What’s Unconditional Self- Acceptance?

This is warts n’ all acceptance of all the things that make up the complexity of the ‘self’,  a term we use when referring to the ‘me’ we understand ourselves to be.

We decide who we are, how our ‘selves’ are constituted, by processing and interpreting the information we glean from our environment. How do others esteem me? Do they like me?

Does my self-assessment, my own estimation of my worth, depend on the assessments of others? Or do I accept that any clanger, rejection, or failure don’t or can’t in themselves define me in a global sense i.e., my total worth or value.

If we tend to over rely on others estimation of us, we have reached a stage of ‘needing’ rather than ‘preferring’ that others view us well e.g., likeable, respected, esteemed, funny, smart.

‘I need you think I’m OK for me to be OK.’

A student once asked me if he was a good boy. I asked what he meant and he said I like it when people say I’m a good boy. I asked him how he knows when he is a good boy and he said when people ‘tell me I am.’ I asked him when he is most likely to be told he is a good boy and he replied, ‘when I do something good’ (what others expect me to do).

‘I can’t disappoint people who expect me to be good.’

He also said that when he does things that others disagree with or who may feel aggrieved about something about him, he thinks he has made them feel that way. I asked him if he thinks that other people’s feelings, like his mum’s annoyance is caused by him and he said, ‘yes.’

‘I make my mum mad!’

What has this person learned about his ‘self?’ He is learning that his worth depends on the assessment of others. He ‘is’ good or bad depending on others estimation of his worth. According to REBT (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy) he accepts his ‘self’ only on condition that he is esteemed well by others. His ‘good’ self exists only if others say it does!

That he has learned to believe that he ‘makes’ others sad or annoyed or angry puts him at considerable psychological risk. He has learned that he is responsible for how others feel and of course this is an irrational belief. He may become hyper vigilant around other people’s sensibilities, not wanting to cause any upset or discomfort to others because he’s responsible for how they feel!

Unconditional self-acceptance regards the self as a composite of too many qualities, characteristics, capabilities etc good and bad and so it doesn’t make sense to abstract one from the many and decide that it defines your you-ness.

‘Today you are You, that is truer than true. There is no one alive who is Youer than You.’ Dr. Seuss

Alas we tend to do this at times but we can self-correct e.g., I am likeable even if others may think otherwise, I am not their opinion of me. So, the warts ‘n all idea means that our OK - ness remains constant even when as fallible human beings we will inevitably stuff up.

But for those young folk who believe their worth is subject to certain conditions e.g.,  how others rate them or how well they perform at tasks, then they will benefit from knowing how they can challenge and change the irrational ideas they may hold to be true about their ‘selves.’

So how can we help young people become the best version of their ‘selves,’ one which will serve them well?

- Talk about thinking, feeling, and behaving, what they are, and how they are each connected to each other. E.g., if I BELIEVE I’m dumb, I FEEL sad and I WITHDRAW.

- We can have helpful or unhelpful ideas about ourselves, others, and life in general, our beliefs.

- We can find out what those beliefs are e.g., ‘if someone doesn’t seem to like me then I am unlikable.’ 

- We can begin to change how we think about ourselves if we learn how to think about our thinking.

Some ideas to teach unconditional self-acceptance:

- Talk about a bike and its general composition, wheels, tyres, frame, spokes etc. If a spoke on one wheel is broken, does it make sense to decide the bike is totally no good and we should get rid of it? Why or why not? One fault doesn’t make the bike (us) worthless

- If we aren’t too good at something, or we didn’t make the soccer team does that mean we are totally useless, that we are totally no good e.g., using the bike analogy above, one of our spokes might be a bit wobbly but the bike’s essentially OK (unless we decide otherwise).

- Place a few dots on a sheet of paper. Look at the page what do we notice. We might focus readily on the dots. We may also notice that most of the page is clear of any dots or blemishes. When we self-down we notice only the blemishes and decide they define us (our ‘self’ page is full of dot blemishes), that we are no good. We might however look more broadly and decide that the sheet is essentially blemish less.

