Male-Female: Similarities-Differences

Women and men have a great deal in common. Not only are they both members of the human species, they both are interested in feeling as good as they can as much of the time as they can. Also, they are both interested in being right, in fact, often more interested in being right than in feeling good. Thus, we have the basis for the “battle of the sexes.” Rather than being called the complementary sex, we refer to each other as the opposite sex, thus suggesting opposition.

It appears to me (or at least this is what I make up) that there are also differences between the sexes that will not go away no matter how unisexual we attempt to become. Let me be clear that acknowledging differences docs not mean a position of better than or worse than. I am not implying a judgment of right or wrong nor inferior or superior— simply different.

Besides the obvious anatomical differences, we can observe (and have statistics to show) that the average female is shorter than the average male. Of course that docs not mean that all men are taller than all women, it just means that the average height is different, in favor of women when it comes to low doorways and in favor of men when it comes to dunking a basketball.

Another difference is that the average woman is going to outlive the average man by several years. Women simply are inclined to longevity even though they do not have the muscular mass and physical strength of the average man. This inclination for longevity begins at conception since male infant mortality rates are higher than female infant mortality rates. I guess I could say that there was a genetic basis for this difference and l doubt that anybody would disagree and cry foul. We have a tradition of maintaining neutrality on this type of topic.

Asserting that longevity has at least a partial basis in genetics does not mean that this genetically determined tendency cannot be influenced to some degree by environment. For example, even though height is primarily genetically determined, it seems clear that the improved nutritional intake over the last several decades has resulted in a significantly taller population (both sexes) at the present. Some of what we are born with can be modified as long as we are not talking about such unchangeable items as eye color.

There are a variety of other differences that I can point to. Male and female voices generally sound different. When we answer the telephone, we are usually able to identify what sex we are speaking with, frequently including an age estimate. Of course, sometimes we are surprised but relatively seldom. We can often correctly guess the sex of an individual by the way that person walks or jogs. Part of this may be due to clothing and shoe clues, but generally speaking there is enough of a difference in the walk for us to make that discrimination. Again, there are times when we are puzzled and look for other indicators to assess the sex of the observed.

So far, I have been on pretty safe ground, nobody is likely to accuse me of being sexist when I say women generally live longer, are shorter, sound different, and walk differently than men. However, now I am going to venture out on thin ice. I think that men and women speak differently and not just in pitch. In my experience as an average middle class male, I hear differences in the way men and women speak as well as the topics they tend to focus on. Again, this is a generalization and not accurate in every case. There are men who speak like women and women who speak like men although that is not the rule but the exception.

The following represents my observations, and although I am a male, there may be some validity to my comments. What I hear when I go to a party of married couples and eavesdrop on the females is a discussion of hair styles, pre-school for their children while they are working, shopping, help, feelings, and family. The type of words used are generally very feeling oriented, such as, “Don’t you just love it when… Don’t you hate to…. Doesn’t it make you sick when… I was really hurt when… It was really thrilling to….” In addition, I seem to hear a fair degree of animation and color in the voices.
When I go back to the men who have congregated around the beer keg, the focus and style is quite different. The conversation is likely to be about batting averages, how things work, how fast cars go, business coups, “dirty” jokes. and the economy. There will be little or no talk about how they feel or how they look. The conversation will be generally void of emotional words such as hate, love, sick , thrilling, sad, etc. If we were to hear a man use those terms in an animated manner, we would likely make a judgment that he was not very masculine. Conversely, if a woman primarily talked about business and told “dirty” jokes, she might be judged as talking like a man.

