I believe it is often essential to find meaning in suffering before you can move past it. When I say this to people, their typical response is, "How am I supposed to do that?" There is no universal answer to that question. Still, I believe it is vital for a person who is suffering to find a satisfactory answer before he or she can move beyond his or her pain.
A lot of my patients are people who have experienced some sort of trauma. Some of these patients are able to "recover" from the symptoms caused by their trauma (or traumas); some patients are not. Some patients seem to fall into despair. One thing I've noticed about those who fall into despair is that they often view their suffering as meaningless. When they look back on the trauma and consider the pain they have endured and how much they have struggled as a result they conclude that they are somehow being punished or that they are irrevocably damaged. They say to themselves, "All of this pain, all of this suffering, and for what? For nothing!"
So how can a person grow from his struggles? How can he look at a terrible experience and see a silver lining? Again, every person must answer this question for himself. Still, there are some common "categories of meaning-making." These "domains" were developed after an extensive review of the research on posttraumatic growth and were ultimately incorporated into something called the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1996). They are:
1. An increased appreciation for life (especially its simple pleasures) and a change in priorities: I've heard survivors of potentially terminal illnesses (like cancer) talk about appreciating a sunset for the first time. Minor irritations and petty squabbles no longer seem important. Time with family and friends seems more precious and is therefore appreciated more.
2. Closer, more intimate relationships with others: People might rally around a person who has experienced a trauma, offering love and support; this can lead to closer relationships with these people. In addition, people who have had similar traumatic experiences (e.g., rape victims, children of alcoholic parents, bereaved parents, etc.) often find particular comfort from one another. This can lead to a whole new network of mutually supportive relationships based on common past experiences.
3. A greater sense of personal strength: After surviving a trauma, a person might conclude, "If I can survive that, I can survive anything!" You can't really know how strong you are until you are faced with a situation that forces you to tap into your inner strength. You might find that you are stronger in a crisis than you thought you would be.
4. Recognition of new possibilities or paths for one's life: Sometimes an event changes a person's life so completely that he is forced to change paths. In his quest to renegotiate his goals for the future, a person might find himself considering possibilities that had never before come to mind.
5. Spiritual development: Perhaps you've heard the saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes." People often look to a higher power when confronted with a life or death situation. Sometimes, when faced with his own mortality, a person begins to seriously consider some of life's existential questions. This in and of itself can be a profoundly spiritual process.
Just some things to consider...
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Music and Emotion
Last weekend, I decided to turn on some Christmas music to try to get into the "Christmas spirit." I used to listen to music fairly frequently, but from some reason I rarely turn on the radio when I'm doing things around the house. (In the car, I listen to the news and talk radio on NPR). I guess that's why I'd forgotten how strongly certain music can affect my emotions.
It's not just me. There is a large body of research demonstrating that music affects people's moods. (It's also been shown to impact physical health). Even without the research though, haven't we all had some personal experience with this? Maybe you've heard a sad love song after a bad break up and had to change the radio station immediately or risk bursting into tears. Or maybe you like to put on something calming like jazz or classical to help you relax after a stressful day. Perhaps when you hear a great new song with an irresistible beat you are suddenly overcome with an overwhelming urge to start dancing. Maybe you've been driving along mindlessly when some old song from years ago triggers a sudden wave of nostalgia and transports you back to a long-forgotten moment in time. Music just has that effect on people.
A lot of my patients need help learning to cope with situations that induce strong negative emotions (or learning to cope with strong negative emotions that seem to arise spontaneously for no identifiable reason). Often I'll work with patients to generate a list of coping strategies that they can pull from in a crisis. From inner city teenage boys to prestigious military officers, almost every patient I've ever helped to create one of these lists includes "listening to music" as one of their coping skills. It seems that the impact of music on emotional experience is universal to the human condition.
When I put on a Christmas album this weekend I was doing some work around the house. I wasn't really paying much attention to the music until the song "Someday at Christmas" started to play. Suddenly, a bolt of emotion surged from my stomach to my chest. I stopped what I was doing. For a moment I felt...full. Though it lasted only a moment, it was easily the most intense emotional experience I'd had in months.
If there is anyone out there who, like me, forgot how moving a good song can be then please, allow me to remind you. This is the perfect time of year for remembering...
It's not just me. There is a large body of research demonstrating that music affects people's moods. (It's also been shown to impact physical health). Even without the research though, haven't we all had some personal experience with this? Maybe you've heard a sad love song after a bad break up and had to change the radio station immediately or risk bursting into tears. Or maybe you like to put on something calming like jazz or classical to help you relax after a stressful day. Perhaps when you hear a great new song with an irresistible beat you are suddenly overcome with an overwhelming urge to start dancing. Maybe you've been driving along mindlessly when some old song from years ago triggers a sudden wave of nostalgia and transports you back to a long-forgotten moment in time. Music just has that effect on people.
A lot of my patients need help learning to cope with situations that induce strong negative emotions (or learning to cope with strong negative emotions that seem to arise spontaneously for no identifiable reason). Often I'll work with patients to generate a list of coping strategies that they can pull from in a crisis. From inner city teenage boys to prestigious military officers, almost every patient I've ever helped to create one of these lists includes "listening to music" as one of their coping skills. It seems that the impact of music on emotional experience is universal to the human condition.
When I put on a Christmas album this weekend I was doing some work around the house. I wasn't really paying much attention to the music until the song "Someday at Christmas" started to play. Suddenly, a bolt of emotion surged from my stomach to my chest. I stopped what I was doing. For a moment I felt...full. Though it lasted only a moment, it was easily the most intense emotional experience I'd had in months.
If there is anyone out there who, like me, forgot how moving a good song can be then please, allow me to remind you. This is the perfect time of year for remembering...
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Making decisions
When my husband and I were shopping for wedding rings it quickly became apparent that we have very different decision making styles. My husband is analytical. He likes to identify all possible options and discover everything he can about each one. True to his nature, he wanted to go to every jewelry store in the area to see what they had before deciding which rings to buy. After two days of going from one store to another (and realizing that most of them had basically the same inventory and price range) I was frustrated and annoyed.
I am a task oriented person. Buying our wedding rings was just one on a list of many things that had to be done in preparation for the wedding. When there is some task that needs to be done my mind will not rest until it is completed. In terms of decision making, this means I like to identify a few acceptable options that meet a short list of criteria and choose from those the one that seems to be the best fit. The task gets completed in an acceptable manner and I am free to move on to other things.
I realize there are drawback to the way I make decisions. In prioritizing efficiency I might miss out on finding an "ideal" solution or getting the best deal. In the case of the wedding rings, maybe the perfect ring was out there somewhere, and on sale; if so, I missed out because I didn't take the time to look everywhere. Still, I'm happy with the rings we decided to get and never once have I wished we'd shopped around a little more.
There are also drawbacks to my husband's method of decision making. Sometimes, he gets so lost in the details of the various options that he misses the big picture. For example, he might spend so much time looking for the best bargain on a birthday gift for a relative that he misses the person's birthday altogether. He might give the gift belatedly or he might just decide to cut his losses and send a card.
