Posts
Photo by Mashael Al-ShuwayerWhen I was growing up, I often heard people say, "Learn to accept your limits and you'll become a happier person," but no one ever bothered to explain what this meant or how to go about it? Furthermore, it always sounded like a bit of a put-down, as if they were saying, "Learn what a second-rate dud you actually are. In reality, it's not as bad as all that. Suppose you frequently look into the past and mope about your mistakes. For example, as you review the financial section of the paper, you tell yourself, "I shouldn't have bought that stock.It's gone down two points."
As a way out of this trap, ask yourself, "Now, at the time I bought the stock, did I know it was going to go down in value?" I suspect you'll say no.Now ask, "If I'd known it was going down, would I have bought it?" Again you'll answer no. So what you're really saying is that if you'd known this at the time, you'd have acted differently. To do this you would have to be able to predict the future with absolute certainty. Can you predict the future with absolute certainty? Again your answer must be no. You have two options: You can either decide to accept yourself as an imperfect human being with limited knowledge and realize that you will at times make mistakes, or you can hate yourself for it. Another effective way to combat shoulds is to ask, "Why should it?' Then you can challenge the evidence you come up with so as to expose the faulty logic. In this way you can reduce your should statement to the level of absurdity. Suppose, for example, you hire someone to do some work for you. It could be lawn work, or a painting job, or anything. When he submits his bill, it seems higher than you understood it would be, but he gives you some fast talk, so you give in and end up paying his price. You feel taken advantage of. You begin to berate yourself for not acting more firmly. Let's do some role-playing, and you can pretend that you're the poor sucker who paid too much.
As a way out of this trap, ask yourself, "Now, at the time I bought the stock, did I know it was going to go down in value?" I suspect you'll say no.Now ask, "If I'd known it was going down, would I have bought it?" Again you'll answer no. So what you're really saying is that if you'd known this at the time, you'd have acted differently. To do this you would have to be able to predict the future with absolute certainty. Can you predict the future with absolute certainty? Again your answer must be no. You have two options: You can either decide to accept yourself as an imperfect human being with limited knowledge and realize that you will at times make mistakes, or you can hate yourself for it. Another effective way to combat shoulds is to ask, "Why should it?' Then you can challenge the evidence you come up with so as to expose the faulty logic. In this way you can reduce your should statement to the level of absurdity. Suppose, for example, you hire someone to do some work for you. It could be lawn work, or a painting job, or anything. When he submits his bill, it seems higher than you understood it would be, but he gives you some fast talk, so you give in and end up paying his price. You feel taken advantage of. You begin to berate yourself for not acting more firmly. Let's do some role-playing, and you can pretend that you're the poor sucker who paid too much.
You: Yesterday I should have told that guy that his bill was too high. You should have told him that he gave you a lower estimate? Yeah. I should have been more assertive.
Why should you have? I agree that it would have been to your advantage to speak up for yourself. You can work on developing your assertive skills so that in the future you'll do better in situations like that. But the point is: Why should you have been more effective yesterday?
Well, because I'm always letting people take advantage of me. Okay, let's think about our line of reasoning. "Because I'm always letting people take advantage of me, I should have been more assertive yesterday. " Now-what is the rational response to this? Is there anything about your statement that seems a little bit illogical? Is there anything fishy about your reasoning? Mmmm ... let me think. Well, in the first place, it's not exactly true that I'm always letting people take advantage of me. That would be an over-generalization. I sometimes do get my way. In fact, I can be quite demanding at times. Furthermore, if it were true that I was always getting taken advantage of in certain situations, then it would follow that I should have behaved exactly as I did since this is my habit. Until I've mastered some new ways to deal with people, I'll probably continue to have this problem. Great. I couldn't have put it better. I see you've been absorbing what I've been telling you about should statements! I hope all my readers are as smart and attentive as you are! Are there any other reasons you think you should have behaved differently?
You: Uh, well, let me see. How about: I should have been more assertive because I wouldn't have had to pay more than I owed?
