![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 7 to 31 of 89. Go back in thread:
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 0:17:36
In reply to Doctors moods, posted by Susan47 on July 21, 2004, at 17:15:08
>>Does anyone else feel like they're responsible for the mood their T is in?<<
How could anyone else possibly be responsible for another person's mood?
That's a cognitive distortion. Source:
"The Feeling Good Handbook(Burns)"
Thank you.
Posted by Susan47 on July 23, 2004, at 0:46:28
In reply to Re: Doctors moods, posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 0:17:36
Yes, you're right. I think it must be something inside me that *wants* to feel like I matter enough to somebody, to have an effect.
Thanks for your input.
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 6:44:02
In reply to Re: Doctors moods, posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 0:17:36
Ahhh, you are a CBT fan. There are some other CBT fans around too, that often feel that they don't have enough people who feel totally positively about CBT to have a decent conversation. :)
How did CBT help your life? I'm always interested in how different schools of therapy help different people.
Much of my therapist's practice is CBT work. I find some of it very helpful. I think it teaches many valuable coping techniques, and maybe should be part of school curriculum.
But I'll admit to being bewildered by some of it. My therapist also says what you just said. That no one else can be responsible for a person's moods. But that just doesn't seem right. It sounds like one of those things that *sounds* good, but is missing a key logical component.
For example. If someone I knew and trusted walked up to me and without a word shot me in the leg, I might feel hurt and surprised, and very very angry. I understand that the CBT take on it is that I could *choose* to feel another way entirely. But the facts are that I was happily wandering around, feeling safe and cheerful. Then someone I trusted deliberately shot me in the leg! If someone hadn't shot me in the leg, I'd still feel happy and cheerful. But now I don't. How can the person who shot me in the leg deny all responsibility for my mood by saying my mood is my own responsibility and no one else can *cause* my mood? It seems to me to be a very non-communal attitude to take, and not at all in keeping with the nature of mankind, which is very interpersonal in its orientation.
And *naturally* I'm not comparing Susan's actions to shooting her doctor in the leg, or to doing anything wrong. Often those of us who pick up easily on the moods of others assume that *we* are the cause of the other people's moods, when really they've just had a car accident or their wife left them or they've got a bad case of gas.
I'm just wondering about a CBT point that I've always found a bit confusing.
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on July 23, 2004, at 8:32:33
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » fires, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 6:44:02
Dinah,
My T always tells me that no one is ever responsible for my moods, that *I* am responsible for my moods. That is, if I get angry, *I* make myself angry, and not the other person. Very CBT. I am really still trying to work on this concept. BUT, the exception in Bean's book is when other people cause you PHYSICAL harm, just as you put forth as an example. So according to Bean, your example would be the exception.
I love the idea of no one being able to upset me, that I solely am responsible for my emotions. In fact, that is one of my CBT mantras which I receite every day, sometimes ad nauseum.
It is a great concept, but sometimes hard to buy into. It is based on the tyranny of THE SHOULD.
Posted by gardenergirl on July 23, 2004, at 8:42:10
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers?, posted by Miss Honeychurch on July 23, 2004, at 8:32:33
Such an awful place to be stuck. I tend to be one who say's no one can *make* me feel something that isn't already there at some level. It goes back to our discussion about indifference. If I were truly indifferent to someone (working on it at this very moment, regarding someone else...), then no matter what they said or did, my feelings would be my own.
I had a client once who used to feel guilty about a lot of things. And she would get mad at her mother for "making her feel guilty." I said the same thing to her...no one can make you feel guilty if you don't already feel it inside yourself. It's really coming from you, not your mom. And she was stuck in that dang tyranny, too!
Take care,
gg
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 8:58:54
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers?, posted by Miss Honeychurch on July 23, 2004, at 8:32:33
> Dinah,
>
> My T always tells me that no one is ever responsible for my moods, that *I* am responsible for my moods.Hopefully not too pedantic, but mood and emotion are not synonyms. Mood is to emotion as climate is to weather.