My experience ring shopping made me curious about the different ways people make decisions. I thought a simple google search would turn up a short list of specific "decision making styles." I was wrong. Apparently, there are as many theories about how people make decisions as there are ways for people to make decisions. There are also different sets of ideas depending upon the context in which a decision is made (e.g., organizational or management decision making; consumer financial decision making; personal, day to day decision making; career and occupational decision making; etc.). So much for a quick and easy way to satisfy my curiosity.
I ended up reading a huge amount of information about decision making and pulling out what I thought was relevant. There were a few common themes. So without further ado, I present to you a (VERY) basic (and by NO means comprehensive) list of individual decision making styles:
1. Rational/Analytic: This style involves identifying all potential options and gaining as much information as possible about each one. Once all options are identified and explored, each one is systematically evaluated based on a list of pre-determined criteria, to include costs, benefits and probable outcomes. Using the results of these evaluations, each option is compared to the others and the best one is selected.
2. Intuitive: This style involves selecting an option based on your "gut feeling." In other words, you choose the option that feels right, maybe without knowing exactly why.
3. Consultative: This style involves seeking feedback and advice from several trusted individuals. You take this feedback into consideration when forming your own opinions and evaluating available options. In other words, the feedback you receive from others influences your opinions and shapes the way you think about your options. You might also use a consultative style after you form your own opinions and evaluate available options. In this instance, you would use some other decision making technique to reach a tentative conclusion about the path you want to take; you would then seek feedback from others as a cautionary measure. If others support the decision you want to make then you will be confident in implementing it. If those you consult bring up points that you had not previously considered, you might go back to the beginning of the decision making process and re-evaluate your options.
4. Dependent: Like the consultative style, this method also involves seeking direction and advice from several trusted individuals. The difference in the two methods is that someone using a dependent style is looking for someone to tell him what he should do (as opposed to using feedback from others to guide him in making a decision for himself). Essentially, a "dependent decision maker" tries to avoid making his own decisions by having someone else make them for him.
5. Avoidant: This style involves putting off making a decision until the last possible moment. The extra time is not used to gather information or to weigh available options. Rather, the time is spent trying to avoid thinking about the decision at all. Basically, an "avoidant decision maker" doesn't like making decisions and tries to put off doing it until he absolutely has to. Avoidant decision makers tend to procrastinate in other areas of their lives as well.
6. Spontaneous: This style involves approaching all decisions with a sense of immediacy and urgency. A spontaneous decision maker is driven by his desire to get through the decision making process as quickly as possible. (THIS IS ME! I was elated to find my decision making style described as "spontaneous." In reality, the appropriate adjective is probably something more like "anxious").
Decision making is a more complex topic than I initially realized. A person's decision making style is typically influenced by his or her personality. Obviously, personality is an infinitely complicated concept that I will not even try to tackle here. How do you make decisions? Does your decision making style seem to "fit" with your personality? Is your style one I talked about in this post or are there some decision making styles I completely overlooked?
I am a task oriented person. Buying our wedding rings was just one on a list of many things that had to be done in preparation for the wedding. When there is some task that needs to be done my mind will not rest until it is completed. In terms of decision making, this means I like to identify a few acceptable options that meet a short list of criteria and choose from those the one that seems to be the best fit. The task gets completed in an acceptable manner and I am free to move on to other things.
I realize there are drawback to the way I make decisions. In prioritizing efficiency I might miss out on finding an "ideal" solution or getting the best deal. In the case of the wedding rings, maybe the perfect ring was out there somewhere, and on sale; if so, I missed out because I didn't take the time to look everywhere. Still, I'm happy with the rings we decided to get and never once have I wished we'd shopped around a little more.
There are also drawbacks to my husband's method of decision making. Sometimes, he gets so lost in the details of the various options that he misses the big picture. For example, he might spend so much time looking for the best bargain on a birthday gift for a relative that he misses the person's birthday altogether. He might give the gift belatedly or he might just decide to cut his losses and send a card.
My experience ring shopping made me curious about the different ways people make decisions. I thought a simple google search would turn up a short list of specific "decision making styles." I was wrong. Apparently, there are as many theories about how people make decisions as there are ways for people to make decisions. There are also different sets of ideas depending upon the context in which a decision is made (e.g., organizational or management decision making; consumer financial decision making; personal, day to day decision making; career and occupational decision making; etc.). So much for a quick and easy way to satisfy my curiosity.
I ended up reading a huge amount of information about decision making and pulling out what I thought was relevant. There were a few common themes. So without further ado, I present to you a (VERY) basic (and by NO means comprehensive) list of individual decision making styles:
1. Rational/Analytic: This style involves identifying all potential options and gaining as much information as possible about each one. Once all options are identified and explored, each one is systematically evaluated based on a list of pre-determined criteria, to include costs, benefits and probable outcomes. Using the results of these evaluations, each option is compared to the others and the best one is selected.
2. Intuitive: This style involves selecting an option based on your "gut feeling." In other words, you choose the option that feels right, maybe without knowing exactly why.
3. Consultative: This style involves seeking feedback and advice from several trusted individuals. You take this feedback into consideration when forming your own opinions and evaluating available options. In other words, the feedback you receive from others influences your opinions and shapes the way you think about your options. You might also use a consultative style after you form your own opinions and evaluate available options. In this instance, you would use some other decision making technique to reach a tentative conclusion about the path you want to take; you would then seek feedback from others as a cautionary measure. If others support the decision you want to make then you will be confident in implementing it. If those you consult bring up points that you had not previously considered, you might go back to the beginning of the decision making process and re-evaluate your options.
4. Dependent: Like the consultative style, this method also involves seeking direction and advice from several trusted individuals. The difference in the two methods is that someone using a dependent style is looking for someone to tell him what he should do (as opposed to using feedback from others to guide him in making a decision for himself). Essentially, a "dependent decision maker" tries to avoid making his own decisions by having someone else make them for him.
5. Avoidant: This style involves putting off making a decision until the last possible moment. The extra time is not used to gather information or to weigh available options. Rather, the time is spent trying to avoid thinking about the decision at all. Basically, an "avoidant decision maker" doesn't like making decisions and tries to put off doing it until he absolutely has to. Avoidant decision makers tend to procrastinate in other areas of their lives as well.
6. Spontaneous: This style involves approaching all decisions with a sense of immediacy and urgency. A spontaneous decision maker is driven by his desire to get through the decision making process as quickly as possible. (THIS IS ME! I was elated to find my decision making style described as "spontaneous." In reality, the appropriate adjective is probably something more like "anxious").
Decision making is a more complex topic than I initially realized. A person's decision making style is typically influenced by his or her personality. Obviously, personality is an infinitely complicated concept that I will not even try to tackle here. How do you make decisions? Does your decision making style seem to "fit" with your personality? Is your style one I talked about in this post or are there some decision making styles I completely overlooked?
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Quick Fixes
If there is one thing I've learned about personal change it is this: there are NO quick fixes. In fact, I think this is a principal that extends beyond personal change, to just about every aspect of life. There are very few things in life that can be achieved without focused intention and extended effort. In my opinion, the very belief in a quick fix (or "gain without pain") can lead to a lot of unnecessary suffering.