It isn’t an either/or proposition, we can’t be totally bad or be totally good, we are just worthwhile, unconditionally because as Albert Ellis (creator of REBT) says, ‘we exist.’

If we consider our ‘selves’ in the context of everything that constitutes our makeup, one fault or failure or blemish can’t represent the whole. In that sense we are always OK and that’s what we teach our young charges when we teach Unconditional Self-Acceptance.

PS Unconditionally accepting ourselves doesn’t mean we elect to remain stagnant and not develop and evolve, to improve ourselves. It isn’t a license to do nothing or to e.g., break the law because ultimately ‘I’m OK no matter what.’ It is a healthy attitude of acceptance of our makeup and to work hard at the things we decide we want to get better at. Get my drift?

Giulio is an ED.D. candidate at the University of South Australia. He is a student counsellor in the public school system and specialises in Rational Emotive Behaviour Education. He is also a consultant to schools in counselling-based behaviour education systems in school. He is the author of two self-published teacher/counsellor resources; People and Emotions and Have a Go Spaghettio! both endorsed by Dr. Albert Ellis, creator of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy. He is a member of the International Committee for The Advancement of Rational Emotive Education.

 

My Brain Felt Sad and Then I Cried

Seven-year-old Eabha (Ava) came by my office. She would occasionally drop in to tell me one of her stories or to sing me a song, but she seemed preoccupied and wasn’t her usual bubbly self. She played with a fidget she found in the toy box and after a short while, without looking in my direction said, ‘my dad has moved out and my mum has been crying a lot.’ She continued to play with the fidget.

‘Things were not right!’

Eabha stopped playing and then she came and sat down opposite me, settled in her seat, and grabbed a teddy that was nearby. Her eyes betrayed how she was feeling, and I wondered how a seven-year-old processes such a traumatic episode unfolding before her and around her and within her.

I asked her how she was feeling, and she lowered her eyes and said, ‘When my mum told me that dad was leaving my brain felt sad and then I cried.’

I asked what she meant when she said that her brain felt sad. She said that she was thinking about why this happened and if her mum and dad loved her. She said, ‘I was thinking it was my fault.’ I asked her about how she felt when she said, ‘my brain felt sad.’ She said she felt sad and scared. ‘And because you felt sad and scared what did you do?’ I asked. ‘I began to shake, and I went to my room, and I cried,’ she said.

I reflected back to her what she said and asked her if I had her story right. She said I did, and we continued to chat.

‘She knew I was listening.’

I worked with Eabha in a one-to-one counselling situation on occasion and I also had done some work in her class. We talked about feelings and strength of feelings and that they were connected to our thinking and behaving. She understood that feeling, thinking, and behaving were connected to each other. We called unhealthy (irrational) thinking Brain Bully thinking which we agreed made Brain Bully feelings and actions. We called healthy (rational) thinking Brain Friend thinking which we agreed made feelings and behaviours that were helpful to us.

‘Brain Bully thinking makes Brain Bully feelings.’

That Eabha was familiar with these REBT (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy) principles afforded us a common language with which we could talk about our strength of feelings, where they come from and how to work out ways to help Eabha help herself.

Eabha discovered that, for instance, ‘it’s all my fault’ thinking was Brain Bully nonsense. We also agreed that ‘it’s not fair’ thinking and ‘my dad or mum doesn’t love me’ thinking was Brain Bully trying to make her feel worse than she needed to be. We talked about different ways of thinking about things and we decided that what happened was a decision made by adults and that she had nothing to do with it. We also established that her mum and dad would still love her no matter what and that even though they would not be living together she could get used to the idea that she had two places to visit and have fun.

‘Flush stinking Brain Bully thinking down the dunny!’