Now I am going to go way out on the thin ice. I think that men and women not only speak differently, but that they also think differently and that they feel differently. Not only that, but that this difference is genetically based to some degree. I am not saying that there is only the genetic basis and no cultural influence. I think there is a cultural influence as an overlay on the genetic difference. Also, I want to discuss this genetic difference (proposed genetic difference since I don’t really know, nor does anybody else) merely as a difference and not as a value judgment. I am not in any way saying that one style of thinking or feeling is superior or inferior to another style of thinking or feeling. I just want to propose that there is a difference and speculate on the basis for this difference (since I wasn’t there during prehistoric times). Further, I will eventually suggest that if we are aware of the difference and refrain from making value judgments about the difference, we may reduce the battling of the sexes .

Okay, so what about this genetic difference in thinking and feeling, and how did it get started? Let me take you back in time and invite you to imagine prehistoric human beings who are right at the verge of developing language. Perhaps members of this early group only had about 20 words in their vocabulary. I would speculate that they were nouns (sounds that represented things) and verbs (sounds that represented actions). Although those first words were abstractions, they were not second order abstractions such as vocabulary, truth, and symphony.

Let’s further imagine that some anthropologists from Mars had been here to observe the early history of Homo Sapiens. They might have had a video camera along and made a movie record of our early history. We have just discovered some video tapes that they left behind when they returned to Mars. How about rewinding the tape and looking at what was going on as our ancestors developed language and became distinct from other primates?

As we watch this nomadic group, we can observe that adult males and adult females not only look different in size but also act different. The males are somewhat larger and seem to range more widely. The females do most of the child rearing. When it comes to mating, we can observe that the male is almost always the initiator of this brief encounter.

Since we know about natural selection (and the length of gestation), we watch to see who leaves the most surviving offspring. It would logically seem that the male who was the strongest, most far-ranging, and sexually active might end up with dozens of heirs because he was always on the alert for a receptive female. On the other hand, a lethargic male who was relatively disinterested in sex could die without passing on his genetic heritage. Whenever we witnessed a birth on the tape, we would know who the mother was. We would have to rewind the tape for nine months in order to determine the paternal origin. If the tapes supported the hypothesis that I am presenting, the mechanism we call natural selection would favor the emergence of an active, exploratory, and libidinally driven male.

The natural selection process involving the developing genetic pool of females could be observed to be quite different. Although fertility, carrying to term, and delivery are important for passing on genetic lineage, the main emphasis would be on the amount of maternal care once the infant was born. A given female who was very active sexually could have many babies, but if she left them out in the rain for a few days, there would not be any surviving offspring. Thus, the amount of sexual activity and number of births would not be as important as the nurturing that is provided following birth. The female who did the best job of providing for her offspring and assisting them to reach maturity would be the most likely to pass on her genes.

The process of nurturing a baby involves a great deal of holding, feeding, and protecting. These arc contact activities and would likely limit the degree of mobility available to the mother. Thus, natural selection would favor the emergence of a female with sex-linked nurturing behaviors. Thus, it is easy to see why it was Magellan who sailed around the world since he had more exploratory drive and Mrs. Magellan was probably busy taking care of their children at home.

Thus, when we think about males and females, they are likely to be somewhat different on two separate dimensions. For example, if we were to assess the dimension of sexual drive or interest, the average male would likely rate a higher emphasis on this scale than the average female. The female would be more mid-range. However, when it comes to the dimension of feeling and nurturing, the average female would place a higher priority on the importance of this dimension than would the average male. If this is our genetic heritage, the result when married couples talk to each other today, it might seem like one is talking Greek and the other Chinese. No wonder we have what are called “communication problems.”

As we rerun the tape a few times to confirm these initial impressions, we might also note another behavioral difference. The male seems to be “on the look out” for sexual opportunities while the female is not similarly oriented. She seems to be very alert to the sounds her infant makes and is quite adept at interpreting their meaning. Thus, it would be likely that the male would be more visually oriented while the female might be more focused on the importance of auditory input.

As anthropologists, we might examine our current society to see if there are any indicators that this might be the case at the present. As we explore this notion, we might first note the striking difference between males and females regarding the erotic potential of visual material. Looking at magazines could be very interesting in this regard. There are thousands of examples of “skin” magazines that are purchased by males and depict females in various postures and states of undress. There is only one magazine aimed at females that I am aware of, Playgirl, that shows a nude male and I don’t even know if it has survived the crush of non-buying behaviors by females.