A lot of my patients enter therapy expecting me to perform some kind of "procedure" that will fix their problems within a few sessions. These are the patients who tend to eventually leave therapy prematurely, often feeling disappointed. I admit that sometimes this makes me feel really inadequate. Maybe there are times that I expect myself to perform some sort of "procedure" to alleviate a patient's suffering. When a patient looks at me in obvious desperation and says, "I'm still so depressed," it's difficult for me not to want to take responsibility for "fixing" it.
But therapy is simply not that way. Going to therapy is not like going to a medical doctor. A psychotherapist is not going to "run some tests" and then perform some kind of surgery. Psychotherapy is more like going to a general practitioner for help managing Type II diabetes. The doctor will probably give you some medication (just as a therapist might send you to a psychiatrist for medication). The doctor will then tell you that you can control or even "cure" your diabetes by changing your diet and exercising regularly. If, after leaving the doctor's office, you don't try to eat healthy and exercise you can hardly blame the doctor when you still have Type II diabetes a year later.
In other words, the most important factor in change is what the patient does outside of session. In session, I give feedback and point out patterns the patient might not have noticed. If the patient internalizes the information and uses it to identify and interrupt negative patterns in his day to day life then he is likely to improve. If the patient decides the information is not important then he will not think about it again after leaving my office. In session, I might share techniques and strategies that I think could be helpful to the patient. If the patient goes home and attempts some of these strategies we can discuss it when she comes back to her next session. We can identify obstacles to successful implementation and make alterations as needed. On the other hand, if the patient decides that the techniques "won't help," she will not think about them again after leaving my office.
There are a lot of other arenas in which the "quick fix" attitude seem to be prominent (and frequently problematic). The two that most readily come to mind for me are accumulating monetary wealth and weight loss. Think about all the billions of dollars that are made on "get rich quick" schemes and weight loss pills and fad diets. These products all play on people's desire for a simple, no hassle solution. Unfortunately, most of these products do not produce the results they promise, leaving their users feeling disappointed and defeated.
The fact is, in life there really aren't any "quick fixes." The surest way to accumulate monetary wealth is to save as much as possible and to invest wisely. The surest way to lose weight is to eat healthy and exercise regularly. As for change, I can't say what the "surest" method of personal growth is; I can, however, say with certainty that it almost always requires a long term commitment.
A lot of my patients enter therapy expecting me to perform some kind of "procedure" that will fix their problems within a few sessions. These are the patients who tend to eventually leave therapy prematurely, often feeling disappointed. I admit that sometimes this makes me feel really inadequate. Maybe there are times that I expect myself to perform some sort of "procedure" to alleviate a patient's suffering. When a patient looks at me in obvious desperation and says, "I'm still so depressed," it's difficult for me not to want to take responsibility for "fixing" it.
But therapy is simply not that way. Going to therapy is not like going to a medical doctor. A psychotherapist is not going to "run some tests" and then perform some kind of surgery. Psychotherapy is more like going to a general practitioner for help managing Type II diabetes. The doctor will probably give you some medication (just as a therapist might send you to a psychiatrist for medication). The doctor will then tell you that you can control or even "cure" your diabetes by changing your diet and exercising regularly. If, after leaving the doctor's office, you don't try to eat healthy and exercise you can hardly blame the doctor when you still have Type II diabetes a year later.
In other words, the most important factor in change is what the patient does outside of session. In session, I give feedback and point out patterns the patient might not have noticed. If the patient internalizes the information and uses it to identify and interrupt negative patterns in his day to day life then he is likely to improve. If the patient decides the information is not important then he will not think about it again after leaving my office. In session, I might share techniques and strategies that I think could be helpful to the patient. If the patient goes home and attempts some of these strategies we can discuss it when she comes back to her next session. We can identify obstacles to successful implementation and make alterations as needed. On the other hand, if the patient decides that the techniques "won't help," she will not think about them again after leaving my office.
There are a lot of other arenas in which the "quick fix" attitude seem to be prominent (and frequently problematic). The two that most readily come to mind for me are accumulating monetary wealth and weight loss. Think about all the billions of dollars that are made on "get rich quick" schemes and weight loss pills and fad diets. These products all play on people's desire for a simple, no hassle solution. Unfortunately, most of these products do not produce the results they promise, leaving their users feeling disappointed and defeated.
The fact is, in life there really aren't any "quick fixes." The surest way to accumulate monetary wealth is to save as much as possible and to invest wisely. The surest way to lose weight is to eat healthy and exercise regularly. As for change, I can't say what the "surest" method of personal growth is; I can, however, say with certainty that it almost always requires a long term commitment.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Over-thinking
Being a "thinker" is, for the most part, a positive quality. Careful consideration about what's going on in the world around you results in improved decision making. As with most things in life, however, thinking too much can create problems. Most of us have, at some point, probably commented or heard someone else remark, "I think I'm over-analyzing the situation" or "I'm probably just over-thinking this."
So what is analytical thinking? Mary Blast, PhD (www.breakoutofthebox.com) describes it as "understanding a situation by breaking it apart into smaller pieces, or tracing the implications of a situation in a step-by-step causal way." She states that, among other things, analytical thought includes setting priorities, recognizing several likely causes of events, identifying likely consequences of an action, anticipating obstacles, and thinking ahead to one's next steps.
What does it mean to "over-analyze?" In my opinion, analysis crosses the line to over-analysis when it turns into rumination. The purpose of analysis is to gain a clear understanding of a problem or issue with the ultimate goal of developing solutions to a problem or identifying effective ways to approach or cope with an issue. In other words, the process of analysis should eventually lead to 1. Clearer understanding of a problem or situation and 2. Possible answers, solutions, approaches, etc. to the issue under consideration. If thinking about a problem's possible causes, consequences, etc. makes the problem less clear and makes you feel more confused about it then you can be fairly certain that you are over-analyzing it. If considering how to approach a given situation causes you to become so overwhelmed that you are unable to act then you can be sure you are over-thinking things. If contemplating the implications of a particular issue leads you to conclude that you have absolutely no control over the situation or its outcome but you continue to contemplate them again and again anyway, you are no longer engaging in productive thought; you are ruminating.
When dealing with a problem, concern, etc., there comes a point when the best thing to do is to stop thinking about it; you know you have reached that point when thinking about it ceases to be productive and begins to make you feel anxious, upset, or depressed.
I'll give you a personal example of how this can play out. Lately I've been spending a lot of time thinking about my finances and planning for my long-term financial security. I finally became eligible for my company's 401k plan about a month ago. Now that I'm contributing 10% of every paycheck to my retirement account I've had to adjust the amount I'm able to spend and save. It didn't take long to realize that I don't have a lot of money left over for leisure spending. I've considered several possible ways to free up some more money. I've looked into refinancing my mortgage at a lower interest rate; I discovered that I don't qualify for any of the government refinancing programs and don't have enough equity in my home to do it through the bank that owns my mortgage. I am currently exploring other options. I've thought about increasing the deductibles on my health and auto insurance policies - which would only cost me more if I had a health or automobile emergency - in order to decrease my monthly payments. I haven't reached a firm decision on whether or not to do it.
