The Words You Use

Recently I have had a few spammers flaming my blog, so I have had to begin moderating my comments. I will still approve dissenting opinions, as long as they are thought out, and constructive. I am not one to stock the pond with only true believers; I just don’t want my readership to be exposed to the kind of silliness the internet can breed. It is a shame that I had to do this, but that is the risk you take being on the internet. Now, I know most of you that do read approach me personally with comments and discussion, which is fine, but as always feel free to make comments. And as always, just you being on the page increases my numbers, which makes me look good, and increases my visibility on search engines and the like. So I thank each and every one of you for your patronage.

As far as my progress goes, every day that passes, I get just that much closer to getting my Bachelors of Science in Psychology. It will be very soon, and by next fall I will be sending out my grad school applications. It is exciting to look at the possible doctoral programs that I am eligible for. Many of them will take me to a far-away place for a great deal of time. I am actually kind of overwhelmed with all of the prospective directions I could move in. I have a particular passion for personality psychology, but there are other focuses that peak my interest. So as the day of sending out my doctoral program applications approaches, it becomes a process of comparing schools and weighing options.

Anyway, let us move onto the psychology discussion. While I do find other aspects of psychology interesting, I am drawn more toward that of REBT and other kinds of CBT. As you may have noticed, a great deal of my posts have been heavy on the cognitive behavioral side of personality theory. I do in fact appreciate other avenues, but this is my personal blog, so I decided to discuss topics that I find the most alluring, and psychotherapy, REBT, and interpersonal relationships are what I find to be the most fascinating.

One of the central pillars of the REBT ideals is the continuing internal struggle against irrational beliefs. These irrational beliefs come in a lot of forms, and one particular form that Ellis took issue with was what he called “musterbation.” In his book “How to control your anxiety before it controls you,” Ellis describes this musterbation as the “absolutistic Musts, Shoulds, Oughts, and other Demands” that we make on ourselves. Some of the most common, and most problem causing musts are directed at one’s self (e.g. “I MUST be clever, smart, successful, etc. . . . or it is awful”), directed at others (e.g. “Others MUST treat me well, fairly, pay attention to me, or I can’t handle it), and directed at the environment (e.g. “Life MUST be easy and without complications, otherwise I cannot cope”). These are the kinds of internal statements that can create the foundation for irrational beliefs.

‘Must’ statements are not the only kind of irrational statements. Almost any definitive statement can work its way into creating irrational beliefs. One kind of irrational statement that I have personally noticed often abused is “need.” Many people tell themselves that they need things that they in reality do not, that things need to be a certain way when other ways are functional, and that certain components in life are required to make it of value. The ‘need’ definitive can often be used interchangeably with the ‘must’ definitive, but there are a few subtle distinctions that make the two differ. The difference that I would like to point out is that ‘need’ is more often used by people to impose their own desires onto others, and in doing so, wrap up their own wellbeing into that of the other individual’s. An example of this would be when someone evinces that a friend “needs a man/women to complete their life.”

These statements are often visceral and automatic, like a reflex. They enter our minds as reactions to events, and without intervening circumstances, they can persist and foster irrational base beliefs that we begin using to make decisions. With conscious effort, we can resist these unnecessary musts. This aids us in becoming minimally anxious. We can replace phrases such as “I MUST achieve x” to a more flexible and amendable “achieving x would be preferable, and the realistic consequences of not achieving x is y.” Replacing MUST and NEED with ‘it would be preferable’ gives us an option of failure, and the notion that when things do not go as we prefer, it is not the end of the world. In this way, we can rationally weigh options, instead of attempting to live up to unreasonable expectations that we lay on ourselves, and catastrophizing when we as humans inevitably fail at something. When we do this, we open a door for discussion and questioning of what we desire, and what we find preferable. We can analyze evidence provided, weigh the consequences, and consider all avenues of action. This allows us to not live by definitive, irrational beliefs based on visceral reactions, but to operate on reason and consideration.