> That is, if I get angry, *I* make myself angry, and not the other person. Very CBT. I am really still trying to work on this concept.
It's a starting point, not the destination.
Here's an example. In common conversation, you'll hear something like, "He pushed my buttons." That's an externalization of responsibility. It's like the 'she made me do it' excuse for spousal abuse.
CBT is more about, "Why do you have a button right there in the first place?" Which can then be followed up by questions like, "Does the pushing of that button remind you of anger from another time?", which is a question that bears on whether or not it's appropriate to be angry *in this instance*. Are you angry at the right person, at the right time? As you progress, the questions can change to something like, "Why on Earth do I leave my buttons out there where anybody can push them at will (or by accident)?" That's finally about setting healthy boundaries.
First, you have to recognize that the anger is yours. Everybody has buttons. The goal, IMHO, is to make your buttons inaccessible, like getting an unlisted phone number, with caller ID.
> BUT, the exception in Bean's book is when other people cause you PHYSICAL harm, just as you put forth as an example. So according to Bean, your example would be the exception.
There are lots of exceptions, but if you blame outside factors for all your anger, you are totally incapable of distinguishing which is the exception, and which is the rule.
> I love the idea of no one being able to upset me, that I solely am responsible for my emotions.
I don't think that's a healthy goal. We have anger for a darn good reason. The goal, IMHO, is to be angry when it is appropriate. Good luck on figuring out what appropriate means. Maybe it means "What would Jesus do?", but I doubt it.
> In fact, that is one of my CBT mantras which I receite every day, sometimes ad nauseum.
>
> It is a great concept, but sometimes hard to buy into. It is based on the tyranny of THE SHOULD.One of my friends wears a button now and again, which says, "Don't should on me. I don't."
One of the best defenses against should is a simple substitution. Could. Try it. "I should let it go." "I could let it go."
Best,
Lar
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on July 23, 2004, at 9:12:08
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » Miss Honeychurch, posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 8:58:54
I do really like "I could let it go." I will use that.
Yes, there is a difference between mood and emotion. Not pedantic sounding at all.
Posted by Susan47 on July 23, 2004, at 9:56:59
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » fires, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 6:44:02
You're brilliant. Yes yes yes. I *love* your statement "the nature of mankind is very interpersonal in its orientation."
So so true.
I've had a lot of trouble with this issue with my ex-T.
So much so that now I don't want to see any more therapists.
I mean, I'm paying them to be supportive, and yet when I look at what happens to some of us with our therapists, they're constantly letting us down by *not* being supportive when they should, and they're in this position.. someone on the Board called it power differential.
Posted by Susan47 on July 23, 2004, at 10:05:24
In reply to Ah, the tyranny of the Should... » Miss Honeychurch, posted by gardenergirl on July 23, 2004, at 8:42:10
Guilt is one of those things that is really maddening, because guilt, I think, has the connotation with it that there's a *reason* to feel that way. It's a hard cycle to break out of, but there are definitely times when it's appropriate to feel guilt. For many of us though, I believe we feel guilt when it's inappropriate. We need to learn to recognize what's truly ours, from what's been handed down to us by our upbringing.
Thanks for reading.
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 10:23:14
In reply to For Fires, posted by Susan47 on July 23, 2004, at 0:46:28
>>Yes, you're right. I think it must be something inside me that *wants* to feel like I matter enough to somebody, to have an effect.
Thanks for your input.<<Glad I was right about something. ;)
Than you
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 10:51:05
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers?, posted by Miss Honeychurch on July 23, 2004, at 8:32:33
The old sticks and stones can break my bones theory? :) I never put much faith in that at all. I remember times wishing that people would throw sticks and stones rather than the words.