All of these ideas and decisions are a result of productive analysis of my financial situation. Thinking about my finances is not, however, always a productive endeavor. Here's an example of what goes through my mind when I'm engaging in unproductive thought:
Man, I hardly have any money left from this paycheck. But at least I'm putting a lot of money away for the future. Plus, when [my husband] finishes his master's degree he'll get a good job and be able to help out more. But what if he can't find a job? I can't pay all the bills by myself AND save for the future. Plus, I want to eventually have a kid. What if it takes him so long to find a job that I'm too old to have a kid by the time we can afford it? Would I still be able to lead a happy life if I never have a child? Will we end up becoming two lonely old people with no one to visit us? Wait, will we even be able to afford to retire? I'M saving money for retirement but he hasn't started yet. I don't think my money will be enough to take care of both of us. Man, am I going to have to keep working until I'm 80 years old? Well, I might as well. It'll keep me from feeling so lonely when we have no one to come visit us...
By this time I've usually started to feel anxious and depressed. I also feel helpless because I have absolutely no control over how long it will take my husband to find a decent paying job when he graduates in May. He may not even have that much control over it.
So I tell myself not to think about it. I push it from my mind and find something else to occupy my attention. Of course, these thoughts eventually creep back up again, but I do my best not to indulge them. They are just thoughts. Like all thoughts, if I don't grab onto them they will come and then go. If I label them as thoughts and refuse to accept them as truth then they will not have the power to make me anxious and unhappy.
So that's it. Being a "thinker" is mostly an asset. The problem with us thinkers is that we sometimes get carried away by our thoughts. It is important to keep in mind that thoughts are just thoughts. When they cause us to suffer, we can choose to let them go.
So what is analytical thinking? Mary Blast, PhD (www.breakoutofthebox.com) describes it as "understanding a situation by breaking it apart into smaller pieces, or tracing the implications of a situation in a step-by-step causal way." She states that, among other things, analytical thought includes setting priorities, recognizing several likely causes of events, identifying likely consequences of an action, anticipating obstacles, and thinking ahead to one's next steps.
What does it mean to "over-analyze?" In my opinion, analysis crosses the line to over-analysis when it turns into rumination. The purpose of analysis is to gain a clear understanding of a problem or issue with the ultimate goal of developing solutions to a problem or identifying effective ways to approach or cope with an issue. In other words, the process of analysis should eventually lead to 1. Clearer understanding of a problem or situation and 2. Possible answers, solutions, approaches, etc. to the issue under consideration. If thinking about a problem's possible causes, consequences, etc. makes the problem less clear and makes you feel more confused about it then you can be fairly certain that you are over-analyzing it. If considering how to approach a given situation causes you to become so overwhelmed that you are unable to act then you can be sure you are over-thinking things. If contemplating the implications of a particular issue leads you to conclude that you have absolutely no control over the situation or its outcome but you continue to contemplate them again and again anyway, you are no longer engaging in productive thought; you are ruminating.
When dealing with a problem, concern, etc., there comes a point when the best thing to do is to stop thinking about it; you know you have reached that point when thinking about it ceases to be productive and begins to make you feel anxious, upset, or depressed.
I'll give you a personal example of how this can play out. Lately I've been spending a lot of time thinking about my finances and planning for my long-term financial security. I finally became eligible for my company's 401k plan about a month ago. Now that I'm contributing 10% of every paycheck to my retirement account I've had to adjust the amount I'm able to spend and save. It didn't take long to realize that I don't have a lot of money left over for leisure spending. I've considered several possible ways to free up some more money. I've looked into refinancing my mortgage at a lower interest rate; I discovered that I don't qualify for any of the government refinancing programs and don't have enough equity in my home to do it through the bank that owns my mortgage. I am currently exploring other options. I've thought about increasing the deductibles on my health and auto insurance policies - which would only cost me more if I had a health or automobile emergency - in order to decrease my monthly payments. I haven't reached a firm decision on whether or not to do it.
All of these ideas and decisions are a result of productive analysis of my financial situation. Thinking about my finances is not, however, always a productive endeavor. Here's an example of what goes through my mind when I'm engaging in unproductive thought:
Man, I hardly have any money left from this paycheck. But at least I'm putting a lot of money away for the future. Plus, when [my husband] finishes his master's degree he'll get a good job and be able to help out more. But what if he can't find a job? I can't pay all the bills by myself AND save for the future. Plus, I want to eventually have a kid. What if it takes him so long to find a job that I'm too old to have a kid by the time we can afford it? Would I still be able to lead a happy life if I never have a child? Will we end up becoming two lonely old people with no one to visit us? Wait, will we even be able to afford to retire? I'M saving money for retirement but he hasn't started yet. I don't think my money will be enough to take care of both of us. Man, am I going to have to keep working until I'm 80 years old? Well, I might as well. It'll keep me from feeling so lonely when we have no one to come visit us...
By this time I've usually started to feel anxious and depressed. I also feel helpless because I have absolutely no control over how long it will take my husband to find a decent paying job when he graduates in May. He may not even have that much control over it.
So I tell myself not to think about it. I push it from my mind and find something else to occupy my attention. Of course, these thoughts eventually creep back up again, but I do my best not to indulge them. They are just thoughts. Like all thoughts, if I don't grab onto them they will come and then go. If I label them as thoughts and refuse to accept them as truth then they will not have the power to make me anxious and unhappy.
So that's it. Being a "thinker" is mostly an asset. The problem with us thinkers is that we sometimes get carried away by our thoughts. It is important to keep in mind that thoughts are just thoughts. When they cause us to suffer, we can choose to let them go.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Why do we keep re-enacting the past?
Human beings have a tendency to re-enact their pasts that seems almost compulsory. People who are physically abused as children are more likely to abuse their own children or to later marry a physically abusive partner. Boys who are sexually abused as children are at an elevated risk for sexually abusing others as they get older. Girls who are sexually abused as children have a greater risk than others of becoming strippers or prostitutes. A girl with an alcoholic father is more likely as an adult to marry an alcoholic man. A boy with an alcoholic father has a higher risk of becoming an alcoholic himself. Women who have been sexually assaulted as teenagers or adults have an elevated risk of future sexual assaults.
This is the stuff of therapy. Unfortunately, the negative patterns people repeat or re-enact over and over again in their lives can be extremely resistant to change. This is particularly true for patterns that developed as a result of early childhood life experiences. The foundations of personality are laid down and solidified during childhood. Any sort of traumatic experience (even something like being repeatedly criticized by a parent or having a parent who never shows affection) that occurs during this time becomes woven into the very fabric of an individual's personality. It becomes part of who they are.
This can be exceedingly frustrating for therapists. It is very difficult to work with a patient who continues to repeat the same problematic behaviors despite recognizing the negative impact they have on their lives (and on the lives of those they love). It's easy to conclude that the person doesn't want help or doesn't want to change. I've had a few patients like this over the years. I eventually concluded that they needed a more experienced or more competent therapist. I just reached a point where I'd tried everything I could think of and I didn't know what else to do.
