.'

2. In the scheme of things someone not waving back to me is at worst a minor inconvenience and hardly catastrophic. Thinking rule: 'I can stand (tolerate) small problems. There are worse things that can happen.'

3. How I feel about situations is linked to how I think about them. Thinking rule: 'I can control how I feel and act if I think about my thinking.'

These two perspectives on the same event will generate two different behavioural and emotional responses, one healthy and the other unhealthy and self defeating.

These principles are taught to students from early childhood onwards in a growing number of schools in South Australia through Rational Emotive Behaviour Education.

Celebrity X above will be teaching her children that:

1. People who do bad are bad.

2. When people don't behave as they should do it can't be tolerated and is a big deal. (This shouldn't happen)

3. Other people and events are responsible for how they feel and behave. (they're not getting what they should get and it's a catastrophe when they don't)

Children learn form their significant other mentors. They are always watching us closely!

Powerful parenting

Rational Emotive Behaviour Education - dealing with disappointment healthily

There’s two students in the yard (kids 1 and 2). They’re playing one on one basketball. 

A game of one on one

Another person (3) approaches and asks to join in. He’s told as it’s a one on one game so another player isn’t needed. He waits a while and moves on. Another child comes by (4) and asks the same question and the basketball players say it’s a one on one and another player is not required. This is said respectfully and assertively to the third person. The news is not received well. This student (4) goes into a rage and throws their basketball away which ultimately comes to the notice of the teacher on yard duty. Student 4 is asked to sit out and is talked to for his behaviour.

Something happened in the lives of Kid 3 and Kid 4. They were both declined their request to join in the basketball game with 1 and 2. This is called the activating event, situation A.

So A = they didn’t let me join in.

Person 3 Felt OK about this. It (A) probably rated a 2 on the emotional thermometer. A little upset and disappointed perhaps, still in control. No hard feelings. He moved on after a while. No big deal.

Person 4 felt angry. It (A) rated an 8 on the emotional thermometer. It was a big deal. Catastrophic even. He made some average behavioural choices and was taken to task for it.

Did the situation (A) make the children do and feel as they did? If this was the case surely they would feel and act the same way? But we know person 3 was calm and person 4 was angry so A didn’t make their feelings and behaviours. We will call feelings and behaviours C i.e. the emotional and behavioural Consequence of A.

Person 3 said to another student that they didn’t let him join in. They were playing one on one. Three would be too many and that’s OK. This person accepted the situation calmly.

The emotional thermometer

Person 4 said to another student the kids wouldn’t let him join in. They made him angry. It was their fault!

Why the difference? Kid 3 is OK and kid 4 spat the dummy! What’s going on here?

According to REBT (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy) theory kids 3 and 4 have constructed contrasting philosophical perspectives. They have different thinking rules. We will call these thinking rules B for beliefs. What are they?

Kid 3 we would speculate has the following philosophical rule:

I don’t always have to get my. It’s rarely a catastrophe when I don’t. I can handle disappointments.

We would say that is a rational/reasonable/helpful/healthy view.

Kid 4 we would suggest according to REBT theory has the following philosophical rule:

I must always get my way. It’s a catastrophe when I don’t. It’s not fair and I can’t stand it!

We would say that is an irrational/unreasonable/unhelpful/unhealthy view.

Rational Emotive Behaviour Education teaches students that thinking feeling and behaving are interconnected and that people’s experience of a situation emotionally and behaviourally is linked to their beliefs; their thinking rules.

According to REBT Kid 3 has the following perspective on life:

A + B = C where he will account for how he feels and behaves not solely as a consequence of A but my thinking B (me) has a lot to do with it.

According to REBT Kid 4 has the following perspective on life:

A=C When A happens IT (A) makes my feelings and behaviours. It's is not my fault!

One kids way of looking at things is healthy and the others is not so.

The ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance was created by Albert Ellis and is a very useful teaching tool.

Screwballs, Nutters and Faulty Bits

'There's enough there for an entire conference!' the psychiatrist guest was heard to say to another on witnessing the behaviour of hapless Basil of Fawlty Towers fame (BBC TV UK).