Males talk about “getting turned on” when they look at their “girlie” magazines. They also rent, buy, and watch most of the hard core pornographic movies for their erotic interests. Females may watch occasionally for a little while but they are likely to react with boredom, being offended, or just plain not interested. For males, one might hypothesize a direct link between the eyes and the gonads while this does not seem to be true of females.

One of my male clients who had been a fashion consultant stated that ,of course, males were visually oriented. If they weren’t, females would not wear the bright colors and use the “war paint” they do. He also added that female attire is typically more suggestive and mysterious than male clothing. The slit in the skirt and the low neckline as well as the emphasis on the bustline is probably directed at the male’s ever watchful eye.

Another distinction that can be seen in our culture is the distribution of voyeuristic behavior. Again, it would appear that males have a virtual monopoly on this activity. We even have a name for those males who do this, “Peeping Tom.” Have you ever heard of a “Peeping Tina” getting arrested for observing males dressing or undressing?

Imagine a male walking down a darkened street and catching a glimpse of a female undressing in a lighted room with the shade up. There will be very few males who will pass up this “opportunity for a peek.” Rather, they will stop and even walk closer for a better view, especially if they think they will not be caught. She does not need to be a beauty contestant for him to end up feeling aroused.

Now imagine a female in a parallel situation. She may glance briefly but keep walking, and even increase her pace, perhaps thinking that he ought to have pulled his shade or that he is an exhibitionist. She may also worry about being seen and she is very unlikely to experience any arousal.

If males have a genetic tendency to become aroused through their eyeballs, what about the female, what is important to her? Referring back to the auditory emphasis, it would appear that she would focus on listening to the sounds that she hears.

She certainly has much the same visual acuity as a male. but is likely to place a great deal of importance on what is said and how it is said. In our current societal situation, she probably wants to hear her mate or date “whisper sweet nothings in her ear.” She would not want them said perfunctorily or from a sense of duty.

I am aware that what I am saying is simply speculation, however, there may be some utility in all this which I will cover later. In addition, the tactile sense would also be important for the female because of the close contact, especially during nursing. Thus, today’s woman would be more interested in the sensual and cuddling aspects of contact than the male who is more likely to be more libidinally focused.

As anthropologists, we would probably like to visit some present day primitive cultures to check out our hypotheses. Unfortunately, there are very few left and the ones that are left have fairly advanced language and taboo systems. Thus, they arc not directly comparable to the video tape that the Martians made. Once language has been developed, the abstractions about appropriate relationships could mask the genetic tendencies that I am proposing.

Enough about the beginning of our history, how does this relate to our present day situation’? My wife. Mary, and I are marriage counselors and we see rather standard and familiar patterns in the “dance” labeled marriage. I have covered much of this in the booklet on “Relating In Relationships.” I went through the life cycle of a relationship, from dating to wedlock and divorce. At this point I would like to focus on how the sexual differences are played out in the typical (if there is such a thing) marriage.

Again what follows is a generality. When couples arrive for counseling, each partner usually has a laundry list of grievances about how the other person is not acting right. As in a game of checkers, if one person chooses red, the other person chooses black—if there is to be a game. Typically, there is one light sleeper and one heavy sleeper, one morning person and one night owl, one saver and one spendthrift, one focused on the importance of discussing feelings and one who feels that the discussion of feelings is over emphasized, and one interested in more sex and one relatively disinterested.

When it comes to sex the male is traditionally interested in more and it is the female who is relatively disinterested. When the issue is discussing feelings, the roles are typically reversed. I say typically because there are occasional instances of the female being interested in more sex or instances of the male being more focused on the importance of discussing feelings.