I can also recall several instances in my own life when I knew I shouldn't take a particular course of action -- knew I would regret it later -- but did it anyway. It's almost as if, for those moments, logic and reason simply didn't matter to me. I can't say that reason abandoned me -- I can clearly recall thinking to myself that whatever I was about to do was a bad idea and that I shouldn't do it. But there was something else -- some sort of pull -- that was stronger than reason. It was that pull that led me to decide, "I know it's bad for me but I'm going to do it anyway."
I think that is what is must be like for those of us who repeat the same negative patterns of behavior over and over again. There is some sort of pull that compels us to do these things, despite knowing that there will be undesirable consequences.
My issue was that in the course of looking for a committed romantic relationship, I repeatedly became involved with men who had "commitment issues." It was never done intentionally; remember, I was looking for a committed relationship. When I became interested in someone it was not usually readily apparent that this person had problems with commitment. It was only after we became involved that the commitment issues became apparent. Even so, I would remain in the relationship, always against my better judgment and always to my personal detriment.
Despite all the personal growth and self healing I was able to achieve, I never really "resolved" this issue. When I met my husband he initially indicated that he was looking for a committed relationship. About a month after we started dating he changed his mind; he needed to focus on getting his life together first. Despite knowing this, I continued to see him maybe twice a week for several months. Eventually, he worked through some of the problems he was having and told me he was ready to be serious. So I never really stopped getting involved with "unavailable" men; I just happened to get lucky.
The point is, if I couldn't stop my own self-destructive behavior patterns, how can I help someone else stop theirs? Whenever I have a patient who presents with repeated self-destructive behaviors I end up feeling powerless to help them and completely defeated. I keep working with them and trying to help but I never really feel like I'm accomplishing anything.
In theory, however, just being there to listen without being judgmental, to validate the patient's feelings, and to accept that person exactly as he is -- is, in fact, helpful. ("It feels like what I do with my friends," I always say to myself. "How can it be therapy?").
Author David Wallin (www.davidjwallin.com/PDF/DavidWallin/AttachmentInPsychotherapy.pdf) explains why this kind of mindful presence is therapeutic. "If our early involvements [with our parents or primary childhood caregivers] have been problematic, then subsequent relationships can offer second chances, perhaps affording us the potential to love, feel, and reflect with the freedom that flows from secure attachment. Psychotherapy, at its best, provides just such a healing relationship."
When I think about it, maybe that's what all of us who repeatedly engage in the same problematic behaviors need - a second chance relationship. Maybe my husband is that second chance relationship for me. And maybe for my patients I can provide that second chance...
This is the stuff of therapy. Unfortunately, the negative patterns people repeat or re-enact over and over again in their lives can be extremely resistant to change. This is particularly true for patterns that developed as a result of early childhood life experiences. The foundations of personality are laid down and solidified during childhood. Any sort of traumatic experience (even something like being repeatedly criticized by a parent or having a parent who never shows affection) that occurs during this time becomes woven into the very fabric of an individual's personality. It becomes part of who they are.
This can be exceedingly frustrating for therapists. It is very difficult to work with a patient who continues to repeat the same problematic behaviors despite recognizing the negative impact they have on their lives (and on the lives of those they love). It's easy to conclude that the person doesn't want help or doesn't want to change. I've had a few patients like this over the years. I eventually concluded that they needed a more experienced or more competent therapist. I just reached a point where I'd tried everything I could think of and I didn't know what else to do.
I can also recall several instances in my own life when I knew I shouldn't take a particular course of action -- knew I would regret it later -- but did it anyway. It's almost as if, for those moments, logic and reason simply didn't matter to me. I can't say that reason abandoned me -- I can clearly recall thinking to myself that whatever I was about to do was a bad idea and that I shouldn't do it. But there was something else -- some sort of pull -- that was stronger than reason. It was that pull that led me to decide, "I know it's bad for me but I'm going to do it anyway."
I think that is what is must be like for those of us who repeat the same negative patterns of behavior over and over again. There is some sort of pull that compels us to do these things, despite knowing that there will be undesirable consequences.
My issue was that in the course of looking for a committed romantic relationship, I repeatedly became involved with men who had "commitment issues." It was never done intentionally; remember, I was looking for a committed relationship. When I became interested in someone it was not usually readily apparent that this person had problems with commitment. It was only after we became involved that the commitment issues became apparent. Even so, I would remain in the relationship, always against my better judgment and always to my personal detriment.
Despite all the personal growth and self healing I was able to achieve, I never really "resolved" this issue. When I met my husband he initially indicated that he was looking for a committed relationship. About a month after we started dating he changed his mind; he needed to focus on getting his life together first. Despite knowing this, I continued to see him maybe twice a week for several months. Eventually, he worked through some of the problems he was having and told me he was ready to be serious. So I never really stopped getting involved with "unavailable" men; I just happened to get lucky.
The point is, if I couldn't stop my own self-destructive behavior patterns, how can I help someone else stop theirs? Whenever I have a patient who presents with repeated self-destructive behaviors I end up feeling powerless to help them and completely defeated. I keep working with them and trying to help but I never really feel like I'm accomplishing anything.
In theory, however, just being there to listen without being judgmental, to validate the patient's feelings, and to accept that person exactly as he is -- is, in fact, helpful. ("It feels like what I do with my friends," I always say to myself. "How can it be therapy?").
Author David Wallin (www.davidjwallin.com/PDF/DavidWallin/AttachmentInPsychotherapy.pdf) explains why this kind of mindful presence is therapeutic. "If our early involvements [with our parents or primary childhood caregivers] have been problematic, then subsequent relationships can offer second chances, perhaps affording us the potential to love, feel, and reflect with the freedom that flows from secure attachment. Psychotherapy, at its best, provides just such a healing relationship."
When I think about it, maybe that's what all of us who repeatedly engage in the same problematic behaviors need - a second chance relationship. Maybe my husband is that second chance relationship for me. And maybe for my patients I can provide that second chance...
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Countertransference
We don't often admit it, but all therapists have patients they don't like very much. It's usually a relatively infrequent occurrence. Over time, however, a pattern tends to become apparent; for an individual therapist, there is a certain "type" of patient that consistently evokes a negative response.
Personally, I have trouble working with patients who excessively and consistently complain about their problems but show no real interest in making any changes. They often respond to feedback or suggestions with a litany of reasons why these ideas won't help them. They frequently fail to attempt any therapeutic strategies in between sessions, despite my encouragement. Sometimes, they insist that they only way to make things better is to change the circumstances in their external environment. Inevitably, these are circumstances over which they have absolutely no control. I fairly consistently point out that they have no control over this particular aspect of their external environment but suggest that they can learn to cope with it more effectively. Usually, this makes them angry. I find this exceedingly annoying. I just don't think there is anything to be gained from repeatedly complaining about circumstances you can't change.
One of my coworkers recently gave a brief presentation on countertransference that made me start to think about how I react to certain patients. Countertransference refers to any emotional response on behalf of a therapist that stems from his or her therapeutic interactions with the patient. The idea is that a therapist's emotional reactions to a patient frequently have to do with the therapist's own unresolved issues. Instead of being annoyed with the patient for causing a negative emotional response, the therapist should look at herself to figure out why she is reacting the way she is.