'There's enough there for an entire conference.'

This quote comes to mind whenever I experience behaviour that is beyond the generally agreed norm of what constitutes civility in the workplace. A persons general demeanour and actions can have a positive effect on others; encouraging, supportive and respectful or they can have an otherwise entirely negative effect on them!

Basil's behaviour invoked feelings of frustration and anger from others (how can anyone be so inept) but it was counter balanced by other more 'reasonable' characters like Sybil and Polly who would challenge Basil who it seemed was incapable of any insight in to how his behaviour effected work colleagues! Poor Manuel would cop it mercilessly from Basil who always remained loyal and respectful of his malevolent boss.

Please don't hurt me!

An REBT perspective on Basil's emotional and behavioural status would (and probably has already!) take up 'an entire conference!' What are his 'mustabatory' demands on others and the world? What is he getting (or not getting) that he must not get. And why is it so awful when the world doesn't deliver what he must have and why is it never his fault (Faulty) when things go awry?

Have you ever worked in a situation that would provide 'enough material for an entire conference?' Do you work in an environment bordering on the toxic where a particular individual has hijacked what would otherwise be a pleasant and cordial and more productive workplace? Do you find it difficult to be in the same proximity of this individual (s)? How do you manage yourself and how do you maintain your own sense of worth and dignity?

Any ideas would be most welcome!

Basil and his counterfoils Sybil and Polly

Rational Emotive Behaviour Counselling - anxiety in young students and what to do about it

I find with some students that their anxiety is driven by the mistaken belief that somehow they themselves are responsible for how the teacher feels. Where would this idea come from? As discussed in many previous posts the young person would have constructed a set of personal beliefs that explain how and why others feel and act as they do. 

Consider a moment what a child might deduce when exposed to the following statements from adults around them:

'You make me happy when you do that.'
'You make me angry when you do that.'
'You make me feel whatever when you do that ...!'

They would conclude that 'my actions; what I do is responsible for how my mum/dad/teacher feels. I will try hard to be 'good' so that they feel good (because it's my responsibility). I don't want to 'make' them sad or mad so I'd better be on my best behaviour. I must behave and 'be good'.'

I'm OK!

As Albert Ellis reminds us when we have must expectations about ourselves (musturbation), others and the world we set ourselves up for great discomfort because we place ourselves often in a no win situation. What's the chances of our little friend stuffing up sometimes and making the odd mistake. Highly likely I'd say and when that happens 'back to shithood' she goes as Ellis would say!

Once she understands that as constructivists we make the strength of our feelings and the behaviours we make because of how we think she will be free of this affliction. The following is a transcript of counselling sessions I have had with students:

Me: You look sad.
Sofi: Yes I feel sad.
Me: What happened?
Sofi: The teacher shouted.
Me: How'd you feel?
Sofi: Scared.
Me: You feel/felt sad and scared because the teacher shouted?
Sofi: Yes. I do/did.
Me: Why was the teacher mad?
Sofi: Because someone talked and we shouldn't talk when the teacher is talking.
Me: So the students made your teacher mad is that right?
Sofi: Yes

Six year old Sofi believes that she and her classmates are responsible for how the teacher feels. She is in a high state of anxiety a lot of the time because no matter what happens she feels responsible and 'really doesn't want anyone to talk when the teacher is talking.'

It is important for teachers and adult role models to let students know that how they feel and behave is their own personal responsibility i.e. their thinking makes them act and feel as they do. Then children like little Sofi will not feel so bad and not take responsibility for how others feel so readily. 

Unconditional Self Acceptance

Sofia's Story

Sofia was new to the country and was vivacious and good humoured. She was an enthusiastic student, who worked hard at her studies and had a wide circle of friends. She had a ready smile and a caring nature, sensitive to the needs of others, a delight to teach.

