Seamus is a competitive person who likes to win. He regards himself as an intelligent person who is ‘the best’ student in the class. He settles for nothing less than an ‘A’ in his work and has grand plans for his future education and career. He derides other student’s efforts and will declare to them that he is the ‘smartest in the class.’ He is known for the odd put down, telling others how ‘retarded’ they are.
His peers tolerate his conceit and suffer his company in playground activities. He doesn’t appear to be aware that others may not be comfortable around him at times as he continues to declare his superiority over all others.
The above is problematic for himself, his peers and the school community as Seamus has a severe anger management problem. He is moody at the best of times and becomes enraged too readily. Why?
According to REBT (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy) he may have constructed a set of core beliefs (rules) that determine how he responds emotionally and behaviourally in certain situations. His rules are:
‘I must absolutely achieve my goals (or I am a failure).’
‘I must prove to everyone how competent I am.’
‘It is awful when others do better than me.’
‘I absolutely must have the approval of significant others.’
These rules are debilitating as Seamus strives for perfection and the approval of others. He is highly anxious about how he is perceived (‘the smartest’) by others and is badly aggrieved when he doesn’t get the attention he believes he must have.
How then can this student be supported in the school setting?
1. Introduce all students to Dr. Albert Ellis’ ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance – feelings, thinking and actions are all interconnected.
2. Teach that there are helpful rules and unhelpful rules that we have constructed over time, which determine the behavioural choices we make.
3. Teach words that represent the broad spectrum of emotions that we feel and explain that extreme unhealthy negative emotions are linked to irrational thinking (the unhelpful rules we construct) and that healthy negative emotions e.g. annoyed are linked to rational thinking (the helpful rules we construct). Use the Emotional Thermometer to illustrate this.
4. Teach students about the Catastrophe Scale to help them put into perspective the ‘badness’ of situations they encounter. Is losing a pencil as bad as breaking a leg for instance?
5. Invite children to discuss and suggest why a ‘must’ belief is self-defeating and a ‘preference’ rule is self-helpful.
As a class examine and deconstruct the validity or otherwise of ‘must’ statements and ‘preference’ statements. The following is an example of how this can be done.
- A year 6/7 class is introduced to the ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance and the emotional thermometer and catastrophe scale. Students talk about extreme unhealthy negative emotions like depressed, anxious, enraged and healthy negative emotions like disappointed, upset, and concerned. They talk about the kinds of thinking/beliefs that underpin such feelings and associated actions.
- Talk about feelings of rage and depression and their association with the core belief that ‘I must absolutely always achieve my goals and when I don’t it is a catastrophe and so awful I can’t stand it. I am a failure.’
- Students discuss why this ‘core rule’ is self -defeating (makes extreme negative feelings and poor behavioural choices).
- They then suggest reasons why this is so i.e. they challenge the veracity of this belief in the light of the evidence.
- They are invited to talk about helpful thinking e.g. ‘I would prefer to do well but it is hardly so awful that I can’t stand it and I am always worthwhile.’ They then explore why this is a rational belief and why the evidence supports this view.
Previous blogs have explored other important teaching items like Unconditional Self Acceptance, which helps the individual manage difficult situations like failure and rejection in a healthy way.
Seamus’ tendency to experience rage in situations where he does not achieve to his lofty standards and to harshly criticise those ‘lesser mortals’ who don’t measure up to his superior capabilities is cause for concern. This can be addressed as a whole school by introducing Rational Emotive Behaviour Education as follows:
1. All teachers and support staff are trained in Albert Ellis’ ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy).
2. All staff is trained in the application of REBE through Giulio’s tried and tested SIX ESSENTIAL STEPS TO EMOTIONAL and BEHAVIOURAL WELL BEING.
If you are interested to find out more about Rational Emotive Behaviour Education contact Giulio on 0412668815 or by email borto1@chariot.net.au.
‘As a highly skilled exponent of Rational Emotive Behaviour Education, Giulio has repeatedly demonstrated the value of his work in helping school children to cope more effectively with interpersonal conflicts, including bullying and harassment. His work is well supported by research that he and I have undertaken with Australian schoolchildren and presented together at national conferences.’
Dr. Ken Rigby, Adjunct Professor, University of South Australia
Friday, 17 December 2010
Friday, 12 November 2010
Musturbating Ed and Cool Al!
Edwin had had an unsuccessful recess. He had been involved in an altercation with two others regarding a basketball game. The two other kids were playing one on one and had enough players. Edwin didn’t react too well when he was told he couldn’t join in.
Albert on the other hand had approached the two basketballers earlier and asked the same question as Edwin. When told he couldn’t join in he watched the game a while and then moved on.
When asked why he did what he did, Edwin protested that the two boys made him angry and it was their fault that he kicked the ball away because they didn’t let him join in.
According to Dr. Albert Ellis’ ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance Edwin believes that A, someone or something, makes him do and feel as he does. He is yet to understand the relationship B (what he believes) has with C (how he feels and behaves).
According to Edwin’s view of the world he is not responsible for his feelings and actions (they made me angry) and feels justified in what he did (kicked the ball away). He came to the attention of the supervising teacher and was reprimanded accordingly. What is his rule for living? What are his core beliefs about himself, others and the world in general?
Albert responded in a different way to the same scenario. Did he lose his temper and kick the ball away? No. He accepted that he couldn’t join in and moved on to other things. There were no reprimands as Albert’s actions were not hurtful to others as he dealt with the situation appropriately.
Edwin is known to react in challenging situations. He is quick to anger and blames others, things events for how he feels. The world and all its inhabitants are at fault - never he! Edwin would like all the hassles, people he doesn’t like, things he is responsible for to be removed from his life so he can be happy. Woe is he as the world conspires against him, rendering him a hapless victim of circumstance. How did this happen? (Refer to previous posts).
Albert on the other hand rarely acts without forethought. He is generally calm and will healthily feel annoyed and disappointed when things don’t go his way. He doesn’t stew over things and tends to get on with others and seems to be happy in his own skin. He is doing well at school, meeting challenges with reasonable optimism and doesn’t take failure too much to heart. Others respect him and he has a circle of good friends.
What are the rules that underpin the actions (behavioural choices) and emotions of these two young people? The situation is the same but the outcomes are different. How so?
Edwin and Albert have different views on life, different rules for living. Edwin finds himself battling to cope a lot of the time and Albert seems to navigate the tough times in a more reasonable manner.
Edwin’s rule:
‘I must get what I want. When I don’t, it’s so awful that I can’t stand it.’
His unrealistic expectations of himself, others and the world contrive against him. “IT”, (the world, things and others) are not driving his actions and emotions, he is! He thinks those kids should absolutely allow him to join in the game. They don’t and therefore it’s their fault he feels so bad and acts aggressively.
Albert’s rule:
‘I prefer to get my way but I don’t absolutely have to. I can handle difficult situations. I can stand it.’
Albert therefore is inclined to annoyance and disappointment (healthy negative emotions) rather than rage and extreme sadness (unhealthy negative emotions). He believes those kids don’t have to let him join in. He doesn’t turn a small problem into a catastrophe; it’s an inconvenience but not the end of the world.
Implications for teaching practice
• Teach students about the think feel do connection.
• Talk about ‘rules for living’ as discussed above – why is one helpful and the other not?
• Challenge the rationality of these rules – why is one rational and the other not?
• Remind students that when they act and feel in a way that causes self and/or other harm (e.g. petulant Edwin had to sit out because he disrupted the basketball game) an irrational rule is at work.
• Reinforce those behaviours in children that suggest preference thinking- the student who accepts that she can’t go on the computer as scheduled for instance.
• Talk about helpful and unhelpful personal rules in day-to-day interactions. Decide which rule is helpful e.g. ‘I must be chosen to be the library monitor.’ Or ‘I’d like to be library monitor, but there are others who would like to be also.’ What are the consequences for each (behaviorally and emotionally) if neither gets their wish?