Above and beyond the “war on musterbation,” as Ellis called it, I think internal word choice can matter. It may blur the line between psychology and philosophy, but I think that the practice of e-prime may have psychological benefits, much as the semantics and word choice that Ellis talks about do. The e-prime form of the English language sets out to eliminate all definitive wording. If one were to use e-prime, they would eliminate all words derived from ‘to be.’ Is, are, am, is not, and all words that imply strict, rigid, and definitive existence, become replace with “appears to” and “seems to.” This use of language reflects a lack of absolutism, can help with the expansion of scientific thinking, and create a psychological environment of skepticism of perception that can be healthy. One classic example of e-prime is the example of a man observing a field of grass. He can say to himself “the grass is green” and rely completely on his senses, or he can say “the grass appears green,” thus taking information from his senses, while also using rationality to leave open the possibility that his senses are wrong. Like I said, this idea floats a bit closer to philosophy, but it is one worthy of a bit of consideration. The biggest problem with e-prime is the difficulty. I do try to use it sometimes, but it is a very difficult habit to keep up, and I am not very good at it currently.

In the future I will try to post little discussions between my bi-weekly bigger posts. Also, I promise after I finish with Ellis’s personality traits I will explore other territory. Anywho, come back next time for Ellis and Healthy Personalities #4: acceptance of uncertainty. And later down the pipe I will be talking about perception and Gestalt psychology.

Ellis and Healthy Personalities #3: Tolerance

First, I would like to apologize for my lengthy absence. The holidays, and other events, had me pretty occupied. I hope that I will soon be back into the full swing of things.

Ellis’s third trait of a healthy personality is tolerance. Tolerance in this context is the ability to tolerate the actions of others. Ellis states that one who demonstrates tolerance gives “other human beings the right to be wrong, and while disliking or abhorring some of their behavior, still not blame them as a person, for performing this disliked behavior.” This is much much easier said than done.

Often in life people behave in ways that displease us. Sometimes we can let these things go, and sometimes we hold grudges. Separating a person from their behavior is not always an easy task. Our language and culture is often even structured in a way that persuades us to define ourselves by the actions that we take. We are naturally inclined to characterize individuals by the actions they take, and this makes it very easy to characterize them poorly for such actions that we do not find acceptable.

I think an important point that Ellis makes is that it is not healthy to unrealistically expect others to be perfect. People will inevitably error, or act out of the realm of reasonable action. It is completely foreseeable that most, if not all people that one may encounter in one’s life, would at some time or another happen to offend them in some way. So to expect that people will act perfectly and never offend or upset you is unreasonable. Furthermore, to expect any one particular individual to never offend is also unreasonable. This highlights a pitfall that many relationships, romantic, familial, or even friendships, become susceptible too. Sometimes when we become close with friends or significant others, we begin to expect them to be completely sensitive to all of our own needs and to consider our feelings with every turn. Not only does this reflect a poor self sufficiency, but it also is an unreasonable demand from others, and anyone relying too heavily on the consideration of one’s needs in other’s actions will be sorely disappointed. This disappointment can breed resentment and distain. This is why tolerance is healthy in this instance. You can learn to manage when people do not act in the manner that you would prefer.

Though one can learn to tolerate other’s actions, and accept them as fallible human beings as Ellis would suggest, this does not mean that one would be best if they were to roll over, or allow oneself to be subjected to unfair treatment. A balance of acting on self-interest in response to undesirable actions by others, while accepting those actions as those of a flawed and valuable human being can be struck. That is not to say that all actions should be unanswered and just roll off everyone’s back like so much water on ducks. For example, human rights violations, dangerous criminal actions, and violence should definitely be impeded, but the committers of these acts can still be valued. Like Hitler. The actions of he and the Nazi party were appalling, and I doubt that many rational individuals would argue that they should not have been stopped. Yet, with proper and healthy tolerance, we can see Hitler and his party as flawed, deeply disturbed human beings with irrational ideas, rather than inhuman monsters. From this viewpoint, we can still desire to end the actions of such individuals, but respect their human rights as well. It is when we let the actions of others affect us so deeply, begin to commit war crimes, murder for revenge, torture for information, and thus become the “monsters” that we seek to stop. That may be slightly politicized, which I try to avoid, but I think that this point very much applies here.