We talked about bad things that could happen and we decided that there were other things that could be worse than the situation she found herself in. She said that ‘this is really bad, and I wish it didn’t happen but it’s not the worst thing that can happen (compared to other things we talked about).’ Eabha began to look at things differently, more from a Brain Friend perspective and she felt a lot better.

As a rational emotive behaviour counsellor/educator I find it useful to be able talk to children in ways that make sense to them. The idea that their emotions and behaviours are caused by someone or something apart from themselves reinforces the idea that someone or something makes their feelings and behaviours! Hence, they say things like, ‘it made me sad when my dad moved away, and I can only feel happy again if he comes back.’ In adult terms this irrational view could be framed as; ‘Things must be or remain the way they’ve always been. I can’t handle it and I can never be happy again if things aren’t how they must be.’

As it happened Eabha adopted a different view of the situation:

‘Change my thinking and the world changes.’

Did she still feel sad? Yes, she did on occasion, but it had a different intensity than before. She had changed the way she assessed a very difficult situation and in doing so modified how she felt and how she behaved in a self-helpful way.

PS Eabha bounded into my office the other day and said, ‘guess what?’ I said, ‘the sky is blue.’ ‘Mum and Dad are back together.’

PPS. This is a true happening and details have been changed to protect the subject’s identity.

 

Giulio is an ED.D. candidate at the University of South Australia. He is a student counsellor in the public school system and specialises in Rational Emotive Behaviour Education. He is also a consultant to schools in counselling-based behaviour education systems in school. He is the author of two self-published teacher/counsellor resources; People and Emotions and Have a Go Spaghettio! both endorsed by Dr. Albert Ellis, creator of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy. He is a member of the International Committee for The Advancement of Rational Emotive Education.

Flowery Fawning Language - an REBT perspective

Flowery language is:

‘designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.’

Dr. Albert Ellis was an efficient person by all accounts and was careful to say what he meant in his writing without employing unnecessary hyperbole or using grandiose and convoluted ways to impress his audience. He didn’t need to nor did he want to.

Einstein said if you can’t explain something in simple terms you may not understand it. He encouraged people to:

“Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

This is not as easy as it sounds and requires effort and consideration.

Schmaltz is another term that comes to mind to describe language used to ingratiate oneself with others; to over empathise. Sentimentality overload!

What can be the purpose of these flowery utterances in an REBT sense? What would Dr. Ellis make of those inclined to fawn over and to flatter others excessively? At which point does the message become meaningless and insincere?

Fawning is the:

‘use of people-pleasing to diffuse conflict, feel more secure in relationships, and earn the approval of others.

The latter, to earn the approval of others, is a salient point to consider in the ‘love slobbism’ stakes. Dr. Ellis’ principle of unconditional self-acceptance describes a predisposition to believe that one is worthwhile no matter what. This psychological bulwark keeps the individual in a state of ‘ ‘OK-ness’ meaning that if people don’t approve of you or you happen to fail at something your worth cannot be diminished, unless you allow it to of course!

The ‘flowery fawner’ or the one who characteristically entreats others to like or approve of them via excessive flattery are at risk because when such approval is not forthcoming the subject is rendering themselves psychologically unwell. Why? Because their sense of worth is tethered to how others esteem them. Ellis said:

So look out for this kind of attitude in yourself or others as you may knowingly or unknowingly be leaning on others too much for your sense self-worth. Consider the following to keep yourself sane:

• What am I saying and why am I saying it?
• Do I need the approval of others to be worthwhile?
• Learn to be more self-accepting? How?
• Try new things and test my resilience if I fail or others don’t approve of me.
• Remind myself daily that what I think of myself is more important than what others think.
• Remind myself to care about what others think about me but not to care too much.

Any others?