• Remind students that their worth is not determined by how well or badly they do or how others view them (approval/disapproval).
• Pose questions for students to ponder such as: How does ‘it’ make you angry? What is ‘it’? Why does ‘it’ not make others angry?
Rational Emotive Behaviour Education will give schools the capacity to support students to manage their potentially destructive behaviours and emotions. It will reinforce those attitudes and beliefs that are self/other helpful (rational).
Albert on the other hand had approached the two basketballers earlier and asked the same question as Edwin. When told he couldn’t join in he watched the game a while and then moved on.
When asked why he did what he did, Edwin protested that the two boys made him angry and it was their fault that he kicked the ball away because they didn’t let him join in.
According to Dr. Albert Ellis’ ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance Edwin believes that A, someone or something, makes him do and feel as he does. He is yet to understand the relationship B (what he believes) has with C (how he feels and behaves).
According to Edwin’s view of the world he is not responsible for his feelings and actions (they made me angry) and feels justified in what he did (kicked the ball away). He came to the attention of the supervising teacher and was reprimanded accordingly. What is his rule for living? What are his core beliefs about himself, others and the world in general?
Albert responded in a different way to the same scenario. Did he lose his temper and kick the ball away? No. He accepted that he couldn’t join in and moved on to other things. There were no reprimands as Albert’s actions were not hurtful to others as he dealt with the situation appropriately.
Edwin is known to react in challenging situations. He is quick to anger and blames others, things events for how he feels. The world and all its inhabitants are at fault - never he! Edwin would like all the hassles, people he doesn’t like, things he is responsible for to be removed from his life so he can be happy. Woe is he as the world conspires against him, rendering him a hapless victim of circumstance. How did this happen? (Refer to previous posts).
Edwin’s Lament
Anger holds sway
When I don’t get my way
And I despair
It’s just not fair!
Albert on the other hand rarely acts without forethought. He is generally calm and will healthily feel annoyed and disappointed when things don’t go his way. He doesn’t stew over things and tends to get on with others and seems to be happy in his own skin. He is doing well at school, meeting challenges with reasonable optimism and doesn’t take failure too much to heart. Others respect him and he has a circle of good friends.
Albert’s View
I may not always get my way
And that’s quite ok
No need to despair
Sometimes life’s not fair!
What are the rules that underpin the actions (behavioural choices) and emotions of these two young people? The situation is the same but the outcomes are different. How so?
Edwin and Albert have different views on life, different rules for living. Edwin finds himself battling to cope a lot of the time and Albert seems to navigate the tough times in a more reasonable manner.
Edwin’s rule:
‘I must get what I want. When I don’t, it’s so awful that I can’t stand it.’
His unrealistic expectations of himself, others and the world contrive against him. “IT”, (the world, things and others) are not driving his actions and emotions, he is! He thinks those kids should absolutely allow him to join in the game. They don’t and therefore it’s their fault he feels so bad and acts aggressively.
Albert’s rule:
‘I prefer to get my way but I don’t absolutely have to. I can handle difficult situations. I can stand it.’
Albert therefore is inclined to annoyance and disappointment (healthy negative emotions) rather than rage and extreme sadness (unhealthy negative emotions). He believes those kids don’t have to let him join in. He doesn’t turn a small problem into a catastrophe; it’s an inconvenience but not the end of the world.
Implications for teaching practice
• Teach students about the think feel do connection.
• Talk about ‘rules for living’ as discussed above – why is one helpful and the other not?
• Challenge the rationality of these rules – why is one rational and the other not?
• Remind students that when they act and feel in a way that causes self and/or other harm (e.g. petulant Edwin had to sit out because he disrupted the basketball game) an irrational rule is at work.
• Reinforce those behaviours in children that suggest preference thinking- the student who accepts that she can’t go on the computer as scheduled for instance.
• Talk about helpful and unhelpful personal rules in day-to-day interactions. Decide which rule is helpful e.g. ‘I must be chosen to be the library monitor.’ Or ‘I’d like to be library monitor, but there are others who would like to be also.’ What are the consequences for each (behaviorally and emotionally) if neither gets their wish?
• Remind students that their worth is not determined by how well or badly they do or how others view them (approval/disapproval).
• Pose questions for students to ponder such as: How does ‘it’ make you angry? What is ‘it’? Why does ‘it’ not make others angry?
Rational Emotive Behaviour Education will give schools the capacity to support students to manage their potentially destructive behaviours and emotions. It will reinforce those attitudes and beliefs that are self/other helpful (rational).
Sunday, 24 October 2010
Strategies for Breaking Approval Dependence (BAD)
You have Serious Approval Dependence (SAD) and you know how you got it! By dint of your biological inheritance and how you were socialised you have constructed the very debilitating core belief that your worth depends on how others view you or how well you perform in your work, study, sex etc. If you have concocted this warped and destructive belief then you can deconstruct it and replace it with USA, Unconditional Self Acceptance. How do you do this? By self-awareness, vigilance and hard work, that’s how!
1. Know how you are feeling.
2. Understand that your feelings and behaviour are connected to your thinking.
3. Identify your habits of believing.
4. Decide whether or not your thinking is helpful, rational.
5. Challenge your beliefs with vigour.
6. Be forever vigilant.
Activating event (A)
You are a member of a parent group at your child’s school and you are generally happy to sit and listen at meetings. There are times when you have been inclined to say something about an issue of interest to you but you always stop yourself from saying what you want to say. You notice how anxious you feel; your heart races and you begin to sweat a little. You stop yourself from commenting as the opportunity goes by, and you castigate yourself for wimping out. Typical you think.
Is this scenario a repeat of many over the years where opportunity has gone begging and been missed, when the nettle was there to be grasped and you chose to avoid it. Is this a case of Serious Approval Dependence (SAD)? You bet it is and it’s nigh time you had a one on one with your enemy YOU!
How do you feel and act (C)?
Strategy one: Identify how you were feeling around the time you wanted to say something and how strong? (8/10 anxious). Determine whether this is a healthy negative emotion or a helpful one – does it help or hinder you achieving what you want? Answer: Not healthy because you didn’t do what you wanted to do, share your ideas with the group.
What are you thinking (B)?
Strategy two: Identify your self-talk at the time, what were you saying to yourself? Answer: ‘if I make a mistake, what would they think of me? My views are not that important, they seem more knowledgeable than me. It would be awful if I sounded confused or hesitant. I couldn’t stand it if they thought badly of me.’ This is irrational as it is stopping you from doing what you want to do.
Challenge your thinking (D)
Strategy three: Identify a particular statement and challenge it’s veracity (start a diary and record how you thought, felt and acted in various situations). Lets consider the statement:
‘I couldn’t stand it if they thought badly of me.’
Q. If they disagreed with my views would that equate to them damning me as a person?
A. No. A particular viewpoint is not ‘me’. I am more than what I say.
Q. If they disagreed with me would it be ‘so awful that I couldn’t stand it!’
A. No. It would hardly be catastrophic that someone would disagree with me. Breaking my leg could possibly be worse but even that is not catastrophic or so awful that I couldn’t stand it.
Q. Must others always agree with me? Should they see things as I do for me to be worthwhile?
A. Of course not. My worth is not at question here; my ideas and views may be but they are not ‘me’.
Q. Do I need others to agree with me for me to be worthwhile?
A. No. My worth is not given to me and cannot be taken away. I can only be worth – less if I believe I absolutely must have the approval of others to be worthwhile. I am worthwhile because I exist not because someone else thinks I am!
Q. What benefits could I gain by risking the disapproval of others?
A. I will see that the sun will rise again and the birds will continue to twitter in the treetops. Those who care for me and approve of me unconditionally will continue to do so. Even if I stumble and stutter I will not drop dead. I can practice my public speaking skills if I choose to do so. I will accept that sometimes I will stuff up because I am human and that’s what humans do.
