Saturday, 14 August 2021

Flowery Fawning Language - an REBT perspective

Flowery language is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fawning is the:

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

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

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

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

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

Any others?

 


Thursday, 8 July 2021

"The world is neither for you nor against you. It doesn’t give a shit!"​

When I think about this Albert Ellis quote I think of how I have at times been ‘shackled’ to the belief that somehow the Universe is looking out for me and that it should give me what I want; what I believe I need. Such an arrogant position assumes that I’m so important that the universe should always meet my wants and needs; to take care of me and always give me what I must have. I can hear Dr. Ellis say:

‘Well good luck with that horseshit. Let me know how it works out!’

Eleanor Roosevelt said:

‘You probably wouldn’t worry about what people think of you if you could know how seldom they do.’

Again why should other people regard us as we believe we should be regarded; that they meet our need to be noticed and acknowledged, liked or loved?

Dr. Ellis said that we can elect to healthily prefer that significant others esteem us and look upon us favourably, which is a rational perspective according to REBT. In doing so, we acknowledge that there will be those who won’t and we can choose to learn to accept this reality unconditionally. This sensible, self-helpful view, reminds us that the universe will not always deliver to us what we absolutely demand it should, but if we accept that, we will feel better about things, especially when they don’t go our way.

Conversely, to over rely on the approval of significant others to believe we are worthwhile, is taking us into the realms of irrationality or as Dr. Ellis would say, ‘love slobbism! This is where our attitude of preferences, transform into ‘must’ thinking; we must get what we believe we must have! Dr. Ellis determined that one who has forged such habits of thinking and believing has developed the debilitating condition of ‘musturbation;’ the tendency to elevate our preferences, wants and desires to ‘must, ought and should’ status!’ What did Karen Horney say?

'Beware the 'tyranny of the should'!

Dr. Ellis also reminds us that whenever we begin to think that someone or something is ‘making’ us angry or sad we are thinking irrationally, as it is our own unrealistic ‘musturbatory’ expectations of life and others that are driving our emotional unease. Do we prefer things to be as we would like them to be or must we get what we must have and is it a catastrophe when we don’t?!

'When people change their irrational beliefs to undogmatic flexible preferences, they become less disturbed.' Albert Ellis

Christopher Hitchens the late renowned author, essayist and sceptic, debated many an opponent, who claimed that his views were offensive and that their feelings were somehow hurt by the points he made in argument against them. His adversaries, in making such a claim, would be met by the classic Hitchens retort:

‘What’s your point? So your feelings are hurt, so what! How does this constitute an argument!’

He would have agreed with Dr. Ellis that people make the intensity of the emotions they feel by the way they might perceive or assess a situation. They hurt their own feelings! As Epictetus said all those years ago:

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

What might have Mr. Hitchens’ ‘musturbating’ rivals been thinking? Ellis would say:

‘They were rubbing themselves the wrong way!’

The big bang set the evolution of the Universe and life as we know it in train, and as it expanded chance would have it that a convergence of molecules, carbon atoms and other elements gave rise, in time, to the phenomenon known as Dr. Albert Ellis. How serendipitous! Maybe the World does give a shit after all! 



Tuesday, 22 June 2021

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! 

Sunday, 20 June 2021

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!


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saturday, 12 June 2021

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. 





Wednesday, 9 June 2021

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.



Wednesday, 7 October 2020

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!'©

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...