But, ok, I'll remove the physical component from my example. Say my husband came home and told me I was a fat ugly cow, I was terrible in bed, and he wanted a divorce. Previously I had considered our relationship just fine and I trust my husband implicitly. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to feel hurt and angry and betrayed. Nor would I think that my reaction had anything to do with hidden psychic wounds or anything of the sort. If my husband had made other choices, I wouldn't be feeling the way I feel. Is he responsible for my feelings? He'd better accept some responsibility for it. And I'm not going to accept too much responsibility for it, because I think I'd be a very unnatural sort of person if I just smiled and said ok and didn't feel any sort of hurt when someone else is being hurtful.
Now I could choose to hang on to those feelings long after the event and justify clinging to them to avoid being hurt in the future. That part might be my responsibility. And I'll admit that in any given situation there is my stuff and someone else's stuff and it's wise of me to figure out what my part is.
But.... We were intended by God or evolution to be affiliative creatures. Being affected by the words and actions of others serves a function both for society and for individuals. To say that everyone is responsible for their own feelings is a sociopath's dream. "Hey! It's not my fault! You shouldn't allow yourself to feel that way!" A smoothly functioning society is one in which the members recognize the impact of their words and behavior on others, and act accordingly.
Sometimes my therapist gets angry and when I comment on it he says "You didn't make me angry. My anger is my own responsibility." And I'll say "Of course I made you angry. I'm being maddening. You'd have to be a stone figurine not to be angry." And sometimes when he gets angry and I comment on it he's honest. "Yes, I'm angry. You're being absolutely maddening. You reject everything I offer with Yes, But....'s. I'm angry but our relationship isn't in any jeopardy and we'll work through this." I kind of prefer the latter...
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 11:17:49
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » fires, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 6:44:02
I will respond to you since you did not use ad hominem attacks.:)
CBT is based on rational thinking and logic, which isn't always present in our "emotions."
>>For example. If someone I knew and trusted walked up to me and without a word shot me in the leg, I might feel hurt and surprised, and very very angry. I understand that the CBT take on it is that I could *choose* to feel another way entirely. But the facts are that I was happily wandering around, feeling safe and cheerful. Then someone I trusted deliberately shot me in the leg! If someone hadn't shot me in the leg, I'd still feel happy and cheerful. But now I don't. How can the person who shot me in the leg deny all responsibility for my mood by saying my mood is my own responsibility and no one else can *cause* my mood? It seems to me to be a very non-communal attitude to take, and not at all in keeping with the nature of mankind, which is very interpersonal in its orientation.<<
Let me answer your questions using the Socratic method. You probably would feel hurt and angry, after first being shot. But then you might think (logically): Maybe I didn't know this person as well as I thought. Maybe he wasn't as mentally stable as he appeared. Is it your responsibility to be the caretaker of ALL of your friends mental health? Or, maybe my friend has a brain tumor which disturbed his thinking and led to, my shooting. (Not too far fetched, as a number of serial killers have been known to have suffered traumatic brain injuries as children). Many incarcerated Americans have been shown to have abnormal brain functions in their frontal lobes which partially controls impulsivity.
You might also think: Well, I certainly didn't do anything to provoke the attack, therefore why should I feel angry (if any of it is directed at yourself) because of what someone else did?
You might also think, "I don't believe in instant Karma, therefore it wasn't "my fault" I got shot.
Just examples. I hope you find them thought provoking.
Thanks
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 11:23:27
In reply to For Dinah, posted by Susan47 on July 23, 2004, at 9:56:59
Well, I think that that isn't totally black and white. Because sometimes being supportive doesn't *look* like what we'd like to see. And we don't pay them to do what we want them to do. We pay them to do what they think is best for us. And sometimes that may be making us feel very bad indeed.
When that happens, I talk with my therapist. I tell him that what he is saying feels hurtful to me and ask what he is hoping to accomplish by his words. Sometimes I understand that he is trying to help me by telling me things that I don't really want to hear.
Sometimes I'm able to help him help me better. Because, as he says, all the wisdom in the world is no good if it isn't phrased in a way that the client can understand and can tolerate and be receptive to it.