 

I'm Worthwhile Crocodile

Teaching young folk unconditional self-acceptance is a useful thing to do. Constructivist theory says that we construct or build the beliefs that we use to guide us (consciously or unconsciously); the decisions we make, our assessments of situations. What kinds of ideas are young people building about themselves? Do they 'see' themselves as people of worth unconditionally or do they get a sense that they're OK only when others think they are? 

How would a child conclude that their worth as a person relies on other peoples assessment of them? Well it's all to do with the sense they are making of their experiences; the meanings they make from information gleaned from the world around them. 

So what about the information provided children by their significant others? Or rather, more specifically, what's the quality of the information received by these young constructivists? That's the key in the 'construction of beliefs' caper.

If the incoming messages address behaviour, children are automatically receiving a message that says, 'we are talking about your behaviour here and not your personhood.' The child will learn that behaviour, what she/he does, is being judged but her total worth is not; they are separate ideas. She/he will learn that what they do may be adjudged good or bad but that doesn't make their 'selves' good or bad!

Conversely, if the dominant message provided/received addresses the person, the implied meaning is that 'you' or your 'self' can 'be' good or bad! The child who hears words like lazy, naughty, good, bad, clever, dumb learn that they can 'be' these things i.e. 'I am my dumbness/smartness/goodness/badness. 

So the question is; do I do good/bad or am I good/bad? Which of the two belief constructions are useful, healthy, rational? 

'I'm worthwhile crocodile' is an early childhood term which represents unconditional self acceptance. It means 'my worth cannot be diminished by other peoples opinions good or bad, nor by my successes and failures;' I am always OK no matter what! Now that's a powerful way to think!

'I'm worthwhile crocodile,' thinkers will tend to feel and act more confidently, will be less prone to anxiety or piques of anger. They will be more disposed to thinking about their thinking and regulating their sense of grievance or offence taken that events can 'cause' them. 

The Brain and Thinking - early childhood focus

Unconditional Self-Acceptance (USA) is a useful anti self disturbance belief resource developed by the grandfather of cognitive therapy, Dr Albert Ellis. He understood he was imperfect but he determined early on in the piece that despite his flaws he was always OK. OK, according to the gospel of St. Albert meant that he and everyone else could believe their way into unconditionally accepting themselves.

Unconditional self-acceptance renders a person psychologically resistant to the slings and arrows that others may cast their way in the form of put down, harsh criticisms; unfair and damning, and all manner of failings and personal imperfections.

This of course comes with practice and determination, vigilance and hard work. So how does one become self-accepting? This has been the focus of many or most of this blog content e.g Unconditional Self-Acceptance, but in a nutshell USA is knowing that a persons worth is not negotiable; it's a given, we're born with it!

However people are suggestible and are continually making sense of what's happening around them. If we receive information from around us, especially from significant others, which encourages and values our person we can learn to see ourselves in a positive light. If our carers and mentors address what we do and not who we are, we learn not to define ourselves, ascribe our total worth to aspects or personal traits we have developed. Be they good or bad we are not them. We can act badly and not 'be' bad and we can act 'goodly' and not 'be' good.

If on the other hand our mentors and significant others tell us we are bad because we do bad e.g. 'You are hopeless. You never do anything right!' we put two and two together and we compute four to mean, irrationally, that we are bad when we do bad etc.

These ideas can be taught successfully to younger folk in early childhood settings and the video below suggest we start off by establishing that as thinkers we direct and control how we feel and behave in response to life events. Our thinking can be helpful or unhelpful and these and other things will be explored through this video and others which will consider how we can help younger children to be happier and healthier unconditional self-accepters!

Brain Friend Moves In

I saw the sign ‘head for rent’ and thought I couldn’t possibly pass up such an opportunity. I’ll pay in kind of course (as I don’t materially exist) and I can be a helpful adviser to you but I am you at the same time. How can that be you ponder? All I can say is that I am me talking to you but you are me and so you are talking to yourself. If that’s giving you a headache, I can’t empathise because I don’t have a head but I live inside yours. I’m the talk you hear inside your head, I’m Brain Friend and I’m here to stay.