Honestly, I can't tell you why this one particular type of patient bothers me so much, at least not yet. I did, however, find a good suggestion for dealing with my countertransference by a psychologist named Dr. John Martin (www.4therapy.com). When dealing with a patient who triggers strong emotions, Dr. Martin suggests setting aside one full session with that patient to pay attention to myself. In other words, I should avoid any challenging or deep conversations during that session so that I can pay attention to what I am thinking and how I am feeling. Specifically, I should notice my feelings about my interactions with the patient (e.g., How do I feel about what I say to the patient? How do I feel about how he/she responds to what I say?, etc.) and about my relationship with the patient overall. As my feelings change throughout the session, I should try to notice what is happening to the patient's behavior. After the session, I should ask myself, "How am I contributing to the dysfunction in my relationship with this patient?"
It's funny how things always seem to point back to mindfulness. It seems to offer a solution (or at least an approach) to every negative thought, feeling, behavior, or situation that life presents. Dr. Martin doesn't call his approach to countertransference "mindfulness," but that is exactly what it is. Giving my nonjudgmental attention to my emotions as they arise will make me less reactive to them. Dr. Martin offers this as a technique that will prevent me from being drawn into a patient's "emotional drama."
Personally, I have trouble working with patients who excessively and consistently complain about their problems but show no real interest in making any changes. They often respond to feedback or suggestions with a litany of reasons why these ideas won't help them. They frequently fail to attempt any therapeutic strategies in between sessions, despite my encouragement. Sometimes, they insist that they only way to make things better is to change the circumstances in their external environment. Inevitably, these are circumstances over which they have absolutely no control. I fairly consistently point out that they have no control over this particular aspect of their external environment but suggest that they can learn to cope with it more effectively. Usually, this makes them angry. I find this exceedingly annoying. I just don't think there is anything to be gained from repeatedly complaining about circumstances you can't change.
One of my coworkers recently gave a brief presentation on countertransference that made me start to think about how I react to certain patients. Countertransference refers to any emotional response on behalf of a therapist that stems from his or her therapeutic interactions with the patient. The idea is that a therapist's emotional reactions to a patient frequently have to do with the therapist's own unresolved issues. Instead of being annoyed with the patient for causing a negative emotional response, the therapist should look at herself to figure out why she is reacting the way she is.
Honestly, I can't tell you why this one particular type of patient bothers me so much, at least not yet. I did, however, find a good suggestion for dealing with my countertransference by a psychologist named Dr. John Martin (www.4therapy.com). When dealing with a patient who triggers strong emotions, Dr. Martin suggests setting aside one full session with that patient to pay attention to myself. In other words, I should avoid any challenging or deep conversations during that session so that I can pay attention to what I am thinking and how I am feeling. Specifically, I should notice my feelings about my interactions with the patient (e.g., How do I feel about what I say to the patient? How do I feel about how he/she responds to what I say?, etc.) and about my relationship with the patient overall. As my feelings change throughout the session, I should try to notice what is happening to the patient's behavior. After the session, I should ask myself, "How am I contributing to the dysfunction in my relationship with this patient?"
It's funny how things always seem to point back to mindfulness. It seems to offer a solution (or at least an approach) to every negative thought, feeling, behavior, or situation that life presents. Dr. Martin doesn't call his approach to countertransference "mindfulness," but that is exactly what it is. Giving my nonjudgmental attention to my emotions as they arise will make me less reactive to them. Dr. Martin offers this as a technique that will prevent me from being drawn into a patient's "emotional drama."
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Self growth
I consider myself to be a relatively self aware person. Over the years, I have engaged in a lot of self-analysis, soul searching, and self reflection in an effort to understand what my problems are and to figure out how to deal with them. I spent a lot of time learning to like myself as a person. I taught myself not to immediately act on feelings of insecurity or jealousy, which ultimately led to me having fewer feelings of insecurity and jealousy. I learned how to portray self-confidence (even though I didn't feel self confident), which eventually generated feelings of confidence. I learned to listen when someone gives me negative feedback and to avoid becoming so defensive that I am unable to consider the validity of what I'm being told. I learned to accept responsibility for my role in a conflict, even if part of me clings to the need to be right. I learned to say no and set limits as needed. I started forgiving myself for making mistakes.
When I compare how I used to be to the way I am now I think to myself, "Wow. I've come a LONG way." I worked hard to become a better, happier person. I experienced a lot of emotional pain but I grew from it. When I consider how far I've come I feel proud.
And then I got married. A romantic relationship is, without a doubt, the best context for personal growth to occur. In my opinion, personal growth has to occur for a relationship to be a satisfying one. Why are romantic relationships so uniquely suited for self growth? Because while these are the relationships that typically bring out the best in us, they are also the relationships that are guaranteed to bring out the worst in us.
Think about it. What other relationship makes you feel as vulnerable as a romantic one? What other relationship so consistently triggers your insecurities? And who besides your romantic partner is likely to be as forthcoming with you about the not-so-pleasant parts of your personality? A romantic partner typically spends more time with you than anyone else; he or she will notice things about you that others never have the opportunity to see.
Needless to say, my new marriage has provided innumerable opportunities to re-examine myself. I firmly believe that people should always seek to know and understand themselves and should always be willing to grow. These are lifelong endeavors. Still, it's been really difficulty for me to re-examine the way I do things yet again and make changes. I suppose that because I'd only just reached a point where I was satisfied with who I am I wanted to sit back and enjoy it for a while.
For years I've devoted so much time and energy into learning to love and accept myself. Maybe I'm just tired. Yet I can't stop. I have to learn to accept things about my husband that sometimes drive me crazy. That might require me to consider why something that is relatively unimportant bothers me so much. Then there are the things that bother my husband about me that I never really saw as a problem before. Some of these my husband will have to learn to accept; others I will have to work on changing.
So now is really not the time to sit back and enjoy my hard-earned self-esteem. Maybe I was kidding myself anyway, to think you ever reach a point where it's ok to stop growing, even for a little while.
When I compare how I used to be to the way I am now I think to myself, "Wow. I've come a LONG way." I worked hard to become a better, happier person. I experienced a lot of emotional pain but I grew from it. When I consider how far I've come I feel proud.
And then I got married. A romantic relationship is, without a doubt, the best context for personal growth to occur. In my opinion, personal growth has to occur for a relationship to be a satisfying one. Why are romantic relationships so uniquely suited for self growth? Because while these are the relationships that typically bring out the best in us, they are also the relationships that are guaranteed to bring out the worst in us.
Think about it. What other relationship makes you feel as vulnerable as a romantic one? What other relationship so consistently triggers your insecurities? And who besides your romantic partner is likely to be as forthcoming with you about the not-so-pleasant parts of your personality? A romantic partner typically spends more time with you than anyone else; he or she will notice things about you that others never have the opportunity to see.
Needless to say, my new marriage has provided innumerable opportunities to re-examine myself. I firmly believe that people should always seek to know and understand themselves and should always be willing to grow. These are lifelong endeavors. Still, it's been really difficulty for me to re-examine the way I do things yet again and make changes. I suppose that because I'd only just reached a point where I was satisfied with who I am I wanted to sit back and enjoy it for a while.