So I'm not at all shy about saying "You know, tough love has never worked all that well with me." or "I'm more easily led than driven." or even specific examples "Last week when you said XXX, it just made me want to do YYY, and I don't think that's what you intended. So let's talk about different ways of saying that so that you're more likely to get the reaction you'd like." Sometimes he listens. Well all the times he listens. Sometimes he admits he erred in his approach. Sometimes he just laughs at me. :)
I've got to say he's gotten absolutely brilliant at it. He knows me so well that he knows just how to present things so that they tickle my mind without making me lock my hind legs and refuse to move. I don't even have to coach him anymore. :) I'm so impressed.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 11:31:54
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » Miss Honeychurch, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 10:51:05
Sticks and stones theory: you are right. Words do have the power to hurt, probably worse than physical pain. But the degree of hurt should vary depending on who says them.
If your husband came home and called you a lizard, you would be very hurt because you have a close relationship. In a way he would have responsibility for you mood
Where having control over your reactions comes in (to me) is when the lady behind you at the grocery store calls you a lizard. If the reaction is the same as when it is someone close to you, then the mood *is* your responsibility. And that's where CBT can come in.
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 11:35:32
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers?, posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 11:17:49
Yes, thinking about why something happened is always helpful. And sometimes the answers *are* enough to reduce anger and replace it with something else, like compassion. Sometimes they aren't. It's usually worth exploring. But I wouldn't relieve the shooter of his responsibility based on that.
CBT is very rational and unemotional. I know it appeals to a lot of people because of its appeal to logic. As I said, I think it's a useful set of skills to have. But sometimes I find the logical underpinnings of CBT to be a bit less than logical in light of the complexity of human beings and the biological needs that are built in us.
I thank you for responding to me in a pleasant manner, fires. I hope that you are able to continue to engage with many people on the board similarly.
Posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 11:42:30
In reply to Ah, the tyranny of the Should... » Miss Honeychurch, posted by gardenergirl on July 23, 2004, at 8:42:10
> Such an awful place to be stuck. I tend to be one who say's no one can *make* me feel something that isn't already there at some level. It goes back to our discussion about indifference. If I were truly indifferent to someone (working on it at this very moment, regarding someone else...), then no matter what they said or did, my feelings would be my own.
>
> I had a client once who used to feel guilty about a lot of things. And she would get mad at her mother for "making her feel guilty." I said the same thing to her...no one can make you feel guilty if you don't already feel it inside yourself. It's really coming from you, not your mom. And she was stuck in that dang tyranny, too!
>
> Take care,
> gg>>I had a client<<???
Care to share your credentials? State lic. #?
Thanks
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 11:43:17
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 11:31:54
I still think that ignores sociological truths about human beings. Certainly the lady at the supermarket shouldn't upset you *as much* as your husband. But in a species that relies on communal living, the community *does* affect us. And I don't think it's reasonable to be totally unaffected by the lizard woman, or to consider our reaction to be our sole responsibility. The lizard woman needs to accept some responsibility too. That's why the woman at the supermarket who called you a lizard would probably get community censure from other shoppers, unless you had done something lizardly. In which case, reaction might be mixed. And if the lizard lady had a habit of going around calling perfect strangers lizards, her social life is probably limited, because society does hold people responsible for their behavior, and for good reason. (Unless the lizard lady is a lizard school-aged kid, in which case the school aged kid community would probably hail her as the height of cool, and anyone she called a lizard would be ostracized.)
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 11:48:46
In reply to Re: Ah, the tyranny of the Should..., posted by fires on July 23, 2004, at 11:42:30
If I've read things here correctly, GG is Therapist-in-Training (Please no acronyms here (snicker)) And having issues of her own.
And she's a very nice lady.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 11:54:46
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 11:43:17
You certainly have the behavior of junior lizards down pat. Having been on the recieving side of that one too often for comfort, I can relate.
I'm probably not expressing myself properly, and I think we're saying the same thing.
Of course what the groocery store lady says will affect you. No one lives in a bubble. And there really is a butterfly effect.