Two of us are one

We are in this together

We will work hard to move ahead

Even in stormy weather!

Your previous tenant, old Brain Bully had set up permanent residence here and by all accounts had a great time making you sad and causing you not to try all those things you would like to do because he told you ‘you’re so dumb. Don’t even try. What’s the point?’ There are some reminders of his presence here. I can see the tear stains on your eyes from your quiet and private crying. I will help your eyes sparkle, to help you stand tall. You will feel more confident if you trust in me, if you trust in you!

Brain Bully could have stayed around a while if it wasn’t for your teacher in year 4 who said your sadness and loneliness was caused by your BB thinking. She was on the ball when she said the type of self-talk you used was unhelpful and she gave a name to it Brain Bully. You were bullying yourself all that time. When someone called you a name you agreed with them. When Brain Bully said ‘you deserve it, you are a retard. You’re not worth anything’ you were bullying yourself! You were ganging up on YOU and joining other people who would want to put you down. 

No more! I’m here, Brain Friend and into the future we go! Things have changed for you as you practice your Brain Friend self-talk and thinking. Brain Bully hasn’t gone far though and he is still hanging around. He misses being here and he will try again to move in if we are not very vigilant. So our work will never stop and we will always be on the lookout for BB, the sadness maker.

But we will practice and you will have homework to do. It’s more like headwork than homework but you’ll be doing it forever. You know a bit like the signs you see on the roadway saying ‘roadwork ahead’ where we have to slow down and make sure we do the safe and sensible thing to ensure the roads can be as good as they can be. Well imagine signs like ‘headwork in progress’ in your head where Brain Friend is keeping the place (your headspace) safe and in good working order so you can act and feel OK.

You gave BB the heave when you realised he was doing you no favours. You had told yourself for so long that you were no good you actually believed it. Some important people around you along the way didn’t help either, because they demanded you should be a good person and when you couldn’t be perfect all the time you thought there was something wrong with you. Remember BB saying ‘I should have done better’ and ‘see, I can’t do it’ and ‘I’m such a loser?’ In the end you wouldn’t try because BB said ‘you can’t do it so don’t try. It will only prove you are a loser.’

Things have changed and people say that you walk with a spring in your step that you walk tall and you smile more. Your headwork is paying dividends for you as you feel a lot better, you’re optimistic and bounce back quickly from disappointment. Way to go!

                                                                                                                           

Nice and Too Nice - what's the difference?

What is nice? One person’s nice is not necessarily another person’s nice. How do we know we are nice is another consideration. People might comment on how obliging so and so is, that they are always available and seem so selfless and caring. This feedback either directly or via others might be comforting or assuring; it may also be affirming. Is this healthy? 

Niceness can be healthy if there is no sense of unreasonable obligation to general others attached to it. That is, one has a healthy dedication to one’s own needs and wants. She knows what these are and tends to them without fear or favour. She is not addicted to the needs, demands and appraisals of others. She intuitively understands that her worth is not dependent on others (unless allowed!). As Eleanor Roosevelt said:

If we worry about how others view us and we learn to need the affirmation of others we put ourselves at risk. What happens when we don’t get the acknowledgement we seek? What happens when our niceness isn’t rewarded? What happens when we don’t get what we have learnt we must have, the affirmation of our niceness; of us? Michelle Martin would say that we would be living in the realm of the overly nice; where we are too nice. 

Self-esteem is a concept that is used in many contexts when discussing mental health and well being. It is used to describe how a person views oneself. She makes estimations of her worth and usefulness; she makes assessments of her deeds and accomplishments and may ascribe a grade to her total efforts.