In any event, what is typical is the method of trying to change the partner. When the male presses for more sex, he will seldom take no for an answer. He will threaten, pout, bribe, cajole, point out how long its been, or use sarcasm to get his way. When the female wants to hear more about her husband’s feelings, she will threaten, pout, bribe, argue, cajole, and use sarcasm to get a rise out of him.

What is very interesting to me is that when couples are dating, they seem to have the desired behavior in their repertoire. As I mentioned in the earlier booklet, he somehow releases endorphins (the little feel good opiates that the brain manufactures) and attributes the good feeling to Snow White. Meanwhile she releases endorphins in her brain and attributes the good feeling to Prince Charming. This creates the “positive victim” role and the song is “You Make Me Feel So Good.” Incidentally, what I am making up is an over simplification, however, you may make up that it is an interesting perspective. I hope you do not take it too seriously.

During this outpouring of endorphins (falling in love), he talks to her about his hopes, fears, and feelings. He is tender and remembers to bring flowers and may even write some poetry. His voice quality sounds like music to her ears. He enjoys holding hands and seems very interested in tactile and sensual contact.

Meanwhile she seems to be very affectionate and gets passionate very easily. Her fluttery eyelids and flirtatious style seems to promise a great deal of exciting sexuality and is a “big turn on” for him. Thus, when they get married they each have high hopes for their wedded bliss, although this bliss will take two different forms.

The fine print in his contract is that he feels he will have unlimited access to a receptive and affectionate female for the rest of his life. Her fine print includes marrying someone who will be sharing of his feelings, talk “nice” to her, be a considerate and gentle lover, and will be understanding, supportive, as well as being a good provider and a good father to their children.

The reason there is typically so much bitterness during the ending of a marriage is that each party is likely to feel that they “have been had.” He became focused on his job and career and didn’t talk about his feelings. Or, if he docs talk to her, the style is frequently perfunctory and the tone matter of fact, except for occasional outbursts of anger. As a result, she feels gypped. She frequently has to work also, take care of the home, and do the major part of raising the children, which leaves little energy and time for sexual activity, especially when you consider the lower (hypothesized) libidinal drive when compared to the male. Thus, he feels that her “promise” to him was never kept, that she tricked him just to get married.

When either party meets with members of their respective like sexed peer group, they arc likely to feel considerable support. The women will get together and talk about how men are “animals,” that they are only interested in one thing, and that maybe their mothers were right. The men will talk about how their wives have turned frigid and that they always have something to do first or that they don’t feel good. With that kind of support, each party feels that they are “right” and that their spouse is “wrong.” When they come home from being with their like-sexed friends, they are probably more likely to get in a fight with each other because of their self-righteousness.

Remember what I said at the beginning, that both sexes are frequently more interested in being right that in feeling good. Neither one is about to change their position because they each feel totally justified (which they are), especially when their peers are in the same boat. I agree that they are both justified, however, it is certainly a painful position emotionally, to be right and feel bad.

So what can be done about this? First, it is important to appreciate the differences from a neutral viewpoint. Although there is some flexibility for change, it seems ridiculous for a man to marry a woman and then insist that she act, think, talk, and feel like a man. Likewise, it is equally ludicrous for the woman to marry a man and then demand that he think, act, talk, and feel like a woman.

Sometimes I have facetiously offered a solution that nobody is eager to act upon. I suggest that the man divorce his wife and marry a man so he doesn’t have to talk about feelings. I also suggest that the woman marry a woman and talk about feelings to their hearts content.

Since this doesn’t seem to be a particularly desirable solution, perhaps we can look at the relationship from the position of a neutral stance regarding the differences. Yes, we can acknowledge differences, however, we do not have to make each other “wrong” and “go to war” over the differences. Just as it wouldn’t help for the male to yell at the female to grow taller, we should not expect the wife to turn into a nymphomaniac every time her husband makes a lewd or suggestive comment. Similarly, the male is not going to grow shorter even if he were asked to, so the female should not expect the male to be very eloquent about his feelings.