For years I've devoted so much time and energy into learning to love and accept myself. Maybe I'm just tired. Yet I can't stop. I have to learn to accept things about my husband that sometimes drive me crazy. That might require me to consider why something that is relatively unimportant bothers me so much. Then there are the things that bother my husband about me that I never really saw as a problem before. Some of these my husband will have to learn to accept; others I will have to work on changing.
So now is really not the time to sit back and enjoy my hard-earned self-esteem. Maybe I was kidding myself anyway, to think you ever reach a point where it's ok to stop growing, even for a little while.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
A Personal Life Story
We all have a life story. A life story is my personal account of all the important events and experiences that have contributed to my becoming who I am today. Because my life story explains how I became who I am it plays a significant role in shaping the way I define (and perceive) myself.
Throughout life, we accumulate an endless number of experiences, the majority of which we later have no memory or recollection. Our brains cannot possibly store a detailed account of every waking minute of every day we are alive. Thus, it must filter and prioritize in order to decide which experiences to preserve and which to discard. For this reason my personal life story - my self narrative - consists of events to which I ascribe a particular meaning (and that I deem important). The meaning I ascribe to a given event consists of the conclusions I have come to about why the event occurred and how it affected me. Meaning is therefore highly subjective. If someone else were asked to select the most significant events from my life, that person might create a narrative that differs significantly from the one I've adopted.
When a patient first comes to me for therapy he tells a story. His story explains, "What's wrong?" and sometimes "How things came to be this way." Often, his story continues to unfold over the course of several sessions until I ultimately get a pretty clear picture of how this person defines himself. For example, one patient recently summarized the theme of his life story as follows: "Everyone I have ever cared about has either died or betrayed me. Everything I have ever worked to achieve has been taken from me by some other person." This short summary speaks volumes. It tells me that this particular patient perceives himself as powerless over his environment; he thinks of himself as a victim of external circumstances and of the malevolent intentions of others. This worldview causes him to have no hope that he will be anything other than a victim for the rest of his life. Because "everyone" he has cared about either abandoned or betrayed him he does not trust anyone. This prevents him from even attempting to establish meaningful relationships with others.
We allude to the themes we've taken from our personal narratives when we say things like, "I've always fought for what I wanted. I'm not going to give up now" or "I've always been emotionally sensitive, even when I was a child," or "I've blown every opportunity life has ever given me. I'm a complete failure."
A life story is always a work in progress. We can always choose to add a previously forgotten anecdote that reveals our inner strength. We can always choose to highlight our successes and accomplishments. We can always convey our setbacks in terms of what we learned from them. There are many ways to tell a tale - even the same tale. When we compose our personal narratives we get to decide which events are important enough to include. We get to connect the dots and draw our own conclusions. In this way, we are empowered to determine how we want to define ourselves, which in turn shapes our hopes and expectations for the future.
Throughout life, we accumulate an endless number of experiences, the majority of which we later have no memory or recollection. Our brains cannot possibly store a detailed account of every waking minute of every day we are alive. Thus, it must filter and prioritize in order to decide which experiences to preserve and which to discard. For this reason my personal life story - my self narrative - consists of events to which I ascribe a particular meaning (and that I deem important). The meaning I ascribe to a given event consists of the conclusions I have come to about why the event occurred and how it affected me. Meaning is therefore highly subjective. If someone else were asked to select the most significant events from my life, that person might create a narrative that differs significantly from the one I've adopted.
When a patient first comes to me for therapy he tells a story. His story explains, "What's wrong?" and sometimes "How things came to be this way." Often, his story continues to unfold over the course of several sessions until I ultimately get a pretty clear picture of how this person defines himself. For example, one patient recently summarized the theme of his life story as follows: "Everyone I have ever cared about has either died or betrayed me. Everything I have ever worked to achieve has been taken from me by some other person." This short summary speaks volumes. It tells me that this particular patient perceives himself as powerless over his environment; he thinks of himself as a victim of external circumstances and of the malevolent intentions of others. This worldview causes him to have no hope that he will be anything other than a victim for the rest of his life. Because "everyone" he has cared about either abandoned or betrayed him he does not trust anyone. This prevents him from even attempting to establish meaningful relationships with others.
We allude to the themes we've taken from our personal narratives when we say things like, "I've always fought for what I wanted. I'm not going to give up now" or "I've always been emotionally sensitive, even when I was a child," or "I've blown every opportunity life has ever given me. I'm a complete failure."
A life story is always a work in progress. We can always choose to add a previously forgotten anecdote that reveals our inner strength. We can always choose to highlight our successes and accomplishments. We can always convey our setbacks in terms of what we learned from them. There are many ways to tell a tale - even the same tale. When we compose our personal narratives we get to decide which events are important enough to include. We get to connect the dots and draw our own conclusions. In this way, we are empowered to determine how we want to define ourselves, which in turn shapes our hopes and expectations for the future.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Why some people always insist on being right
All of us have probably known or at least encountered someone who is simply unable to accept responsibility when he makes a mistake or to admit when he is wrong. We have probably all, at some point, known the frustration of dealing with someone who is "always right" and "never wrong." We may have experienced the futility of trying to reason with someone like this; even when presented with irrefutable evidence to the contrary, the person continues to insist that he is right. In situations where it is apparent that a mistake has been made (or an offense has been committed), he will blame someone else; it is NEVER his fault. If backed into a corner, a "never wrong-er" will, for example, insist that his behavior was a justified response to being abused or treated unfairly. (i.e., Yes, he was wrong, but it wasn't really his fault). A person like this will not even accept responsibility for his own emotions; he will, for example, insist, "Well he shouldn't have made me angry."
Nobody likes to admit to being wrong. However, most of us recognize that it sometimes need to be done and we do it, even if we don't want to. So what makes the people who cannot or will not admit to being wrong different from the rest of us? Is there away to get them to acknowledge when they are wrong and to admit when they've made a mistake?
I started thinking about this because of my own frustration dealing with someone who insist on always being right. For me, the worst thing about having a conflict with this person is that since he is "always right" then I always have to be wrong. I quickly started to resent being blamed for every problem that arises. Like most people, it's very hard for me to admit when I've done something wrong. Sometimes it takes a little while for me to recognize that I've made a mistake. Whenever someone I care about points a finger at me to tell me I'm wrong, however, I always take some time to think about it and to reconsider my actions. If, after consideration (and sometimes even consultation with someone I trust), I see that I've done something wrong then I admit it. I apologize and try to identify what I need to do to avoid making the same mistake again. Ideally, the other person involved in the conflict will also examine his behaviors and will accept responsibility for whatever part he played in the situation. It is discouraging when this doesn't happen.
So I wanted to know why it is so difficult for some people to admit they are wrong. After doing some research, it became clear that different people have different reasons for doing this. I am going to list a few of these reasons. However, this list is by no means exhaustive.
I think that most people who always insist on being right do so unconsciously. Denial of wrongdoing is a defense mechanism that kicks in automatically whenever they are accused of doing something wrong. When you confront them with evidence that they've made a mistake they become defensive (hence the words defense mechanism). Exactly what is it that they are defending? They are defending their egos from overwhelming emotional tension and anxiety. A discussion on the theory of ego defense mechanisms is beyond the scope of this little blog post. Suffice it to say that people get defensive when asked to admit they are wrong because admitting they are wrong would deal a serious blow to their self-worth and sense of identity. The person could be a perfectionist who equates making a mistake with being a failure. The person might have underlying fears of being stupid or worthless; these fears are triggered when hey are accused of being wrong. Whatever the reason, these people unconsciously view being wrong as a threat to themselves and their identities.