Some like Dr Albert Ellis who created Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy regards self-esteem to be detrimental to our mental health because it is conditional. How one esteems oneself is variable and can wax and wane depending on circumstances. This is self-defeating according to Ellis who asserts:

Ellis’ REBT talks about unconditional self-acceptance, the belief that our worth is not negotiable and can’t be attached to others assessment of us or how well or badly we may perform at tasks. This idea is taught to students in many schools and of course in the counselling context to help people develop a kind of ‘psychological muscle' or immunity to help deal with failure and rejection. Jonas Salk (creator of the polio vaccine) to Martin Seligman said:

"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."

So are you a 'self esteemer' or a 'self-accepter' and how do these relate to niceness? Is there a healthy nice and an unhealthy nice?

Self esteemers may get caught up with pleasing others and ascribing self-worth to personal achievement. One may seek the approval of others and in doing so will ignore personal wants, needs and aspirations. This may in turn cause anger, anxiety, resentment and depression so strong is the need to please.

Self-accepters will not feel so obliged to others. They will consider their own needs and desires which reflect a healthy and unconditional sense of self-worth. They will not need (though they may desire/prefer) the approval of others nor will they always have to succeed at tasks (though they may want to) because they understand that their worth is inviolable and will remain intact even when things don’t go so well.

Are you a nice 'self accepter' or a too nice 'self esteemer?'

Dogma, REBT and Mental Health - a case study circa 1961

I was about six and the parish priest walked into the room. His vestments swirled around him as we all rose in deference to this holiest of holy messenger of God. The air wafted over us as he passed, stopping to settle in the middle of the front of the class. He was like a giant in black robes as he towered over us all, his large golden crucifix hanging from around his white dog collar, adding to his mystique and the drama of the situation.

“Give me the child until he is seven and I’ll give you the man." St 

Francis Xavier

My teacher, sister Mary explained that Father Pat was here to talk about heaven and hell and how we could be good people; how we could win over God's favour via good deeds and how the sacraments of confession and communion would ensure we could enter the gates of heaven one day. I felt quite scared and my fear continued to grow as he began his talk in his Irish brogue...

... 'Sure isn't it true that the good Lord has given us free will? D'ya know what that means?' He answered his own question and we just sat in awe as he expounded on how it was our job to do this and to think that. I was told what to believe as decreed by the priests and nuns as I continued my indoctrination in the absolutes of the dogma of the Catholic version of Christianity. I was a sinner and it was God who would forgive my sins and deliver me from all that was bad and evil!

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23

The priest continued in earnest. He had with him a sheet of blotting paper and a fountain pen. He emptied a small amount of ink onto the sheet. The ink slowly spread outwards from its epicentre and his godliness declared, 'this is your soul when ye are born. It is already stained by original sin. When ye are baptised your sin is forgiven. Such is the power of God!' (he made the sign of the cross and looked heavenward).

He then pointed to the right side of the room (our left) as a representation of heaven; where good people go, who think and act in accordance with the word of God. To his left was hell. This is where we would go if we didn't repent our sins; eternal fire and damnation awaited those of us who were sinners, those who blasphemed and swore, who told lies and had bad unhealthy (carnal) thoughts and imaginings.

He proceeded to empty a larger amount of ink onto the blotting paper. The stain radiated from where it was placed on the white paper. When it stopped the priest declared that a significant sin would have been made to make such a blemish. He motioned towards 'hell' and stopped. He said, 'this is a venial sin. Your soul still has divine grace but it is dirty and needs cleaning! God forgives us all!' Things would be fine if we repented our sins and paid the appropriate penance. So off to confession we could go and all would be OK again.

The priest became animated and his voice more shrill as he emptied the entire contents of the pen onto the blotting paper! He walked to the left of the room and as the ink stain spread on the paper he got closer to 'hell.' 'This is your soul when ye commit a mortal sin. Sure this is when God is most unhappy with ye. Ye are in grave danger of not going to heaven!'