Q. What will happen if I continue not to risk the disapproval of others?
A. I will perpetuate the mythological belief that somehow others views of me determine my worth. I will continue to practice Serious Approval Dependence and remain a ‘wall flower’ at the ball, waiting for someone to pick me!
Eleanor Roosevelt said
No one can make you feel inferior without your permission.
Don’t give anyone or anything permission to determine whether you are worthwhile or not. You don’t need it, you exist and that’s that!
1. Know how you are feeling.
2. Understand that your feelings and behaviour are connected to your thinking.
3. Identify your habits of believing.
4. Decide whether or not your thinking is helpful, rational.
5. Challenge your beliefs with vigour.
6. Be forever vigilant.
Activating event (A)
You are a member of a parent group at your child’s school and you are generally happy to sit and listen at meetings. There are times when you have been inclined to say something about an issue of interest to you but you always stop yourself from saying what you want to say. You notice how anxious you feel; your heart races and you begin to sweat a little. You stop yourself from commenting as the opportunity goes by, and you castigate yourself for wimping out. Typical you think.
Is this scenario a repeat of many over the years where opportunity has gone begging and been missed, when the nettle was there to be grasped and you chose to avoid it. Is this a case of Serious Approval Dependence (SAD)? You bet it is and it’s nigh time you had a one on one with your enemy YOU!
How do you feel and act (C)?
Strategy one: Identify how you were feeling around the time you wanted to say something and how strong? (8/10 anxious). Determine whether this is a healthy negative emotion or a helpful one – does it help or hinder you achieving what you want? Answer: Not healthy because you didn’t do what you wanted to do, share your ideas with the group.
What are you thinking (B)?
Strategy two: Identify your self-talk at the time, what were you saying to yourself? Answer: ‘if I make a mistake, what would they think of me? My views are not that important, they seem more knowledgeable than me. It would be awful if I sounded confused or hesitant. I couldn’t stand it if they thought badly of me.’ This is irrational as it is stopping you from doing what you want to do.
Challenge your thinking (D)
Strategy three: Identify a particular statement and challenge it’s veracity (start a diary and record how you thought, felt and acted in various situations). Lets consider the statement:
‘I couldn’t stand it if they thought badly of me.’
Q. If they disagreed with my views would that equate to them damning me as a person?
A. No. A particular viewpoint is not ‘me’. I am more than what I say.
Q. If they disagreed with me would it be ‘so awful that I couldn’t stand it!’
A. No. It would hardly be catastrophic that someone would disagree with me. Breaking my leg could possibly be worse but even that is not catastrophic or so awful that I couldn’t stand it.
Q. Must others always agree with me? Should they see things as I do for me to be worthwhile?
A. Of course not. My worth is not at question here; my ideas and views may be but they are not ‘me’.
Q. Do I need others to agree with me for me to be worthwhile?
A. No. My worth is not given to me and cannot be taken away. I can only be worth – less if I believe I absolutely must have the approval of others to be worthwhile. I am worthwhile because I exist not because someone else thinks I am!
Q. What benefits could I gain by risking the disapproval of others?
A. I will see that the sun will rise again and the birds will continue to twitter in the treetops. Those who care for me and approve of me unconditionally will continue to do so. Even if I stumble and stutter I will not drop dead. I can practice my public speaking skills if I choose to do so. I will accept that sometimes I will stuff up because I am human and that’s what humans do.
Q. What will happen if I continue not to risk the disapproval of others?
A. I will perpetuate the mythological belief that somehow others views of me determine my worth. I will continue to practice Serious Approval Dependence and remain a ‘wall flower’ at the ball, waiting for someone to pick me!
Eleanor Roosevelt said
No one can make you feel inferior without your permission.
Don’t give anyone or anything permission to determine whether you are worthwhile or not. You don’t need it, you exist and that’s that!
Friday, 8 October 2010
Breaking Approval Dependence (BAD)
Approval addict, empath, love slob, approvalist, co dependent, need junkie are terms that come to mind to describe those who suffer from conditional self-acceptance (CSA). Dr. Albert Ellis’ REBT explains that when an individual has a compulsive need to secure another’s approval it is self defeating. The antidote is unconditional self-acceptance (USA).
USA - the belief that self worth is not diminished by failure or rejection i.e. I have failed= I am not a failure. I have been rejected = I am not a reject (I am always worthwhile).
Roses are red
Violets are blue
I’d like you to like me
But I don’t need you to!
CSA- the belief that self worth is diminished by failure and rejection i.e. I have failed = I am a failure. I have been rejected = I am a reject (I’m worthwhile if you think I am).
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Please like me
As I need you to!
Where do we start to help the person who needs to be needed, who absolutely must have the approval of significant others? If she seeks help this would be a useful place to start. She may be aware that she has a help compulsion that is both self defeating and also not helpful to others (deny them opportunities to do for themselves for instance). She may say that she feels anxious a lot of the time and is obsessive about doing excellent work and helping others too readily, even when there doesn’t seem to be enough hours in the day to fit everything in. You may ask what is wrong with wanting to do excellent work? Nothing at all if you don’t damn yourself when things don’t turn out as you believe they must! The perfectionist believes failing to do things perfectly equates to being a failure, being imperfect and that’s terrible! She may say she feels angry when others don’t acknowledge her appropriately as she believes they should. She may also comment on others who may not do things properly or who aren’t capable enough and who therefore need to be rescued. Who else can do things better and is more capable of doing the job? She is of course.
She may relate that in childhood she never seemed to do the right thing and was never good enough. Her dad would say that she was hopeless and her siblings were favoured over her (her sister was better, prettier). She tried so hard to get the approval of her dad but she never seemed to measure up. (I must try harder! I’m such a failure!) She learned that she was not worth much if her dad didn’t think she was. She believed if her dad didn’t approve of her then she was unworthy and worthless. She had developed Sustained Habits of Inflexible Thinking Syndrome and one such habit was to believe that her worth absolutely depended on the approval of significant others. More flexible and realistic thinking can accommodate her very human tendency to make mistakes and to deal with rejection in a healthy way such as believing that her worth is not given to her or taken away by others. She can work on Flexible and Realistic Thinking Skills.
Counselling scenario excerpt.
Cl = client Cr=counsellor
Cl: My colleague makes me so angry. He doesn’t show me any gratitude for what I do.
Cr: You say your colleague makes you angry and that he doesn’t appreciate your work.
Cl: Exactly. I only want to make things easier. I am just helping. He should be more gracious.
Cr: So your colleague is making you angry because he doesn’t show you his appreciation as you think he should?
Cl: He is so unprofessional and disrespectful.
Cr: Can you give me an example of something you have done for him?
Cl: I organised a meeting for clients and made sure that refreshments were available. I prepared a program and everything!
Cr: Was he not happy with what he asked you to do?
Cl: He didn’t ask me. That’s the point. I did it so that he wouldn’t have to do it. He’s so ungrateful.
Cr: So what would make things better for you? What would help you feel better?
Cl: He should acknowledge my efforts and appreciate the things I do. I am so unappreciated and it’s not fair!
Albert Ellis’ ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance explains that behavioural and emotional disturbance (C) is generated by the bullshit we tell ourselves (B) not because of the activating event i.e. what happens (A). The client above is clearly blaming her feelings and actions on A, the unfair colleague who doesn’t appreciate her. You can hear the blame in statements like: ‘He makes me so angry.’ How does he make her angry? Is she not in some way responsible? It would be very unfortunate if others always determined how she felt and behaved. Do others control her? Clearly she is not taking responsibility for her actions and emotions. So what is making these feelings of anger and depression? Is her colleague the culprit? Is he to blame?
Ellis’ ABC model incorporated B, the beliefs we hold to be true. Our client above has constructed a set of rules for life (B) and the question is what are they? Are they helpful?
