My Toy is Broken and So Am I!

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

Dr. Albert Ellis, creator of REBT

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

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

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

The Emotional Thermometer

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

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

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

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

Constructivism

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

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

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

We wrote down old thinking and new thinking as follows:

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

Old thinking: Distraught. New thinking: Upset

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

I didn’t do it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

Toxic

 Toxic

A stench hangs heavy

Like a shroud

Envelopes and consumes

Imbues, infests, paralyses

It trails behind

And around

Menacing, targeting

It’s evident

Even when the physical form

Is no longer there

Imprinted there

And within

The experience

And resides

In the conscious

And unconscious self

What to do?

Cast off, remove

The repulsive stains

Of misogyny 

Sexism

Homophobia

Toxic

Some people have a negative effect on the work environment and it helps to spend as little time as possible with them. The narcissist is not able to see the world from another's perspective and can justify their actions according to the deficits of others i.e. it's them not me. They then go on their merry and often destructive way, sans any guilt it would appear.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Brain Bully? How do you teach it?

Early childhood is where the action is! Little children catch on quickly to ideas which are quirky and amusing. Just look at the Wiggles and their enduring popularity with the younger folk. Tap into their sense of the ridiculous and you have something to work with.

Mr Chin is a character who doesn't finish his jobs. He stops himself because his Brain Bully thinking tells him 'it's too hard.' The video explains what Brain Bully is and how to teach it using the experiences of Mr Chin.

This 7 minute video is for the younger children and suggest ways their parents and carers can help them learn that their thinking, feelings and behaviours are all interconnected. Have a look :) 

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!