What can be done? If we accept the difference, do we end up with resignation and apathy? We could, but not necessarily. We could end up with understanding and acceptance—especially acceptance of each other as different. Not opposite, but complementary. This could reduce the “warfare” in the “battle of the sexes.” How does this work?

Going back to our marital counseling where Mary and I see the couple together in a foursome, we usually hear some version of the differences that I have described. He “never” talks about feelings and she is “never” interested in sex. Each seems intractable about their position. Frequently, there is a sort of quid pro quo implied, a kind of tit for tat, why should I have sex with an unfeeling person? Or, why should I talk about my feelings with somebody who is not showing me her love (meaning having sex)?

Typically, after the session with the four of us, I will see each of the partners for two or three sessions individually to focus on gentle self-management skills. At the basis of this strategy is the assumption that each of us is in charge of our selves. Thus, it makes little sense to spend hour after hour complaining about the partner’s actions or lack of actions because the implicit position in that case is that the partner “causes” the negative feelings and thus the individual is unable to feel better until the other person changes first. This is a “victim” orientation and results in a “Mexican stand off’’—with little possibility of change.

Thus, the focus of the individual session is the locus of control—who is in charge of your feelings? After discussing the issue of sovereignty and the pain of being the pawn rather than the origin, I point to how badly one can feel even when the partner is not present. This is a clear demonstration of where the control is, unless of course, my client is being run by remote control.

One of the main reasons for seeing each of the partners individually is that we can take a thread of logic and follow it through without being interrupted or “corrected” by the partner. Also, when the partner is present, the individual has to watch his or her words since there is likely to be further “discussion” after the session.

If I see the husband (male) first, I listen to any addendums to the initial joint session. Occasionally, there are new bits of information such as information regarding his or her previous affairs that were not mentioned in the initial session. Of course, the first session will frequently include this information, especial]y if one had an affair (the “wronger”) and one did not (the “wrongee” ).

After any new bits of history, I tend to focus on the painfulness of the current situation. Frequently, there is a psychological withdrawal, especially on the part of the husband. It seems more familiar for him to focus on the demands of work and how he doesn’t know how to cope with his wife’s emotional fluctuations. According to him, she does not understand how difficult a job he has and how exhausted he is when he gets home, only to be hit with demands for family involvement.

It is important for me to accept the legitimacy of his view, knowing that it is only his current view, not necessarily his future view. Also it is probably different from his wife’s view. If he does not feel heard or understood by me, it is very unlikely that he will consider anything I say. As I sense that he feels heard and that I understand the legitimacy of his pain, then I move to focus on individual sovereignty and response ability.

I might begin by saying that although his wife’s position is a legitimate reason for his feeling, I question how much control of his feelings she really has. I suggest that if she were totally in control that he would be one of the happiest men alive. I cite two reasons for this. First, she loves (cares about) you or at least she did in the beginning. Second, and even more importantly, if she had the control over your feelings, she certainly would not use this control to make you into the unhappy, distant man that you have become. That would certainly not be to her advantage. Instead, she would make you a joyous, humorous, tender, and loving person because then you would be a wonderful person to be with. Incidentally, if you were joyous, humorous, tender, and loving, it would also be wonderful for you. You could even like your self.

That last point of feeling wonderful or liking your self, seems to be a way of orienting to the future. Since you are in charge of you, who could stop you from operating your self in a more positive and loving manner? One of the first steps is to stop viewing yourself as victim. Instead, use your response ability differently. In place of focusing on and reviewing her negative points, think about her as different, not wrong, or even worse, bad. I raise the question of what if he perceived her through a different set of lenses? What would be the result of viewing her positively? If he were married to a friend rather than an enemy, wouldn’t he feel better? His answer usually is, “Yes, that would be nice.”