Overall, in daily life we can learn to forgive and tolerate the minor infractions against us, letting these small infractions go without holding these trespasses against others, accepting that those around us will err. It may be difficult to do, but healthy practice and demonstration of tolerance can lift a great deal of undo anxiety and stress that we experience by latching onto negative feelings that are often produced in reaction to the actions of others that happen to offend us.

What do you think about tolerance in this sense? Lack of this kind of tolerance seems to be the stem of a lot of anger issues. What kind of issues with anger have you experienced?

Come back next time when I talk about the importance of word choice. In the distant future I will cover Ellis’s fourth personality trait: acceptance of uncertainty.

Skinner Ate My Dinner

B.F. Skinner was, in my opinion, unmistakably a genius, and he did great work. His contribution to psychology is undeniable. In his time, Skinner’s theories and the behaviorist philosophy dominated American psychology. The central ideas of behaviorism are that a person’s actions and behaviors can be shaped through reinforcement and conditioning. Behaviorism as a science unequivocally works. It is empirical in nature and its ability to accurately predict human behavior gives it great validity. It is simple and elegant in its explanations and methods. I have no problem with the science of the behaviorist position.

Where it begins to falter for me, is when the behaviorist ideals are taken beyond the science and presented in the field of social or personality theory. To observe and conclude that one can be manipulated by changes in the environment is reasonable and scientific, but to say that people are nothing but these manipulations is quite a leap. Skinner himself went this far with his ideas. He put forth that people should give up the concept of freedom, because there is really no true free will. He viewed people, as well as animals, as organisms solely constructed by the environment that surrounds them and the reinforcements they receive.

Now it is true that these ideas have faded in popularity. In modern psychology, it is pretty widely accepted that people are products of both nature and nurture, external and internal processes. However, I have looked around the internet at some forums and the like, and while you have to take everything you find on the internet with a grain of salt, it is hard to ignore the strict behavioral attitudes. The irony here is that many of the individuals that portray this ideal do so in a very pessimistic matter, while Skinner himself was an unrelenting optimist.

One issue I have seen brought up quite a few times in favor of this idea of strict behaviorism is the idea of no true neutral. This idea holds that we can never have a truly unbiased view on any decision, and therefore never truly have the freedom of choice in any situation. We have been biased through conditioning and reinforcement against or in favor of almost any choice in front of us. This begs the question: If we have no real neutral position, and every decision is biased by prior experience and reinforcement, are we really making decisions based on free will, or are we simply carrying out programming? This is an interesting thought. It can even make you doubt your own motives, or your control over yourself. The problem I see with this is that it overlooks intentionality. We can intentionally and deliberately make choices that go against all of our better judgment and conditioning. This is the case in the act of rebellion. If all conditioning prompted a person to pick up a blue cup filled with water rather than the red cup filled with water, and someone told a group of people that they would pick up the blue cup no matter what, it is not unforeseeable that someone, out of stubbornness, would pick up the red cup in defiance. Could defiance have links to childhood reinforcement? Possibly, but we have all known people that are more spirited, more argumentative, and more rebellious than others for no apparent reason. It seems as if they have some predisposition toward stubbornness, and even this slight predisposition to disobey shows that they, if not everyone, are more than simply our conditioning.

Another big problem with a strict behaviorist view is found in addressing creativity, in particular, children’s creative use of language. Children create words, phrases and linguistic structure that are not presented to them. These errors are not reinforced or even taught. The children simply take the few rules they may have learned, then assume, speculate, and create new ideas. These things are not products of their environment, and they are not reinforced behavior. They come from the children’s own cognitive ability, above and beyond conditioning.

Overall, I find the science of behaviorism fascinating, but the social theory lacking. I believe that we do have choice, in everything we do. Once we become aware of that choice, and the reinforcements that sometimes dictate our actions, we can exercise our intentionality, and choose the way we react to things. I find the thought that we are nothing but conditioned automata relatively depressing, and I can see how the idea has been recently linked to such negativity and pessimism. I would like to keep my optimism, and consider intentionality and choice something that is still very much alive.

Come back next time when I discuss Ellis’ third trait of a healthy personality: Tolerance. The week after that I will be talking about the importance of the words that we choose to use.