It is sometimes possible to reason with a person like this. The general rule is to proceed gently and to adopt a non-accusatory tone. You want to address the problem without attacking the person. If the person feels like he's being attacked he is going to become defensive and you will get nowhere. If possible, try to give some positive feedback or point out strengths before bringing up the problem. If the person's mis-behavior seems to be a reaction to difficult external circumstances then acknowledge these circumstances. Let him know you understand how difficult the situation is and try to brainstorm better ways to handle it. If there is a clear way to make amends or end the conflict then let the person know this and offer to help him with whatever needs to be done. Make sure you choose the right time and place to have the conversation. Let the person know you want to talk and ask him if it's a good time. If not, find out when he's available and agree to talk with him then.
What are other reasons people won't admit they are wrong? Well, some who refuse to fess up when they've done something wrong are motivated by the desire to avoid facing negative consequences. Maybe the mistake was an honest one or maybe it was an intentional act of wrongdoing; either way, getting caught means suffering undesirable consequences. How to deal with this really depends on the circumstances. Some criminals, for example, maintain their innocence even after being convicted of a crime. Chances are, the less you are able to prove beyond doubt that the person committed an act of wrongdoing/made a mistake/etc. the less likely he is to admit that he did it. After all, why tell the truth if there's still a chance of getting away with it? If you have irrefutable evidence then ask yourself this: Do you really need for the person to admit guilt? The evidence provides sufficient grounds for implementing consequences, even if the person refuses to admit he did anything wrong.
Then there are the manipulators. These people define right and wrong a bit differently than the rest of us. For a manipulator, something is right when it benefits him. Something is wrong when it causes discomfort for him. In other words, as long as an action benefits him there is nothing wrong with it. It is quite possible that the manipulator intentionally engaged in the act that you consider to be wrong in order to gain something for himself. You cannot convince the manipulator that his actions were wrong because he simply doesn't see it that way. If it benefits him then it's not wrong, remember? The manipulator also has a vested interest in persuading you to accept his alternate version of reality. His primary motivation is to get whatever he wants; it helps is he can recruit others to assist with this goal (or at least prevent them from interfering). Manipulators are often quite charming. A manipulator's endearing nature tends to put people at ease, which makes them more easily persuaded (i.e., manipulated). You will never get a manipulator to admit he is wrong; do not was time trying.
As I said, this list is far from exhaustive. If anyone has any other ideas about why people can't or won't admit when they are wrong please feel free to share.
Nobody likes to admit to being wrong. However, most of us recognize that it sometimes need to be done and we do it, even if we don't want to. So what makes the people who cannot or will not admit to being wrong different from the rest of us? Is there away to get them to acknowledge when they are wrong and to admit when they've made a mistake?
I started thinking about this because of my own frustration dealing with someone who insist on always being right. For me, the worst thing about having a conflict with this person is that since he is "always right" then I always have to be wrong. I quickly started to resent being blamed for every problem that arises. Like most people, it's very hard for me to admit when I've done something wrong. Sometimes it takes a little while for me to recognize that I've made a mistake. Whenever someone I care about points a finger at me to tell me I'm wrong, however, I always take some time to think about it and to reconsider my actions. If, after consideration (and sometimes even consultation with someone I trust), I see that I've done something wrong then I admit it. I apologize and try to identify what I need to do to avoid making the same mistake again. Ideally, the other person involved in the conflict will also examine his behaviors and will accept responsibility for whatever part he played in the situation. It is discouraging when this doesn't happen.
So I wanted to know why it is so difficult for some people to admit they are wrong. After doing some research, it became clear that different people have different reasons for doing this. I am going to list a few of these reasons. However, this list is by no means exhaustive.
I think that most people who always insist on being right do so unconsciously. Denial of wrongdoing is a defense mechanism that kicks in automatically whenever they are accused of doing something wrong. When you confront them with evidence that they've made a mistake they become defensive (hence the words defense mechanism). Exactly what is it that they are defending? They are defending their egos from overwhelming emotional tension and anxiety. A discussion on the theory of ego defense mechanisms is beyond the scope of this little blog post. Suffice it to say that people get defensive when asked to admit they are wrong because admitting they are wrong would deal a serious blow to their self-worth and sense of identity. The person could be a perfectionist who equates making a mistake with being a failure. The person might have underlying fears of being stupid or worthless; these fears are triggered when hey are accused of being wrong. Whatever the reason, these people unconsciously view being wrong as a threat to themselves and their identities.
It is sometimes possible to reason with a person like this. The general rule is to proceed gently and to adopt a non-accusatory tone. You want to address the problem without attacking the person. If the person feels like he's being attacked he is going to become defensive and you will get nowhere. If possible, try to give some positive feedback or point out strengths before bringing up the problem. If the person's mis-behavior seems to be a reaction to difficult external circumstances then acknowledge these circumstances. Let him know you understand how difficult the situation is and try to brainstorm better ways to handle it. If there is a clear way to make amends or end the conflict then let the person know this and offer to help him with whatever needs to be done. Make sure you choose the right time and place to have the conversation. Let the person know you want to talk and ask him if it's a good time. If not, find out when he's available and agree to talk with him then.
What are other reasons people won't admit they are wrong? Well, some who refuse to fess up when they've done something wrong are motivated by the desire to avoid facing negative consequences. Maybe the mistake was an honest one or maybe it was an intentional act of wrongdoing; either way, getting caught means suffering undesirable consequences. How to deal with this really depends on the circumstances. Some criminals, for example, maintain their innocence even after being convicted of a crime. Chances are, the less you are able to prove beyond doubt that the person committed an act of wrongdoing/made a mistake/etc. the less likely he is to admit that he did it. After all, why tell the truth if there's still a chance of getting away with it? If you have irrefutable evidence then ask yourself this: Do you really need for the person to admit guilt? The evidence provides sufficient grounds for implementing consequences, even if the person refuses to admit he did anything wrong.
Then there are the manipulators. These people define right and wrong a bit differently than the rest of us. For a manipulator, something is right when it benefits him. Something is wrong when it causes discomfort for him. In other words, as long as an action benefits him there is nothing wrong with it. It is quite possible that the manipulator intentionally engaged in the act that you consider to be wrong in order to gain something for himself. You cannot convince the manipulator that his actions were wrong because he simply doesn't see it that way. If it benefits him then it's not wrong, remember? The manipulator also has a vested interest in persuading you to accept his alternate version of reality. His primary motivation is to get whatever he wants; it helps is he can recruit others to assist with this goal (or at least prevent them from interfering). Manipulators are often quite charming. A manipulator's endearing nature tends to put people at ease, which makes them more easily persuaded (i.e., manipulated). You will never get a manipulator to admit he is wrong; do not was time trying.
As I said, this list is far from exhaustive. If anyone has any other ideas about why people can't or won't admit when they are wrong please feel free to share.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)