'Do you need an ambulance?' When small problems seem like catastrophes

A teacher colleague invested a lot of time teaching her year 3 students that thinking, feeling and behaving were all interconnected. As Albert Ellis, creator of REBT said (I paraphrase here):

‘We make ourselves more anxious than we need to be when we think events and things are worse than they really are.’

The teacher did a lot of groundwork to persuade her young group that they make themselves more upset than they need to be. She read books that had characters who helped themselves get better when they changed the way they thought about something. She reminded them often that it was their/our estimation of an event, how we thought about it that was key. ‘If they came to know this they can do something constructive about their discomfort,’ the teacher thought.

She changed her language; rather than asking ‘what makes you angry?’ she would say ‘what are you thinking about what happened that’s making your feelings so strong?’ She didn’t say ‘don’t be angry’ either as she knew her students couldn’t ‘be’ the feelings they were feeling.

How many times do we say ‘it/they/she made me angry?’ Can something ‘make’ us as angry as we feel? And the claim ‘I am angry?’ Does the assertion ‘I am scared’ make sense? Can I ‘be’ the feeling (s) I experience? Food for thought eh?

‘Message to self,’ the teacher would say inside her head:

"Teach the think – feel – do connection. Stop saying ‘it’ makes ‘me/you’ angry. Stop saying ‘good boy/girl’ (doesn’t make sense)"

So the teacher had done a great job of teaching the students that their estimation of events, their perception of what’s happening, had made the strength of emotion they feel about an event and not the thing/event itself. She had acquainted them with the notion that they could have a fair amount of control over how they feel and the actions they take. She asked them questions like:

‘What’s stronger; angry or upset?

Do I feel angry or am I angry? What’s the difference?

‘You make me sad!’ What does this mean? Is there another way to say this?’

 

The classroom discourse moved away from person specific to more behaviour or competency specific i.e. she addressed behaviour and not person in her feedback. She taught her students that what they did was up for assessment but their essence or personhood was not. She weaned herself off of using person specific terms like; good boy/girl, naughty, smart, cute etc. and focused more on what the children did. She was mindful that a person’s worth was a given, that they were always worthwhile whether they did ‘good’ or did ‘bad.’ “Doing ‘bad’ can’t make you ‘bad’” she would start each day by saying and she would add “doing ‘good’ doesn’t make you good either. You are always worthwhile!” This was a constant reminder to students that their ‘okayness’ wasn’t attached to someone’s assessment of their person.

She began to notice that those children who were generally withdrawn or lacking in confidence began to try new things. Some were putting their hands up more to ask questions; they were taking more risks. She asked herself why? But she knew why didn’t she? It was the new and developing regime she had introduced based on the philosophy that:

“People are not disturbed by things, but by the views they take of them.” Epictetus

Her children began to understand that big problems were only as big as they thought or imagined them to be. If a problem was big or not was a decision they could make by assessing its ‘badness’ against other possible happenings. She helped each child to construct their own ‘catastrophe scale’ where possible problems could be organised according to how ‘bad’ they were.

So back to the title of this piece and the ambulance reference. The children were asked in many different situations if what was happening was as bad as they thought it was. Some children referred to their hard copy catastrophe scale (CS), whilst others used the one they carried inside their heads; their virtual CS. If Sofia said ‘I don’t have my hat today and it’s a massive problem because I have to stay in the shade at playtime,’ her CS would tell her that there are far worse things that could happen and her teacher would say ‘Sofia, is it so bad that I should call an ambulance?’

 

  

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?

 

"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! 

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.