On many occasions she would accompany me on yard duty and we would talk about things and inevitably the topic of discussion would turn to friendships and her concern about a particular student who did not seem to like her. This student would generally ignore her and chose not to associate with her in the classroom or in the yard. Sofia would become tearful and I would ask why she felt so sad. She said that she didn’t understand why this student didn’t seem to want to be her friend as ‘everyone else liked me, why doesn’t she?’ On another occasion Sofia said she wasn’t happy because this student wasn’t her friend and she would say ‘she makes me sad.’ As an REBTer (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy counsellor) I used some of the strategies I learned from Dr. Albert Ellis (creator of REBT). According to Ellis Sofia was ‘musturbating,’ that is believing that her fellow student ‘must’ like her and that it was so awful (awfulising) that she couldn’t stand it. To add to her sadness Sofia believed that there must be something wrong with her! There must be something about her that the other student didn’t like and that this was all Sofia’s fault!

And so our discussions began to take on a philosophical note. I asked Sofia how this other person ‘made’ her sad. Sofia said that she ‘should’ be my friend and if she was then she could be happy. So I said, ‘you feel sad because she won’t be your friend and that you can only be happy if she becomes your friend.’ Sofia agreed that this was so and this became the basis of our further talks. We talked about a ‘perfect world’ and what that meant. We agreed that it would be nice if everyone we liked liked us in return and that everything we wanted to achieve we achieved. We talked about perfectionism and how it was unrealistic to expect that everything should go our way all the time. We can work hard to get an A+ and fall short, we can try to make friends with others we like but we may not always meet their approval. This is the way the world works. Sofia agreed and could see the wisdom of what we were talking about. So we returned to what Sofia believed, what her philosophy about herself, others and the world was. Sofia understood that her unrealistic oughting, shoulding and musting were making her sadness (‘she should like me’, ‘I must get her approval’, ‘she is bad because she won’t be my friend’, ‘I am unlikeable, I can’t stand this and it’s awful’). This insight was the turning point for Sofia, as she understood that her desire for a perfect world was an unrealistic expectation. I asked her, ‘must other people you like always like you in return?’ ‘Is it awful when you don’t get an A+ for your assignments even when you tried your best?’ ‘Are others bad if they don’t approve of you or like you?’ ‘Are you an unlikeable no good person because she doesn’t approve of you?’ Sofia answered with a resounding ‘NO!’

So we talked about helpful, rational thinking that would be healthier. I asked Sofia to challenge and change some of the errant beliefs she held to be true.

I said, ‘must you always do well and achieve your goals.’ Sofia said, ‘No. It is better to believe that, ‘I will work hard to achieve my goals. I would like to achieve my goals but I don’t always have to.’ Why is this better?’ I asked. ‘It is not realistic to always get what you want. That is not how the world works!’ she said. She added that she would keep trying anyway.

What about the belief that, ‘people you like must like you in return and always approve of you?’ Sofia said, ‘this is not realistic either. People don’t have to like me. They can make their own choices.’

What about the belief, ‘you are unlikeable; you have nothing to like. You are a nerd.’ Sofia said, ‘this is not true. I have other friends. I have many positive qualities so I can’t be worthless or unlikeable!’

So it transpired that Sofia became more comfortable with herself and the world and she could now accommodate and accept that her fellow student did not want to be her friend, that it was OK, that it was disappointing but not awful and she was still OK. She didn’t need her approval at all!

Dr Ellis would say that Sofia’s errant, irrational ‘musturbatory’ philosophical beliefs have been challenged and modified to become more rational (self and other helpful). Thus Sofia is not unhealthily anxious, angry or depressed (unhealthy negative emotions) because she hasn’t got what she wants (to have her fellow class member as a friend). She now tends to be healthily concerned and disappointed (healthy negative emotions) as she would have preferred (and not demanded) to have the friendship and approval of her classmate.

Sofia continued to make progress but she would need the support of her teachers and mentors to reinforce the insights she has made so that she would move beyond intellectual insight onto emotional insight. We will discuss these ideas and more in my next blog entry about Sofia’s progress.

useful links: www.haveagospaghettio.com.au www.debbiejoffeellis.com http://www.rebtresources.info/