I think CBT comes in when a person doesn't have the capability of putting it into perspective and feels *just* as hurt as if it was - say - their mother calling him a lizard. I think we can all agree that type of reaction isn't good.
Posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 11:56:13
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 11:54:46
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 12:07:16
In reply to Re: I believe we have an agreement in principle :) (nm) » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 11:56:13
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on July 23, 2004, at 12:09:17
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » Miss Honeychurch, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 10:51:05
Your example is a good one and I wish I were advanced enough at CBT to be able to self-talk myself out of that one!
I admire the theory behind CBT, but alas, I am not that good at it. It has helped me get out of the horriblehabit of wanting to please everyone and basing my self-worth on the opinion of others. That lesson alone has been invaluable.
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 13:40:55
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » fires, posted by Dinah on July 23, 2004, at 11:35:32
> CBT is very rational and unemotional. I know it appeals to a lot of people because of its appeal to logic. As I said, I think it's a useful set of skills to have. But sometimes I find the logical underpinnings of CBT to be a bit less than logical in light of the complexity of human beings and the biological needs that are built in us.
Cognition is a whole lot more than logic alone. And I fear your impression overlooks entirely the second word, behavioural.
One of the foundations of the cognitive approach is to try to develop an oversight of the transition from the experience of an event to the resulting feelings. Many people believe that an event leads directly to a feeling, which might be symbolically represented as:
E --> F
However, cognitive approaches attempt to focus on an intervening (and automatic) step, the interpretation, symbolically:
E --> I --> F
Our interpretation can be simple, or it can be complex. A physical threat to a child is not very hard to interpret. Other interpretations, though, call on a host of cognitive characters, including: attitudes, beliefs, religion, innate traits (e.g. shyness), memories, mores, and on and on. These, collectively, create one or more schemata, the psychological term for the way (or ways) we view the world.
Cognitive analysis, then, is an attempt to bring to conscious awareness the components bearing on the interpretation of an event. First, those techniques are applied to past events, in hopes of making it easier to recognize those same characteristics in subsequent events. One trains oneself to become aware of the interpretative elements which shape the emotive response.
I hope it is not a trite example, but consider someone who has lost everything they own in a tornado. It's pretty likely that a fair number of people would feel devastated by the loss. However, adherents of the Buddhist philosophical traditions would be elated, as they have been provided with an opportunity to learn from the loss of material wealth. The event doesn't necessarily and predictably lead to a feeling, but the interpretation always does.
Upon learning of the E --> I --> F model, I quickly grasped that the only place I have effect is on I (me).
It is a vastly liberating feeling to become aware of interpretation in real-time experience. It takes practise, but the rewards are immense. You get to choose.
The second part is behaviour. You have to do things differently to actually effect change. I'm sure that many of you have heard these two sayings: "If you keep on doing what you always did, you'll keep on getting what you always got." and "You can't think your way into a new way of acting, but you can act your way into a new way of thinking."
Thinking about the past is not cognitive-behavioural therapy. Trying to develop new thinking rules is not CBT either, unless you actually put them to use, and experience new opportunities to generate feelings that otherwise may not have had the chance to exist. Cognitive insight gives you the chance to choose. Behavioural change *is* the choice. You become proactive, rather than reactive.
Kids coming. Gotta run.
Lar
Posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 14:05:30
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers? » Dinah, posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 13:40:55
With the behaviour part of Lar's post. This is exactly what you have done recently with gracious gestures. You didn't allow feelings to muck with your behaviour.
Good job
Mel
Posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 14:10:56
In reply to Re: Dinah, we've come full circle, posted by AuntieMel on July 23, 2004, at 14:05:30
> With the behaviour part of Lar's post. This is exactly what you have done recently with gracious gestures. You didn't allow feelings to muck with your behaviour.
>
> Good job
>
> MelAnd that new insight becomes part of the cognitive processing (positive feedback), and you have a gradual "drift" towards adaptive behaviour from the old maladaptive stuff. Good work, Mel. I left that part out on purpose. :-)
Lar
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.