ME: Okay. Now what's the rational response to that? What is illogical about that argument?
You: Well, since I'm human I won't always do the right thing.
ME: Exactly. In fact, the following syllogism may help you. First premise: All human beings make mistakes, like sometimes paying too much. Do you agree with me so far?
You: Yes
ME: And what are you?
You: A human being.
ME: And what follows?
You: I should make mistakes.
ME: Right.
That should be enough should removal techniques for you.
Learn to Stick to your Guns: One of the big disadvantages of being guilt-prone is that others can and will use this guilt to manipulate you. If you feel obligated to please everyone, your family and friends will be able to coerce you effectively into doing many things that may not be in your best self-interest. To cite a trivial example, how many social invitations have you half-heartedly accepted so as not to hurt someones feelings? In this case the price you pay for saying yes when you really would have preferred to say no is not great. You only end up wasting one evening. And there is a payoff. You will avoid feeling guilty, and you can fantasize that you are an especially nice person. Furthermore, if you try to decline the invitation, the disappointed host may say, "But we are expecting you. Do you mean you are going to let the old gang down? Aw, come on. " And then what would you say? How would you feel? Your obsession with pleasing others becomes more tragic when your decisions become so dominated by guilt that you end up trapped and miserable. The irony is that, more often than not, the consequences of letting someone manipulate you with guilt end up being destructive not only to you but to the other person. Although your guilt-motivated actions are often based on your idealism, the inevitable effects of giving in turn out to be quite the opposite. For example, Margaret was a happily married twenty seven- year-old woman whose obese brother, a gambler, tended to take advantage of her in a variety of ways. He borrowed money when he ran short and often forgot to repay it. When he was in town (often for several months at a time) he assumed it was his right to eat dinner with her family every night, to drink up the liquor, and to use her new car whenever he wanted.
She rationalized giving in to his demands by saying: "If I asked him for a favor or needed his help, he'd do the same for me. After all, a loving brother and sister should help each other out. And besides, if I tried to say no to him he'd explode and I might lose him. Then I'd feel like I did something wrong." At the same time, she was able to see the negative consequences of continually giving in:
(1) She was supporting his dependent, self-defeating life-style and gambling addiction;
(2) She felt trapped and taken advantage of;
(3) The basis of the relationship was not love but blackmail-she was constantly having to say yes to his demands to avoid the tyranny of his temper and her own sense of guilt. Margaret and I did some role-playing so she could learn to say no and stick to her guns in a tactful but firm manner. I played Margaret's role, and she pretended to be her brother:
BROTHER (played by Margaret): Are you using the car tonight?
MARGARET (played by me): I'm not planning to now.
BROTHER: Do you mind if I borrow it later?
MARGARET: I'd prefer that you don't.
BROTHER: Why not? You're not going to use it. It'll just be sitting there.
MARGARET: Do you feel I'm obliged to loan it to you?
BROTHER: Well, I'd do the same for you if I had a car and you needed it.
MARGARET: I'm glad you feel that way. Although I'm not planning to use the car, I'd like to have it available in case I decide to go somewhere later on.
BROTHER: But you're not planning to use it! Haven't we been brought up to help each other?
MARGARET: Yes we have. Do you think that means I always have to say yes to you? We both do a great deal for each other. You have made a lot of use of my car and from now on I'd ..
feel more comfortable if you'd begin to arrange your own transportation.
BROTHER: I'm just planning to use it for an hour, so I'll get it back in case you need it. It's very
important and it's only a half mile away, so I won't wear your car out, don't worry.
MARGARET: It sounds like it is something important to you. Perhaps you can arrange some other transportation. Could you walk that distance?
BROTHER: Oh, that's fine! If that's how you feel, don't come to me for any favors!
MARGARET: It sounds like you're pretty mad because I'm not doing what you want. Do you feel I'm always obliged to say yes?
BROTHER: You and your philosophy! Shove it! I refuse to listen to any more of this hogwash! (Begins to storm off).
MARGARET: Iet's not talk about it any further then. Maybe in a couple of days you'll feel more like talking about. I think we do need to talk things over.