The excerpt above contains key words that tell us what our clients’ rules are. You may have noticed some ‘shoulds’ dispersed throughout the dialogue.
‘He should be more gracious.’
‘He should acknowledge my efforts and appreciate the things I do.’
This kind of thinking is irrational in the sense that no matter how much you demand something the reality is you may never get what you want. What’s the use of demanding what you can’t have? Now you can healthily prefer that your colleague gives you his approval but that is different to demanding it. Her rule is:
‘People I respect absolutely should treat me well.’
You may also have noticed that our client is damning her colleague in absolute global rating terms like:
‘He is so unprofessional and disrespectful.’
His actions may be deemed unprofessional and disrespectful but is he unprofessional and disrespectful? He is and he does are different terms with different meanings. Our client is making a judgement that her colleague is bad for doing bad. Her rule is:
‘He should acknowledge me and because he doesn’t he is unprofessional and disrespectful.’
Our client also shows signs of low frustration tolerance because she is not getting what she must have. Consider:
‘I am so unappreciated and it’s not fair!’
It would appear that when she doesn’t get what she needs and must have she can’t stand it and it is awful. Her rule is:
‘When I don’t get what I must have (his approval) I can’t stand it and it it’s awful.’
An REBC (Rational Emotive Behaviour Counsellor) would help the client understand the B-C link, B meaning the thinking that drives the behaviour and emotions (anger/hostility) at C. Whilst there are a few irrational core beliefs that can be challenged as outlined above the one to focus on as a priority is the clients belief that:
‘I need the approval of others to be worthwhile.’
To be continued ….
USA - the belief that self worth is not diminished by failure or rejection i.e. I have failed= I am not a failure. I have been rejected = I am not a reject (I am always worthwhile).
Roses are red
Violets are blue
I’d like you to like me
But I don’t need you to!
CSA- the belief that self worth is diminished by failure and rejection i.e. I have failed = I am a failure. I have been rejected = I am a reject (I’m worthwhile if you think I am).
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Please like me
As I need you to!
Where do we start to help the person who needs to be needed, who absolutely must have the approval of significant others? If she seeks help this would be a useful place to start. She may be aware that she has a help compulsion that is both self defeating and also not helpful to others (deny them opportunities to do for themselves for instance). She may say that she feels anxious a lot of the time and is obsessive about doing excellent work and helping others too readily, even when there doesn’t seem to be enough hours in the day to fit everything in. You may ask what is wrong with wanting to do excellent work? Nothing at all if you don’t damn yourself when things don’t turn out as you believe they must! The perfectionist believes failing to do things perfectly equates to being a failure, being imperfect and that’s terrible! She may say she feels angry when others don’t acknowledge her appropriately as she believes they should. She may also comment on others who may not do things properly or who aren’t capable enough and who therefore need to be rescued. Who else can do things better and is more capable of doing the job? She is of course.
She may relate that in childhood she never seemed to do the right thing and was never good enough. Her dad would say that she was hopeless and her siblings were favoured over her (her sister was better, prettier). She tried so hard to get the approval of her dad but she never seemed to measure up. (I must try harder! I’m such a failure!) She learned that she was not worth much if her dad didn’t think she was. She believed if her dad didn’t approve of her then she was unworthy and worthless. She had developed Sustained Habits of Inflexible Thinking Syndrome and one such habit was to believe that her worth absolutely depended on the approval of significant others. More flexible and realistic thinking can accommodate her very human tendency to make mistakes and to deal with rejection in a healthy way such as believing that her worth is not given to her or taken away by others. She can work on Flexible and Realistic Thinking Skills.
Counselling scenario excerpt.
Cl = client Cr=counsellor
Cl: My colleague makes me so angry. He doesn’t show me any gratitude for what I do.
Cr: You say your colleague makes you angry and that he doesn’t appreciate your work.
Cl: Exactly. I only want to make things easier. I am just helping. He should be more gracious.
Cr: So your colleague is making you angry because he doesn’t show you his appreciation as you think he should?
Cl: He is so unprofessional and disrespectful.
Cr: Can you give me an example of something you have done for him?
Cl: I organised a meeting for clients and made sure that refreshments were available. I prepared a program and everything!
Cr: Was he not happy with what he asked you to do?
Cl: He didn’t ask me. That’s the point. I did it so that he wouldn’t have to do it. He’s so ungrateful.
Cr: So what would make things better for you? What would help you feel better?
Cl: He should acknowledge my efforts and appreciate the things I do. I am so unappreciated and it’s not fair!
Albert Ellis’ ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance explains that behavioural and emotional disturbance (C) is generated by the bullshit we tell ourselves (B) not because of the activating event i.e. what happens (A). The client above is clearly blaming her feelings and actions on A, the unfair colleague who doesn’t appreciate her. You can hear the blame in statements like: ‘He makes me so angry.’ How does he make her angry? Is she not in some way responsible? It would be very unfortunate if others always determined how she felt and behaved. Do others control her? Clearly she is not taking responsibility for her actions and emotions. So what is making these feelings of anger and depression? Is her colleague the culprit? Is he to blame?
Ellis’ ABC model incorporated B, the beliefs we hold to be true. Our client above has constructed a set of rules for life (B) and the question is what are they? Are they helpful?
The excerpt above contains key words that tell us what our clients’ rules are. You may have noticed some ‘shoulds’ dispersed throughout the dialogue.
‘He should be more gracious.’
‘He should acknowledge my efforts and appreciate the things I do.’
This kind of thinking is irrational in the sense that no matter how much you demand something the reality is you may never get what you want. What’s the use of demanding what you can’t have? Now you can healthily prefer that your colleague gives you his approval but that is different to demanding it. Her rule is:
‘People I respect absolutely should treat me well.’
You may also have noticed that our client is damning her colleague in absolute global rating terms like:
‘He is so unprofessional and disrespectful.’
His actions may be deemed unprofessional and disrespectful but is he unprofessional and disrespectful? He is and he does are different terms with different meanings. Our client is making a judgement that her colleague is bad for doing bad. Her rule is:
‘He should acknowledge me and because he doesn’t he is unprofessional and disrespectful.’
Our client also shows signs of low frustration tolerance because she is not getting what she must have. Consider:
‘I am so unappreciated and it’s not fair!’
It would appear that when she doesn’t get what she needs and must have she can’t stand it and it is awful. Her rule is:
‘When I don’t get what I must have (his approval) I can’t stand it and it it’s awful.’
An REBC (Rational Emotive Behaviour Counsellor) would help the client understand the B-C link, B meaning the thinking that drives the behaviour and emotions (anger/hostility) at C. Whilst there are a few irrational core beliefs that can be challenged as outlined above the one to focus on as a priority is the clients belief that:
‘I need the approval of others to be worthwhile.’
To be continued ….
Monday, 4 October 2010
APPROVALISM – the philosophy of the ‘love slob’
An approvalist is one who practices the philosophy of Approvalism. An approvalist lives life for the service of others seemingly without thought for self, ministering to the needs of others, making life ‘better’ for them. A good approvalist needs to do for others and her worth is measured according to how others view her and how helpful she can be to others. Approvalists say ‘yes’ to others demands and requests and are ultra sensitive to the needs of others (they must be rescued and saved). If they don’t perform to their own lofty expectations or (quelle catastrophe!) others don’t seem to value them (as they should) then they tend to harshly judge themselves as being ‘bad’ and may down themselves harshly! They will think, ‘I should have known that he needed support. I should have been there. I should have done better. I am a loser. It’s my fault he is in such a mess.’ They may also experience deep anger and direct it towards those ‘who do not appreciate me, after all shouldn’t they be grateful for what I am doing for them?’ (‘They are not good like me they are bad!’).
The approvalist has a ‘help’ compulsion, seeking out others to help even when not invited to. They tend to over empathise with the other, feeling what they feel, experiencing ‘their pain’. Such ‘empaths’ seek to be continuously approved of. They will forever revisit the bottomless ‘well of approval’ as each fix of affirmation is never enough. They don’t believe that they are that worthy of others appreciation and will find it difficult to accept their thanks and praise.