Ellis and Healthy Personalities #2: Self Direction

As I discussed in another post, Albert Ellis outlines nine personality traits that make up a healthy personality. He does so in his article, The case against religion. Now, some have taken issue with me taking this idea from such an inflammatory, anti-religious piece of work, but I believe these ideas can stand alone. I think that some ideas need full context to be judged. Others, however, can be presented in a context, removed from that context, and be judged on their own merits. I just want to make it clear that though I am using a piece that Ellis writes with the specific purpose against religion, I am not making those same arguments for the same ends here. That is not to say anything about my thoughts on the matter. Ellis was a respected psychotherapist who developed effective therapy techniques. I think dismissing a personality theory from such an individual out of hand because of his religious views, or lack thereof, would be short sighted at best.

Anyway, on to the topic at hand. The second trait on the list is self direction. In his article, Ellis describes self direction as an individual’s assumption of responsibility over his/her own life. This includes the ability to work on one’s own, and while sometimes desiring the aid of others, not requiring it to satisfy that individual’s effectiveness and well being.

While I understand where Ellis is coming from, labeling this particular quality "self-direction,” due to the emphasis on being able to direct one’s self in work and whatnot, I would choose to use slightly different language to broaden the scope of this particular idea. I would rather classify this trait more as a self sufficiency. I think that self sufficiency is a term that more neatly describes the ability to take responsibility for one’s self, as well as implying the inclusion of self direction among other personal responsibilities that I feel are important.

I have been working with the developmentally disabled for about two years. I was once in a human service program, and now I am studying psychology. Through all of this I have found that promoting self sufficiency is a common theme. Part of my job description includes teaching skills to help make the individuals I work with more self sufficient. This is the crux of the giving/teaching fish metaphor that everyone tosses around. It even seems somewhat paradoxical, that individuals come for assistance in learning to not need assistance.

I have seen on occasion, those that I teach the skills to (though they are skills that we take for granted) gain a sense of accomplishment and joy when they are finally able to rely on themselves for something. I have seen firsthand, that self reliance and self sufficiency can provide one with some pride. Not everyone has the ability to be completely self reliant, but I have not encountered anyone that is happy being completely reliant on others. I have witnessed many fight to gain some sort of control, some kind of power over their own lives. I realize that these examples are somewhat anecdotal, but I think it reflects a natural drive to be self sufficient in some regard. Although because of circumstance some people are unable to be entirely self sufficient, having some aspects of their lives that they are in control of can help tremendously with their well being.

While self sufficiency may seem to be synonymous with independence, it is not a statement that people should withdraw from help, or reject others. Solitude and isolation should not come from self sufficiency. We are by nature social creatures, though there are rare exceptions to every rule. There are often dramatic consequences for cutting oneself off from others, emotionally and physically; thus in some way other people can be key in our well being, though we can still take responsibility here. We can be responsible for obtaining the personal connections we need, and being able to manage them in a healthy way. The problem comes when having human contact becomes an unhealthy dependence on others to provide for our well being. This is a key aspect of many abusive relationships. The abuser often makes the victim completely dependent, unable to do much of anything on their own.

There is a balance though. A balance between being able to realize that human contact is good and it is ok to ask for help, and knowing that you can take responsibility for yourself and manage your own issues. I think the balance is disrupted when one goes from thinking that aid from others would be preferable, to thinking that others MUST help them. Now, I do understand there are people in great distress, and without the aid of psychologists, counselors, human service workers, and the like, they could face some very bad circumstances, but when and if they do get help, the help likely works to make them not need the help any more. Teaching them the skills they need to manage and be self sufficient, taking responsibility and control back over their own well being - isn’t that kind of the point?

Make sure to return next week when I discuss the behaviorists; and in two weeks, Ellis and healthy personalities part 3, Tolerance.

Two Levels of Thought

The cognitive-behaviorist Aaron Beck is known as one of the fathers of cognitive therapy (as well as for wearing snazzy bow ties everywhere). He noted that there were two distinct kinds of thought. First there is automatic thought. This, as you would assume, are thoughts that happen involuntarily, and are difficult to control or regulate. The other kind of thoughts that he discussed were controlled thoughts. These are voluntary, controllable, and amendable. The automatic thoughts can be like inner voices, berating us, or supporting us. The controlled thoughts can then either agree with, expand upon, or dissent against the automatic voice. These two distinct types of thought result in an inner dialog. In essence, we talk to ourselves all the time in two pieces, automatic and controlled.