After this dialogue we reversed roles so that Margaret could practice being more assertive. When I played her brother's role, I gave her as tough a time as I could, and she learned how to handle me. This practice boosted her courage. She felt it was helpful to keep certain principles in mind when standing up to her brother's manipulations. These were:
(1) She could remind him it was her right not to say yes to all his demands.
(2) She could find a grain of truth in his arguments (the disarming technique) so as to
take the wind out of his sails, but she could then come back to her position that love did not mean always giving in.
(3) She was to adopt a strong, decisive and uncompromising position as tactfully as possible.
Well, because I'm always letting people take advantage of me. Okay, let's think about our line of reasoning. "Because I'm always letting people take advantage of me, I should have been more assertive yesterday. " Now-what is the rational response to this? Is there anything about your statement that seems a little bit illogical? Is there anything fishy about your reasoning? Mmmm ... let me think. Well, in the first place, it's not exactly true that I'm always letting people take advantage of me. That would be an over-generalization. I sometimes do get my way. In fact, I can be quite demanding at times. Furthermore, if it were true that I was always getting taken advantage of in certain situations, then it would follow that I should have behaved exactly as I did since this is my habit. Until I've mastered some new ways to deal with people, I'll probably continue to have this problem. Great. I couldn't have put it better. I see you've been absorbing what I've been telling you about should statements! I hope all my readers are as smart and attentive as you are! Are there any other reasons you think you should have behaved differently?
You: Uh, well, let me see. How about: I should have been more assertive because I wouldn't have had to pay more than I owed?
ME: Okay. Now what's the rational response to that? What is illogical about that argument?
You: Well, since I'm human I won't always do the right thing.
ME: Exactly. In fact, the following syllogism may help you. First premise: All human beings make mistakes, like sometimes paying too much. Do you agree with me so far?
You: Yes
ME: And what are you?
You: A human being.
ME: And what follows?
You: I should make mistakes.
ME: Right.
That should be enough should removal techniques for you.
Learn to Stick to your Guns: One of the big disadvantages of being guilt-prone is that others can and will use this guilt to manipulate you. If you feel obligated to please everyone, your family and friends will be able to coerce you effectively into doing many things that may not be in your best self-interest. To cite a trivial example, how many social invitations have you half-heartedly accepted so as not to hurt someones feelings? In this case the price you pay for saying yes when you really would have preferred to say no is not great. You only end up wasting one evening. And there is a payoff. You will avoid feeling guilty, and you can fantasize that you are an especially nice person. Furthermore, if you try to decline the invitation, the disappointed host may say, "But we are expecting you. Do you mean you are going to let the old gang down? Aw, come on. " And then what would you say? How would you feel? Your obsession with pleasing others becomes more tragic when your decisions become so dominated by guilt that you end up trapped and miserable. The irony is that, more often than not, the consequences of letting someone manipulate you with guilt end up being destructive not only to you but to the other person. Although your guilt-motivated actions are often based on your idealism, the inevitable effects of giving in turn out to be quite the opposite. For example, Margaret was a happily married twenty seven- year-old woman whose obese brother, a gambler, tended to take advantage of her in a variety of ways. He borrowed money when he ran short and often forgot to repay it. When he was in town (often for several months at a time) he assumed it was his right to eat dinner with her family every night, to drink up the liquor, and to use her new car whenever he wanted.
She rationalized giving in to his demands by saying: "If I asked him for a favor or needed his help, he'd do the same for me. After all, a loving brother and sister should help each other out. And besides, if I tried to say no to him he'd explode and I might lose him. Then I'd feel like I did something wrong." At the same time, she was able to see the negative consequences of continually giving in:
(1) She was supporting his dependent, self-defeating life-style and gambling addiction;
(2) She felt trapped and taken advantage of;
(3) The basis of the relationship was not love but blackmail-she was constantly having to say yes to his demands to avoid the tyranny of his temper and her own sense of guilt. Margaret and I did some role-playing so she could learn to say no and stick to her guns in a tactful but firm manner. I played Margaret's role, and she pretended to be her brother:
BROTHER (played by Margaret): Are you using the car tonight?