Why would this be so? How could it be that a person would become so dependent on others for their quick and fleeting ‘feel good’ fix? How does one become an approval junkie?
Dr Albert Ellis, the creator of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy refers to ‘love slobbism’ to describe a person’s self-defeating tendency to think they need the approval of others to be worthwhile. This behaviour is driven by a ‘must’ or a ‘should’ belief based philosophy internalised over years of socialisation amid role models who may have themselves suffered the debilitating effects of ‘musturbation’ i.e. ‘My son/daughter should always ‘make’ me proud and they should always be highly regarded by others. They must not let me down as that would shame me.’ If any of these irrational demands are not met it’s considered to be catastrophic and awful, so awful ‘it cannot be tolerated.’
The approvalist has been taught as a young person that she is 'good' when she does good. When she does as she is told, follows instructions and conforms to rules and expectations she is rewarded and she feels good. She works hard at school and gets good grades but when they are sometimes not good enough, she feels she has let others down and she must try harder next time so they will be pleased. She believes doing bad is being bad!
'The codependent-in-training is taught to walk on eggshells. To ensure survival, the child learns to be extraordinarily sensitive in reading the moods and thoughts of others. The child learns very early to pay attention to and tiptoe around the dysfunctional family members - at the child's expense. These interactions take place silently, implicitly. The child learns to ignore the self's inner needs, instead pretending that all is OK.' Why Be Codependent? by Dr. Irene Matiatos
Her mentors comment on the behaviour of others, expressing approval when they behave correctly, as they should do. They will scoff at those who don’t behave accordingly and may judge them unfairly. They may even feel angry and aggressive when someone happens to be driving in ‘their’ lane on the highway or feel unfairly treated if the person they open the door for does not acknowledge them as they should!
She will notice how her mentors will feel aggrieved when things don’t go their way. The weather, the government, their in-laws etc appear the ‘make’ them so unhappy. She will be harshly criticised when she doesn’t live up to the expectations of her role models and may be compared to other siblings who ‘always do the right thing.’ She will try harder to be the person others want her to be because she believes her value is dependent on the views of others.
In time our subject will have constructed a set of philosophical beliefs that will undermine her efforts to be happy and successful. She believes she must achieve the lofty goals she sets herself, she must meet others approval (or she is hopeless/worthless/a dud). She will often feel overly anxious as she tries to solve the problems of others who must be saved (as she is the only one who can save them!)
The approvalist has learned to be co-dependent, needing, not preferring the approval of significant others. She needs someone to need her, someone to rescue and to depend on her, someone who needs to be needed. If someone needs her then she can indulge her own need to needed. Co-dependency …
'… is a dysfunctional relationship with the self characterized by living through or for another, attempts to control others, blaming others, a sense of victimization, attempts to "fix" others, and intense anxiety around intimacy.' http://www.veteransoftruth.com
REBT deems this irrational to the extreme, as the person who has this affliction will feel and act in ways that are self-defeating. She will continue to be at risk as long as she believes that her worth is inextricably linked to the approval of others. What are the options for the approvalist to rehabilitate herself? How can she be delivered from self-sabotaging Conditional Self Acceptance to the light of self helpful Unconditional Self Acceptance?
The approvalist may question how she feels when she doesn’t get the recognition she ‘must’ have. Or maybe not as she may already ‘know’ that she feels angry because a significant other has made her angry. Maybe she doesn’t know at all why she feels as she feels as her only focus has been on others feelings and never her own. She perhaps will direct anger at them either overtly and/or passively. After all someone else has made her angry and therefore he/she deserves to be treated accordingly. What makes her anxious or angry? It is those who don’t agree with her, who don’t acknowledge her, as she believes they should! They are not feeding her addiction to be needed or approved and are therefore a threat to her well being. If they are making her feel this way then it would be logical to remove them from her environment (if they are not there they can’t hurt her however this is not a practical option). Just like a splinter makes inflammation and infection, just remove the splinter and all is well!
Alas physical hurt and emotional hurt are different. In a physical sense if I pinch you, you feel hurt and this would be true of the majority of people. If I don’t acknowledge you, you may feel some degree of emotional hurt. An approvalist will experience more extreme emotional discomfort than a person who is not when they don’t win the approval of significant others. Why? Because the approvalist needs approval and the self-accepting person does not! If the belief that ‘I need the approval of others to be worthwhile’ can be constructed over time then it can be deconstructed and replaced with Unconditional Self Acceptance and as Dr Albert Ellis would say this will deliver the sufferer from the despair of ‘shithood’ to the hope of ‘self worthyness.’
Whilst the co dependent has learned over time to control others and her environment and minister to the needs of others she could now turn her attention to something that has been hitherto ignored: her needs.
This is a major undertaking and the beginning of a journey that will require a lot of hard work and support to get well. The process will be enlightening and challenging and will be explored in a blog to be posted soon.
The approvalist has a ‘help’ compulsion, seeking out others to help even when not invited to. They tend to over empathise with the other, feeling what they feel, experiencing ‘their pain’. Such ‘empaths’ seek to be continuously approved of. They will forever revisit the bottomless ‘well of approval’ as each fix of affirmation is never enough. They don’t believe that they are that worthy of others appreciation and will find it difficult to accept their thanks and praise.
Why would this be so? How could it be that a person would become so dependent on others for their quick and fleeting ‘feel good’ fix? How does one become an approval junkie?
Dr Albert Ellis, the creator of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy refers to ‘love slobbism’ to describe a person’s self-defeating tendency to think they need the approval of others to be worthwhile. This behaviour is driven by a ‘must’ or a ‘should’ belief based philosophy internalised over years of socialisation amid role models who may have themselves suffered the debilitating effects of ‘musturbation’ i.e. ‘My son/daughter should always ‘make’ me proud and they should always be highly regarded by others. They must not let me down as that would shame me.’ If any of these irrational demands are not met it’s considered to be catastrophic and awful, so awful ‘it cannot be tolerated.’
The approvalist has been taught as a young person that she is 'good' when she does good. When she does as she is told, follows instructions and conforms to rules and expectations she is rewarded and she feels good. She works hard at school and gets good grades but when they are sometimes not good enough, she feels she has let others down and she must try harder next time so they will be pleased. She believes doing bad is being bad!
'The codependent-in-training is taught to walk on eggshells. To ensure survival, the child learns to be extraordinarily sensitive in reading the moods and thoughts of others. The child learns very early to pay attention to and tiptoe around the dysfunctional family members - at the child's expense. These interactions take place silently, implicitly. The child learns to ignore the self's inner needs, instead pretending that all is OK.' Why Be Codependent? by Dr. Irene Matiatos
Her mentors comment on the behaviour of others, expressing approval when they behave correctly, as they should do. They will scoff at those who don’t behave accordingly and may judge them unfairly. They may even feel angry and aggressive when someone happens to be driving in ‘their’ lane on the highway or feel unfairly treated if the person they open the door for does not acknowledge them as they should!
She will notice how her mentors will feel aggrieved when things don’t go their way. The weather, the government, their in-laws etc appear the ‘make’ them so unhappy. She will be harshly criticised when she doesn’t live up to the expectations of her role models and may be compared to other siblings who ‘always do the right thing.’ She will try harder to be the person others want her to be because she believes her value is dependent on the views of others.
In time our subject will have constructed a set of philosophical beliefs that will undermine her efforts to be happy and successful. She believes she must achieve the lofty goals she sets herself, she must meet others approval (or she is hopeless/worthless/a dud). She will often feel overly anxious as she tries to solve the problems of others who must be saved (as she is the only one who can save them!)