Sometimes people end up developing a recurring automatic thought that is negative or harmful. This can come in the form of denigrating thoughts about one’s self, or even paranoia. I am not talking about extreme cases of paranoid delusions, or auditory hallucinations, but the average inner monologue that we mostly all have, taking on a negative or harmful outlook. For instance, some have very negative automatic voices that say things like "I'm ugly," "I'm stupid," "I'm no good," and the like. Where I think the biggest issue comes in is when an individual's secondary voice, or controlled thought, does not dissent against the negative automatic voice. When the secondary voice concurs with the first, it creates an inner self agreement. It almost has the same affect as two separate people agreeing on something in that the agreement compounds upon itself. It becomes a repeating pattern of self abuse.

Now, I do not believe that automatic thoughts are completely unchangeable, just more difficult to change than the secondary thoughts. With thought stopping techniques, over time, one can most definitely change the automatic thoughts that may be troubling them. This reflects the concept of taking responsibility for your own well being and taking control of your life, which is one of my favorite ideas and a common theme in many of my favorite therapy theories. I am sure that I will eventually revisit this idea in the future in another respect.

In any regard, we can choose what to do in reaction to the initial voices, and that reaction is essentially our responsibility. Again, I am not talking about the few who are not in complete control of their faculties, but average people have little reason to deny culpability for their reactions. This idea, amongst others, put my personal philosophy at odds with that of the strict behaviorists (such as B.F. Skinner), who would contest that our actions are little more that conditioned responses, but I can live with not subscribing to that.

What do you think in regard to the two types of thought? Do you have any automatic thoughts that you actively dissent against, or have trouble tackling?

Make sure to come back next week when I continue my discussion on Albert Ellis’ nine personality traits, by covering “self-direction,” and the week after that, when I will be exploring some of my issues with behaviorists.

Ellis and Healthy Personalities #1: Self Interest

Out of all the writers and psychologists I have read and studied, and even out of the ones that I like, Albert Ellis stands alone. There is something about his perspective and positions that really clicks with me. Ellis was the pioneer of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, or REBT. Here I would like to discuss portions of Ellis's view on personality, and what makes a personality healthy.

In one of his articles entitled Case Against Religion, Ellis writes that a psychotherapist tries to help patients to become minimally anxious and hostile. He said to become minimally hostile and anxious we should promote nine basic personality traits. He briefly outlines these nine base traits that lead to a healthy personality. The first of these traits is “self interest.”

Self interest, as described by Ellis, is a truthfulness to one’s self, without masochistic sacrifice of oneself for others. This would classify those willing to commit altruistic suicide (suicide for the betterment of a group, i.e suicide bombers, cult members, and kamikaze pilots) as having an unhealthy low self interest. These are extreme cases however. Even those that harm themselves short of suicide, for example financially or emotionally, have a low unhealthy low self interest. Over-donating to excess can be seen by an outside observer as a noble practice, while in reality it may be a self destructive and maladaptive behavior stemming from poor personality traits.

Ellis is not condoning outright megalomaniacal, narcissistic selfishness by saying one should have an interest of himself/herself first and foremost. In fact he goes on to say that one's kindness and consideration of others can actually be fueled by the desire to be free from pain and restriction. By considering others, in a manner that is not self sacrificing, an individual can promote an environment where his own needs are met and considered. One may consider the motivation of self comfort to do right by others to be a selfish and undesirable thing. I personally believe that it says a lot about human nature that we have qualms with motivation for good deeds; we often forget that there are easier alternative methods for achieving self comfort that no one normally considers, namely total annihilation of opposition. What I mean by this is that those who would have a problem with a self interest based motivation for altruism are essentially splitting hairs, taking for granted that the altruism is taking place in the first place.