By way of illustration of the concept of sin and its consequences Father Pat had hit the proverbial on the head. The class of six year olds sat in silent terror as Sister Mary thanked the priest and invited us all to pay close attention to what the 'good' father had said to us. 'Remember that God is watching you. He is everywhere!' she reminded us as the priest left the room as dramatically as he had entered. Whoosh and he was gone.

That thirty minute session above all others at junior school had impacted me in ways I would never imagine, consciously and unconsciously. The teaching of dogma (a set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true) leaves an impressionable young person constrained (controlled) by these 'absolute truths' that govern our very existence. What were these truths that could not be questioned? How could these impact on ones mental health and well being?

• The idea that we are born to serve and adore an omnipotent being who made us in his image and lives in heaven. 

• That he is aware of our every action and thought. That heavenly privileges can be withdrawn if and when we sinfully transgress the rules of the dogma laid down. 

• That we are told we must love our neighbour as ourselves and that should we ever covet our neighbours possessions (material and otherwise) in thought or in deed would constitute a sin that would invite the wrath of the vengeful God that we were all taught to fear. 

I did unto others until I resented them with a passion. I learnt to seek the approval of all and sundry because in pleasing others I was pleasing God. I lost my own identity in placing others well being above my own mental health. I would expect others to do likewise for me and felt angry when they didn't (why should they?). I learnt to be judgemental - people should/ought/must think/act as I do according to the rules (again why should they?). The propaganda had worked and I was in the thrall of the dogma that I had inherited. My absolute beliefs were rusted onto to my subconscious and I had all the answers! So I thought.

Fortunately I happened upon the work of the Stoic philosophers, Bertrand Russell, Christopher Hitchens and Albert Ellis who were all singing from the same hymn sheet. An opinion is just that and doesn't constitute fact.

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd.  Bertrand Russell

A persons worth is not tethered to how others think of her nor to her successes or failures. I learnt that thinking in absolutes stopped me from considering other philosophical views. I moved from the fixed inflexible thinking of the governed and subservient; from an absolutist to a free thinker. I began to question what I had been told to be irrefutable. I had started to develop independence of thought; to think for myself!

In REBT (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy) terms I shifted from believing that I must always be perfect and achieve my goals. That people I like must like me. That the world should give me what I want. If none of these demands were satiated it was the greatest travesty of justice! (because it shouldn't be that way!). I felt out of whack a lot of the time because I wasn't thinking straight!

The universe doesn’t care about you, it’s not for or against you, it just doesn’t give a shit. Albert Ellis

I instead learnt to accept that I would sometimes (often) not hit the mark (and the sun still rose in the morning). I understood that everyone can't see me as I would like them to regard me (I chose to prefer this was the case). I learnt that the world/life doesn't take into account my personal needs and sensibilities and it is how I responded to events that mattered (I preferred things to go well but didn't demand that they should). 

This is a continuing journey and I subscribe to the philosophy of Albert Ellis who said:

The best years of your life are the ones in which you decide your problems are your own. You do not blame them on your mother, the ecology, or the president. You realise that you control your own destiny.

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

Doormat Syndrome – the need to be needed and self hatred!

People will sometimes present with the ‘people treat me like a doormat’ syndrome. Doormats are used to wipe dirt from the soles of shoes. Not a very attractive analogy but this image of self, engenders strong feelings of anger and sadness in the sufferer.

The client will talk of feeling angry towards the other (s), of extreme sadness because of feeling ‘not wanted.’ Why is this the case? What can she do?

Talking to a trusted other is always a good start as she acknowledges that she doesn’t feel OK and wants to feel better but this is only the beginning of her journey of healing.

As counsellor I am interested in her story her. What are the significant events in her life and what hurdles have been placed before her and how did she deal with those challenges?

It will become evident as her story unfolds that she has developed some destructive, self-defeating personal philosophies (habits of believing) that she is not aware of at this point. My job is to help her become aware of these beliefs and how they drive her intense destructive feelings and behaviours. 