The approvalist has learned to be co-dependent, needing, not preferring the approval of significant others. She needs someone to need her, someone to rescue and to depend on her, someone who needs to be needed. If someone needs her then she can indulge her own need to needed. Co-dependency …
'… is a dysfunctional relationship with the self characterized by living through or for another, attempts to control others, blaming others, a sense of victimization, attempts to "fix" others, and intense anxiety around intimacy.' http://www.veteransoftruth.com
REBT deems this irrational to the extreme, as the person who has this affliction will feel and act in ways that are self-defeating. She will continue to be at risk as long as she believes that her worth is inextricably linked to the approval of others. What are the options for the approvalist to rehabilitate herself? How can she be delivered from self-sabotaging Conditional Self Acceptance to the light of self helpful Unconditional Self Acceptance?
The approvalist may question how she feels when she doesn’t get the recognition she ‘must’ have. Or maybe not as she may already ‘know’ that she feels angry because a significant other has made her angry. Maybe she doesn’t know at all why she feels as she feels as her only focus has been on others feelings and never her own. She perhaps will direct anger at them either overtly and/or passively. After all someone else has made her angry and therefore he/she deserves to be treated accordingly. What makes her anxious or angry? It is those who don’t agree with her, who don’t acknowledge her, as she believes they should! They are not feeding her addiction to be needed or approved and are therefore a threat to her well being. If they are making her feel this way then it would be logical to remove them from her environment (if they are not there they can’t hurt her however this is not a practical option). Just like a splinter makes inflammation and infection, just remove the splinter and all is well!
Alas physical hurt and emotional hurt are different. In a physical sense if I pinch you, you feel hurt and this would be true of the majority of people. If I don’t acknowledge you, you may feel some degree of emotional hurt. An approvalist will experience more extreme emotional discomfort than a person who is not when they don’t win the approval of significant others. Why? Because the approvalist needs approval and the self-accepting person does not! If the belief that ‘I need the approval of others to be worthwhile’ can be constructed over time then it can be deconstructed and replaced with Unconditional Self Acceptance and as Dr Albert Ellis would say this will deliver the sufferer from the despair of ‘shithood’ to the hope of ‘self worthyness.’
Whilst the co dependent has learned over time to control others and her environment and minister to the needs of others she could now turn her attention to something that has been hitherto ignored: her needs.
This is a major undertaking and the beginning of a journey that will require a lot of hard work and support to get well. The process will be enlightening and challenging and will be explored in a blog to be posted soon.
Monday, 27 September 2010
Adelaide REBT Theory and Practice Workshop
Dr. Debbie Joffe Ellis and I again had the opportunity to spread the ‘Gospel of St Albert ‘ to a group of enthusiastic folk. They hailed from as far afield as Karcultaby on the Eyre Peninsula and Canberra, the nations capital. It was a fine and sunny September day at the Education Development Centre in Hindmarsh and the day turned out to be a great success.
The group comprised people from many walks of life - educators, counsellors, psychologists and other individuals interested in their own development and the well being of others.
Dr. Debbie Joffe Ellis told us about the life and times of her husband Dr. Albert Ellis. She brought along some DVD footage of Dr. Ellis doing his ‘stuff’ at various stages of his life. One particular scene of Dr Ellis hosting a group of enthusiastic students in the ER of a major New York hospital was testament to the REBT principle that ‘nothing is so awful that you can’t stand it!’ One appreciative and somewhat surprised student asks Dr. Ellis why did he not cancel the appointment. His reply was that he wanted to help as many people as he could to be happy and successful by using REBT. Dr. Ellis was at the time suffering from a multitude of serious health conditions and had survived a major mishap that morning! He was not just talking the talk he was walking it and he invited interested others to walk along side him.
A highlight of the day was Dr. Debbie’s demonstration to the group of the therapeutic application of REBT. A group member volunteered to be her client. It was a valuable learning experience to see REBT in action and to see how in a relatively short time, the client had largely resolved her problems. Our volunteer related how the session had been of great benefit to her and that she had successfully dealt with a personal issue of many months standing.
In the last session group members practiced their Rational Emotive Behaviour Counselling skills. They cherchez’d les shoulds, les oughts and les musts that lurk somewhere in our sub conscious and are expressed in behaviours and emotions that are not very helpful to ourselves or others. In a role-play we considered the plight of ‘Sharon’ who would often feel angry when other people weren’t as courteous as she would like them to be. Did this lack of due respect ‘make’ her angry? Or was there something else at work here? Did Sharon have a ‘should’ rule that wasn’t being adhered to and was it so awful that she couldn’t stand it? Was the perpetrator of this bad deed a bad person who deserved the ire of a self-righteous Sharon?
Group members successfully helped Sharon understand that it was her rigid belief that others should always treat her as she would like to be treated that drove her anger and aggression. When this rule was broken (as inevitably it will be) Sharon would deem this totally unacceptable and unfair and she would act (and feel) accordingly. Group members commented that it was quite a knack to help someone first identify a should/ought/must belief and then to successfully challenge (dispute) the veracity of such beliefs. It will take practice to improve of course but I think participants had a lot to go on and will bring their new learning and skills to their respective work places (Dr. Ellis would be pleased about this!)
We also looked at ways in which REBT principles and practices can be incorporated into the everyday learning of students in our schools through Rational Emotive Behaviour Education. Dr Ellis noted very early in the piece that all children would benefit greatly from understanding the relationship between their thinking, feeling and behaving so that they could learn to manage their self defeating behaviours and emotions successfully. We all agreed that it would be a useful endeavour to train our teachers to be Rational Emotive Behaviour Educators.
All Out! An autobiography by Dr. Ellis is an interesting read about the life and work of a very significant innovator and thinker. It provides great detail about the early influences of other people and events in his life that he reflected on and used to formulate his own philosophies about himself, others and the world. He acknowledges the legacy of the great philosophers of the past (Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius) whose ideas stimulated his own thinking and also the influence of other more contemporary thinkers like Alfred Korzybski and Karen Horney. Ellis was respected by many and though his ideas and methods were criticised and vehemently denied by the psychoanalytic establishment, he held firm and vigorously maintained his position even in the harshest of times. Today he is considered to be a ‘giant’ of psychotherapy. It’s published by Prometheus Books and is well worth a read.
The group comprised people from many walks of life - educators, counsellors, psychologists and other individuals interested in their own development and the well being of others.
Dr. Debbie Joffe Ellis told us about the life and times of her husband Dr. Albert Ellis. She brought along some DVD footage of Dr. Ellis doing his ‘stuff’ at various stages of his life. One particular scene of Dr Ellis hosting a group of enthusiastic students in the ER of a major New York hospital was testament to the REBT principle that ‘nothing is so awful that you can’t stand it!’ One appreciative and somewhat surprised student asks Dr. Ellis why did he not cancel the appointment. His reply was that he wanted to help as many people as he could to be happy and successful by using REBT. Dr. Ellis was at the time suffering from a multitude of serious health conditions and had survived a major mishap that morning! He was not just talking the talk he was walking it and he invited interested others to walk along side him.
A highlight of the day was Dr. Debbie’s demonstration to the group of the therapeutic application of REBT. A group member volunteered to be her client. It was a valuable learning experience to see REBT in action and to see how in a relatively short time, the client had largely resolved her problems. Our volunteer related how the session had been of great benefit to her and that she had successfully dealt with a personal issue of many months standing.
In the last session group members practiced their Rational Emotive Behaviour Counselling skills. They cherchez’d les shoulds, les oughts and les musts that lurk somewhere in our sub conscious and are expressed in behaviours and emotions that are not very helpful to ourselves or others. In a role-play we considered the plight of ‘Sharon’ who would often feel angry when other people weren’t as courteous as she would like them to be. Did this lack of due respect ‘make’ her angry? Or was there something else at work here? Did Sharon have a ‘should’ rule that wasn’t being adhered to and was it so awful that she couldn’t stand it? Was the perpetrator of this bad deed a bad person who deserved the ire of a self-righteous Sharon?