MARGARET (played by me): I'm not planning to now.
BROTHER: Do you mind if I borrow it later?
MARGARET: I'd prefer that you don't.
BROTHER: Why not? You're not going to use it. It'll just be sitting there.
MARGARET: Do you feel I'm obliged to loan it to you?
BROTHER: Well, I'd do the same for you if I had a car and you needed it.
MARGARET: I'm glad you feel that way. Although I'm not planning to use the car, I'd like to have it available in case I decide to go somewhere later on.
BROTHER: But you're not planning to use it! Haven't we been brought up to help each other?
MARGARET: Yes we have. Do you think that means I always have to say yes to you? We both do a great deal for each other. You have made a lot of use of my car and from now on I'd ..
feel more comfortable if you'd begin to arrange your own transportation.
BROTHER: I'm just planning to use it for an hour, so I'll get it back in case you need it. It's very
important and it's only a half mile away, so I won't wear your car out, don't worry.
MARGARET: It sounds like it is something important to you. Perhaps you can arrange some other transportation. Could you walk that distance?
BROTHER: Oh, that's fine! If that's how you feel, don't come to me for any favors!
MARGARET: It sounds like you're pretty mad because I'm not doing what you want. Do you feel I'm always obliged to say yes?
BROTHER: You and your philosophy! Shove it! I refuse to listen to any more of this hogwash! (Begins to storm off).
MARGARET: Iet's not talk about it any further then. Maybe in a couple of days you'll feel more like talking about. I think we do need to talk things over.
After this dialogue we reversed roles so that Margaret could practice being more assertive. When I played her brother's role, I gave her as tough a time as I could, and she learned how to handle me. This practice boosted her courage. She felt it was helpful to keep certain principles in mind when standing up to her brother's manipulations. These were:
(1) She could remind him it was her right not to say yes to all his demands.
(2) She could find a grain of truth in his arguments (the disarming technique) so as to
take the wind out of his sails, but she could then come back to her position that love did not mean always giving in.
(3) She was to adopt a strong, decisive and uncompromising position as tactfully as possible.
(4) She was not to buy into his role as a weak, inadequate little boy who couldn't stand on his own feet.
(5) She was not to respond to his anger by getting angry herself, because this would reinforce his belief he was a victim who was being unjustly deprived by a cruel, selfish witch.
(6) She had to risk the possibility he would temporarily withdraw and thwart her by refusing to talk to her or to consider her point of view. When he did this, she was to let him storm off but she could let him know there were some things she wanted to talk over with him later on when he was more in the mood to communicate. When Margaret did confront him she found he was not nearly as tough a customer as she imagined. He actually seemed relieved and began to act more adult when she put some limits on the relationship. If you choose to apply this technique, you will have to be determined to stick to your guns because the other guy (or gal) may try to bluff you into believing that you're mortally wounding them by not giving in to them. Remember that the hurt you inflict in the longer by not following your best self-interest is usually far greater. Practicing ahead of time is the key to success .
Like this article?
(5) She was not to respond to his anger by getting angry herself, because this would reinforce his belief he was a victim who was being unjustly deprived by a cruel, selfish witch.
(6) She had to risk the possibility he would temporarily withdraw and thwart her by refusing to talk to her or to consider her point of view. When he did this, she was to let him storm off but she could let him know there were some things she wanted to talk over with him later on when he was more in the mood to communicate. When Margaret did confront him she found he was not nearly as tough a customer as she imagined. He actually seemed relieved and began to act more adult when she put some limits on the relationship. If you choose to apply this technique, you will have to be determined to stick to your guns because the other guy (or gal) may try to bluff you into believing that you're mortally wounding them by not giving in to them. Remember that the hurt you inflict in the longer by not following your best self-interest is usually far greater. Practicing ahead of time is the key to success .
Like this article?
Facebook
0 comments:
Post a Comment