I will explain Albert Ellis’ ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance and use it to:

•           Identify what her constructed beliefs are
•           Explain  how they have been constructed
•           Parse out significant self-defeating and irrational beliefs she holds and maintains are true
•           Help challenge and change those errant beliefs
•           Set goals and teach tools that will help her onwards

It will not be easy to change habits of thinking feeling and behaving that have been practised over a lifetime and deeply embedded in the subconscious but it is possible; with hard work and application!

Albert Ellis said the job of therapist was to ‘cherchez le should,’ look for the implied or articulated should in counselling discourse. Our client has developed a few should beliefs that need urgent attention.

We agree that she has a firm conviction that she should always minister to others (I need to be needed) that she is a good person in doing good and that others should recognise that she is a good person for doing good. When she doesn’t get her just rewards she feels bad (they should acknowledge me!)

In a nutshell Ellis would say in his inimitable way that she is a love slob where the need to be needed reigns supreme over rational thought.

And so the work begins:

•      Challenge her ‘need to be needed’ philosophy (where’s the evidence that supports this? Do you need an ambulance if someone takes umbrage if you assert want you want/prefer/say no?)
•      Work on unconditionally accepting herself (I affirm of myself). Don’t give others consent to diminish you!
•      Practise, practise, practise thinking rational self (and other) helpful thinking until they become automatic habits, characteristic of her new and confident self.

I am always aware that my interactions with others help me to hone my own counselling skills and I am grateful for these opportunities. It takes courage to reach out to another for assistance and I value that privilege. My clients are my teachers and they gift me the chance to become better at what I do. I’m getting closer to where Einstein says I can be, explaining in simple terms what I know!

 Isn’t that what teaching’s all about?

Parenting and Mental Health - be careful of what you say!

The young student was sure he was a bad kid. ‘How do you know that?’ I asked. ‘I make my mum angry all the time’ he said. ‘Tell me about the last time you made her angry’ I enquired. ‘The other day when I wouldn't brush my teeth. I wanted to watch the TV longer and she got madder and madder. It’s my fault. She said I made her mad. My mum would be happier if I was a good kid.’

I'm a bad kid!

This is typical of this student who believes he’s bad based on the evidence he has had before him. What evidence might that be? What sense (or non-sense) has he made from his experiences to date? What conclusions has he drawn about himself, others and the worlds (life)? Not very helpful or healthy ones it would appear!

Constructivist theory would say that our young subject has constructed some unhelpful ‘habits of thinking and believing’ and he has concluded:

• He is bad because he does bad things (I don’t like me)
• He makes his mum mad (She doesn’t like me)

Where do you start, counselling wise with this young and intelligent student? What thinking/believing rules does he possess that accounts for his ongoing anger and depression?

Let’s consider the ‘I am bad’ theory. He has made and makes poor choices. We can call those choices bad if we like but he is not bad as he believes he must be. He will feel depressed about this unless he learns how:

For the child

• His thinking is connected to how he feels and behave
• Some thinking rules are not helpful (irrational)
• To dispute/challenge those habits of thinking

Knowing this and believing it i.e. ‘I am not my behaviour I am OK but my behaviour isn’t’ takes a bit of effort and he can’t do this by himself. He needs help.

Let's think about this

For the parent

• Stop telling him he is bad/naughty/a pain – he is none of these
• He does not make you mad. Take responsibility for how you feel and behave - you make you mad!
• Start using feedback that is behaviour specific and avoid global rating terms like naughty/lazy/bad/good
• Work on your own self-worth and tell the child what you are doing e.g. ‘I am practising my helpful thinking rule of I’m OK even if I make a mistake. I am reminding myself about this.’
• Tell him that your love for him is unconditional and never at question

The kind (quality) of language used in interactions between parent and child is critical as briefly outlined above. Be warned that children will start to rate themselves good or bad if they conflate behaviour with being – they are not what they do!

I am not what I do. I'm OK!