Group members successfully helped Sharon understand that it was her rigid belief that others should always treat her as she would like to be treated that drove her anger and aggression. When this rule was broken (as inevitably it will be) Sharon would deem this totally unacceptable and unfair and she would act (and feel) accordingly. Group members commented that it was quite a knack to help someone first identify a should/ought/must belief and then to successfully challenge (dispute) the veracity of such beliefs. It will take practice to improve of course but I think participants had a lot to go on and will bring their new learning and skills to their respective work places (Dr. Ellis would be pleased about this!)
We also looked at ways in which REBT principles and practices can be incorporated into the everyday learning of students in our schools through Rational Emotive Behaviour Education. Dr Ellis noted very early in the piece that all children would benefit greatly from understanding the relationship between their thinking, feeling and behaving so that they could learn to manage their self defeating behaviours and emotions successfully. We all agreed that it would be a useful endeavour to train our teachers to be Rational Emotive Behaviour Educators.
All Out! An autobiography by Dr. Ellis is an interesting read about the life and work of a very significant innovator and thinker. It provides great detail about the early influences of other people and events in his life that he reflected on and used to formulate his own philosophies about himself, others and the world. He acknowledges the legacy of the great philosophers of the past (Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius) whose ideas stimulated his own thinking and also the influence of other more contemporary thinkers like Alfred Korzybski and Karen Horney. Ellis was respected by many and though his ideas and methods were criticised and vehemently denied by the psychoanalytic establishment, he held firm and vigorously maintained his position even in the harshest of times. Today he is considered to be a ‘giant’ of psychotherapy. It’s published by Prometheus Books and is well worth a read.
Saturday, 7 August 2010
Sofia's Progress
Thanks to Dr. Albert Ellis’ ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance we have helped Sofia understand the relationship between thinking, feeling and behaving. She understands that beliefs like, ‘someone I like should like me,’ ‘I need her approval to be worthwhile,’ ‘I am worthless,’ are self defeating because they cause undue sadness, anger and depression, which get in the way of her achieving her goals. These beliefs can be challenged and disproved with evidence.
Dr. Ellis invites us to ‘cherchez le should, cherchez le must’ as we did with Sofia. We determined that Sofia’s sadness and anxiety was caused by her ‘shoulding’ i.e. ‘she should like me. I should get what I want.’ We challenged these self-defeating shoulds and replaced them with self – helpful ‘preferences’ i.e. ‘I would prefer to get what I want but I accept this will not always be so.’
Let’s look at the components of Sofia’s journey so far according to Ellis’ ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance.
A= Activating event (the issue, what happened). In Sofia’s case the issue is ‘She ignores me.’
B= Beliefs. Sofia believed that she could only be happy if she won her classmates approval. Irrationally she believed that she needed her classmates’ approval to be worthwhile and she should like her. She believed she was worthless because she could not win her approval and this was so awful that she couldn’t stand it.
C= Emotional and behavioural Consequences of A. Sofia felt depressed and anxious (She needed someone’s approval which she believed she must get to feel worthwhile). These feelings were strong (7 – 9 on the Emotional Thermometer)
In Sofia’s story she believed that someone else (her classmate) caused her sadness. She was preoccupied with thoughts like, ‘she should like me, I need her to like me’ etc. According to Ellis’ model Sofia was apportioning blame to someone or something i.e. C is made by A and I can only feel better if A is changed. According to this logic Sofia would like the world to be modified or changed according to her wishes. Can we make Sofia’s classmate like her? Of course we can’t! So it then becomes a matter for Sofia to consider the situation realistically i.e. ‘my classmate ignores me. I am disappointed she doesn’t seem to want my friendship and I accept that. It is not a catastrophe. My worth does not depend on her approval of me. I accept myself.’ In so doing Sofia begins to understand that A does not make C but rather A+B makes C (my beliefs/thinking play a key role in how I feel and behave).
In ‘The Practice of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy’ by Dr Albert Ellis and Windy Dryden intellectual insight in REBT is defined as:
‘an acknowledgement that an irrational belief frequently leads to emotional disturbance and dysfunctional behaviour and that a rational belief always abets emotional health.’
It can be said that Sofia has attained Intellectual Insight, that is she understands and accepts the premise that A + B makes C and not solely A, the activating event. For Sofia her journey towards sustained emotional and behavioural well-being has just begun and will be work in progress for the rest of her life. Dr. Ellis says that Sofia will continue to develop herself to the point of achieving Emotional Insight, which in REBT is defined as:
‘a strong and frequently held belief that a rational idea is helpful (Ellis, 1963). When a person has achieved Emotional Insight he or she will tend to THINK, FEEL and BEHAVE according to the rational belief.’
We have looked at A, B and C of Dr Ellis’ Theory of Emotional Disturbance but now it is timely to consider D and E in relation to Sofia’s personal development.
D = Disputation of irrational beliefs, the rigorous challenging of ingrained and well practiced unhelpful habits of thinking that undermine our confidence and ability to function in a healthy way. Dr. Ellis would encourage his students to, ‘work, work, work’ at challenging and changing those beliefs that were harmful and self-defeating. So how is D used to help Sofia on her onward journey to Emotional Insight? Sofia believed she needed the approval of her classmate to feel worthwhile. Thinking she must have the approval of someone she liked, was causing her anxiety and deep sadness because her sense of wellbeing depended so much on how a significant other viewed her. What others thought about Sofia mattered more than what Sofia thought about herself and this placed her in a very vulnerable position. She would continue to be at the mercy of significant others for her sense of well-being and happiness unless she learned how to unconditionally accept herself. Dr. Ellis’ Unconditional Self Acceptance (USA) would rid Sofia of the need to be approved of by others and hence become more confident and self reliant.
I spoke to Sofia about the damage that can be caused by believing that it is ‘absolutely necessary to have the approval of people we like and if not we cannot be happy and that we must be liked by them or it is awful and we cannot stand it!’ Sofia could relate to this unrealistic demand she made of herself and she asked where it came from, ‘why do I think like this?’ REBT theory says that we are born with the tendency to think rationally and irrationally. The environment in which we are raised is a strong determinant of our patterns of thinking and behaving. I explained to Sofia that she had learned some unhelpful rules from the environment in which she was/is raised. I explained that the idea that we can ‘be’ good or ‘be’ bad is a faulty way of thinking (Dr Ellis cautioned us about retaining the self defeating belief in ‘being’ good and bad). I had talked to Sofia before about USA (Unconditional Self Acceptance), the belief that we are made up of many different traits and capabilities and this being the case it is impossible to ‘be’ good or bad. In other words being good would mean a person has no bad traits or negative characteristics at all, a proposition that can be challenged. Conversely being bad would mean a person could have no positive traits or positive characteristics, which again can be challenged. I suggested that she would possibly have been told what a good girl she was whenever she did something ‘good’ like completing a task or using her manners etc. Logically Sofia may have determined that if she ‘is good’ when she ‘does good’ then it follows that she must ‘be bad’ when she ‘does bad!’ So Dr Ellis invites us to view ourselves as being neither good nor bad but worthwhile (I accept myself warts and all).
Sofia and I talked about how it would be to believe that our worth did not depend on how others viewed us. How more confident would we be knowing that another’s rejection of us could never take away our worth? I asked Sofia how much a $50 note was worth. She said it could buy certain things and this was proof of its $50 value. I agreed and then asked Sofia to scrunch the note as tightly as she could. She thought this was an odd request but she humored me and proceeded anyway. I then asked her to stand on the note and she did. I asked her to unfurl the note as it was very wrinkled and twisted. It was intact but was not as smooth as it had been and I asked Sofia what it was worth. She said it retained its worth of $50 and that it had not changed. I suggested that our worth could be viewed similarly in that even when we are ‘wrinkled and twisted and battered and bruised’ our worth is never diminished i.e. we can be criticized, rejected and even fail at some things but we retain the worth we already had, we are worthwhile no matter what. Sofia understood this and found it a useful illustration of what we had been talking about. She said she would remind herself often and with conviction that she was always worthwhile no matter what and she would unconditionally accept herself. Dr. Ellis would have been most pleased to know that Sofia had made so much progress in her journey towards Unconditional Self Acceptance which would allow her to achieve her goals to live with less (unhealthy) anxiety and extreme sadness and with more healthy concern and regret. Dr Ellis says:
"To help people gain unconditional self-acceptance and to believe that they are okay or are good just because they exist had better be taught to all children in the course of their schooling, from early childhood onward."