Essentially altruism and good deeds can come from one of two opposing places. Firstly, altruism can have a root in low self interest, and this is a destructive behavior by nature. These deeds can be harmful, because the individual does not have the self interest enough to stop giving before the giving causes irreparable damage. This can lead to overworking oneself to death, or donating assets until economic ruin. The opposite of this is of course giving because one has a high self interest. I agree with Ellis when he says that people may give to promote an atmosphere that ensures that they themselves may feel free from unnecessary pain and restrictions. In fact, famed biologist Richard Dawkins wrote an entire book exploring the biological connections between selfishness and altruism called The Selfish Gene. A video found here gives a brief but interesting bit about Dawkins' ideas regarding selfishness and altruism. Though I do agree with both Ellis and Dawkins about how altruism is strongly connected to self preservation as well as ensuring self comfort, I think that the selfish nature of altruism can have a more immediate, while equally selfish, positive reinforcement. People sometimes talk about the elation they feel when they give to charities or help those less fortunate. This positive feeling can even be somewhat addictive. The positive emotion that comes with giving could very well have evolved over time, in order to encourage us to be altruistic in order to preserve ourselves as a species.

In the end, it is important to have self interest. Even if the social mainstream deems selfishness as a negative quality, selflessness is, in essences, selfish in nature. We can be selfish in a way that helps our fellow man. There are the rare cases where people are selfish to a narcissistic degree, but that is maladaptive behavior that not many consider normal. Most of the world tends to aid one another and view that as a positive thing, selfishly lending a helping hand.

What do you think about self interest? Do you think an underlying selfish motivation diminishes the deed itself? What other positive reinforcements do you think there are for selfish acts of altruism?

The Nature of Interpersonal Relationships

I like relationships. I would argue that interpersonal relationships are one of the most important things about living. We are naturally social creatures, and loneliness can be devastating. The psychology that goes into personal relationships is fascinating to me. I like to think a lot about what makes the relationships we form, why with some people we tend to get along, and others not so much. Whether it is a romantic relationship, friendship, or relations with family members, the relationships we forge can shape who we are. More and more people in the United States like to think of themselves as individuals, but those individuals often rely very heavily on their relationships with others.

A great deal of people have a great misconception about relationships; in specific, fixing issues in the relationship. People tend to think that fixing a problematic issue is like a race, where you start at point A and run until point B is passed, then you brush the dust from your pants because it’s all done. This is not really true for much of anything, including relationships. You can’t fix a car to a point that it never needs any more work. There are always many little things that need constant attention, and the best one can really hope for is that it runs well enough for a long enough time that major work will be far off. Perhaps a car is a bad analogy. It is more like a skill. There is no point in which an athlete throws his hands up and says “all done, I’m perfect at soccer. I guess that means no more practice for me.” I think a great deal of the problem here is that many people tend to be very destination-based. They want an end game, a finished product that can be presented as near perfect. I feel that in reality there is no truly “fixed” anything in a relationship. Things can get better or worse depending on what happens, but relationships need continued care if problematic issues are to be under control for any extended period of time.

I tend to view an interpersonal relationship like a floating sphere, kind of like a balloon. This balloon is continually expanding and contracting over time as a relationship continues, but not evenly. Each point on the surface of the balloon is a different aspect of the relationship, and the further it expands outward from the center, the more smoothly that particular aspect of the relationship is progressing. The more these points contract, the worse these aspects are being cared for. There are setbacks in progression, and sometimes we are better with some things than others, so this interpersonal relationship balloon is in constant flux, contorting into bizarre shapes.

No relationship is ideal, and no relationship will ever reach an end result, or finished product. It is a continuing journey, where education and exploration never end. Our goal is not to obtain a perfect balloon, but to work on gaining greater insight into the motions of the sphere and work on problematic areas. It is unreasonable to think that any problem will vanish and never be a concern again. What we can do is learn skills and habits that help us manage the spikes and troughs of the relationship sphere. Things like communication, honesty, trust, and a shared vision of the relationship are ideas that help us manage our relationships; not like a race where we rush toward a definitive conclusion, but like maintaining a complex machine.

What do you think about the nature of relationships? Do you have any stories, ideas, thoughts, or issues? I always welcome open discussion.