For Sofia to achieve Emotional Insight it is essential that her school has the capacity to further Sofia’s development throughout her education. How can this be done? What can schools do?
Dr. Ellis invites us to ‘cherchez le should, cherchez le must’ as we did with Sofia. We determined that Sofia’s sadness and anxiety was caused by her ‘shoulding’ i.e. ‘she should like me. I should get what I want.’ We challenged these self-defeating shoulds and replaced them with self – helpful ‘preferences’ i.e. ‘I would prefer to get what I want but I accept this will not always be so.’
Let’s look at the components of Sofia’s journey so far according to Ellis’ ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance.
A= Activating event (the issue, what happened). In Sofia’s case the issue is ‘She ignores me.’
B= Beliefs. Sofia believed that she could only be happy if she won her classmates approval. Irrationally she believed that she needed her classmates’ approval to be worthwhile and she should like her. She believed she was worthless because she could not win her approval and this was so awful that she couldn’t stand it.
C= Emotional and behavioural Consequences of A. Sofia felt depressed and anxious (She needed someone’s approval which she believed she must get to feel worthwhile). These feelings were strong (7 – 9 on the Emotional Thermometer)
In Sofia’s story she believed that someone else (her classmate) caused her sadness. She was preoccupied with thoughts like, ‘she should like me, I need her to like me’ etc. According to Ellis’ model Sofia was apportioning blame to someone or something i.e. C is made by A and I can only feel better if A is changed. According to this logic Sofia would like the world to be modified or changed according to her wishes. Can we make Sofia’s classmate like her? Of course we can’t! So it then becomes a matter for Sofia to consider the situation realistically i.e. ‘my classmate ignores me. I am disappointed she doesn’t seem to want my friendship and I accept that. It is not a catastrophe. My worth does not depend on her approval of me. I accept myself.’ In so doing Sofia begins to understand that A does not make C but rather A+B makes C (my beliefs/thinking play a key role in how I feel and behave).
In ‘The Practice of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy’ by Dr Albert Ellis and Windy Dryden intellectual insight in REBT is defined as:
‘an acknowledgement that an irrational belief frequently leads to emotional disturbance and dysfunctional behaviour and that a rational belief always abets emotional health.’
It can be said that Sofia has attained Intellectual Insight, that is she understands and accepts the premise that A + B makes C and not solely A, the activating event. For Sofia her journey towards sustained emotional and behavioural well-being has just begun and will be work in progress for the rest of her life. Dr. Ellis says that Sofia will continue to develop herself to the point of achieving Emotional Insight, which in REBT is defined as:
‘a strong and frequently held belief that a rational idea is helpful (Ellis, 1963). When a person has achieved Emotional Insight he or she will tend to THINK, FEEL and BEHAVE according to the rational belief.’
We have looked at A, B and C of Dr Ellis’ Theory of Emotional Disturbance but now it is timely to consider D and E in relation to Sofia’s personal development.
D = Disputation of irrational beliefs, the rigorous challenging of ingrained and well practiced unhelpful habits of thinking that undermine our confidence and ability to function in a healthy way. Dr. Ellis would encourage his students to, ‘work, work, work’ at challenging and changing those beliefs that were harmful and self-defeating. So how is D used to help Sofia on her onward journey to Emotional Insight? Sofia believed she needed the approval of her classmate to feel worthwhile. Thinking she must have the approval of someone she liked, was causing her anxiety and deep sadness because her sense of wellbeing depended so much on how a significant other viewed her. What others thought about Sofia mattered more than what Sofia thought about herself and this placed her in a very vulnerable position. She would continue to be at the mercy of significant others for her sense of well-being and happiness unless she learned how to unconditionally accept herself. Dr. Ellis’ Unconditional Self Acceptance (USA) would rid Sofia of the need to be approved of by others and hence become more confident and self reliant.
I spoke to Sofia about the damage that can be caused by believing that it is ‘absolutely necessary to have the approval of people we like and if not we cannot be happy and that we must be liked by them or it is awful and we cannot stand it!’ Sofia could relate to this unrealistic demand she made of herself and she asked where it came from, ‘why do I think like this?’ REBT theory says that we are born with the tendency to think rationally and irrationally. The environment in which we are raised is a strong determinant of our patterns of thinking and behaving. I explained to Sofia that she had learned some unhelpful rules from the environment in which she was/is raised. I explained that the idea that we can ‘be’ good or ‘be’ bad is a faulty way of thinking (Dr Ellis cautioned us about retaining the self defeating belief in ‘being’ good and bad). I had talked to Sofia before about USA (Unconditional Self Acceptance), the belief that we are made up of many different traits and capabilities and this being the case it is impossible to ‘be’ good or bad. In other words being good would mean a person has no bad traits or negative characteristics at all, a proposition that can be challenged. Conversely being bad would mean a person could have no positive traits or positive characteristics, which again can be challenged. I suggested that she would possibly have been told what a good girl she was whenever she did something ‘good’ like completing a task or using her manners etc. Logically Sofia may have determined that if she ‘is good’ when she ‘does good’ then it follows that she must ‘be bad’ when she ‘does bad!’ So Dr Ellis invites us to view ourselves as being neither good nor bad but worthwhile (I accept myself warts and all).
Sofia and I talked about how it would be to believe that our worth did not depend on how others viewed us. How more confident would we be knowing that another’s rejection of us could never take away our worth? I asked Sofia how much a $50 note was worth. She said it could buy certain things and this was proof of its $50 value. I agreed and then asked Sofia to scrunch the note as tightly as she could. She thought this was an odd request but she humored me and proceeded anyway. I then asked her to stand on the note and she did. I asked her to unfurl the note as it was very wrinkled and twisted. It was intact but was not as smooth as it had been and I asked Sofia what it was worth. She said it retained its worth of $50 and that it had not changed. I suggested that our worth could be viewed similarly in that even when we are ‘wrinkled and twisted and battered and bruised’ our worth is never diminished i.e. we can be criticized, rejected and even fail at some things but we retain the worth we already had, we are worthwhile no matter what. Sofia understood this and found it a useful illustration of what we had been talking about. She said she would remind herself often and with conviction that she was always worthwhile no matter what and she would unconditionally accept herself. Dr. Ellis would have been most pleased to know that Sofia had made so much progress in her journey towards Unconditional Self Acceptance which would allow her to achieve her goals to live with less (unhealthy) anxiety and extreme sadness and with more healthy concern and regret. Dr Ellis says:
"To help people gain unconditional self-acceptance and to believe that they are okay or are good just because they exist had better be taught to all children in the course of their schooling, from early childhood onward."
For Sofia to achieve Emotional Insight it is essential that her school has the capacity to further Sofia’s development throughout her education. How can this be done? What can schools do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Teachers who bully teachers!
It is my experience that no matter how competent, experienced, or well credentialed an educator might be if your face doesn't fit you ma...
-
An approvalist is one who practices the philosophy of Approvalism. An approvalist lives life for the service of others seemingly without tho...
-
The narcissist has an approval need receptacle somewhere in their subconscious. It leaks like a sieve it seems, and the more its fed by admi...
-
Roger Bent was an aspirational type who worked out early what he wanted and aimed to become what he imagined he could be. He was not particu...