Next, I introduce the idea of the life cycle of a relationship by pointing out that we have numerous customs, patterns, and traditions. For example, we drive on the right hand side of the road, speak softly at funeral parlors, and manage to spoil a positive relationship with the seriousness of marriage. Since I have written at length on this topic previously, I will not cover it at length here. The main point I usually focus on is that we have a tradition of unrewarding marriages which are not caused by “bad” people as much as by the earlier programming and the custom of an adversarial relationship in a marriage. Cooperative going in, adversarial going out.

What is interesting is that we still have the positive cooperative behavior in our repertoire. We can easily shift into dating type behavior at the drop of a hanky.

The other day, Mary and I saw a couple who had been married for 10 years, had 4 children, and came in with a pit bull death grip on the “righteousness” of their own position and the porosity or perversity of their partner’s position. She said that this had started a long time ago, I think meaning in the early part of their relationship, and I said, “At least thirty years ago.” (They were both in their mid-thirties.) They both smiled as they realized that they had not felt especially good about themselves from childhood on, which is about normal in our cultural tradition. I have written about this in earlier booklets, especially “Creating Self-esteem. ”

This same couple had another commonality with many other unhappily married couples. She had not been very affectionate to him but he had watched her “light up” whenever her good friend’s husband had come into her presence. He had watched them kiss on New Year’s Eve and it was clear to him that it was a long, lingering, soulful, and romantic kiss, the kind that he longed for. She admitted that she had “special feelings” for her friend’s husband, but what was even more devastating for the husband was that she said, “You just don’ t turn me on any more.” There had been no actual “affair,” but the painfulness of their marriage was abundantly clear. And , as usual, he was “so obsessed with business and making money that he never talked about his feelings,”so she felt very distant from him. From his perspective, she was lively and flirtatious with other men, but not with him. Situation Normal, All Fouled Up.

Perhaps the basis of an unrewarding marriage was formed during childhood. We all heard and saw the fairy tales. The structure of the story was that somebody was in trouble, then there was some kind of magic, preferably a magic kiss, and then they lived happily ever after. The primary element of our “trouble” is that we typically do not feel okay about our selves and that we think we are not in charge of ourselves. Hence, we are waiting for Snow White or Prince Charming, the person who has the “rest of our stuff,” to rescue us so that we can get on with the business of living happily ever after. With these unrealistic expectations, is it any wonder that we feel cheated and deceived? “If I had known what you were really like, I never would have married you.” Sound familiar?

The reason for going into this background is that it is important that nobody ends up being at fault or being the “bad guy.’’ Instead, each has played the role they were programmed for, up until now. What is crucial is the realization that the current anguish is the “norm” and not the exception. And more importantly, the role we were programmed for can be changed. Not only that, but the only one who can change our self, is our self and that we do not have to wait for our partner to change—first.

Thus, if the husband is interested in feeling better, there are some essential realizations that are important for him to make. First, that he is not the cause (blame) for his wife’s upset, even though that is her perception and even though much of his behavior is a loud “invitation” for her to feel badly. Similarly, his wife is not the cause of his upset. Second, that his current anguish is real and legitimate. And third, that he can play around with making changes inside himself that pay off immediately in his taking better care of himself and feeling better, now.

What kind of change? First, to appreciate the difference in libidinal drive so as not to take the current situation personally or resulting from his ineptness as a lover or the size of his penis. When I share the Martian anthropologist’s video tape with him he can begin to appreciate the difference without feeling that his wife is wrong or that she misled him. I remind him that he once talked about his feelings—during courtship—and that he hasn’t much since. Yes, it has been important for him to focus on his work, he will soon have two children in college, but he can still talk about his feelings more than he has. And I emphasize, not just angry feelings, the kind that seems to be the only legitimate emotion for males in marriage.

I ask him to imagine what it would be like to be pestered by a salesman trying to sell him something that he was not particularly interested in. If the husband is a salesman, his business success depends on his not taking no for an answer.

What he wants is a big, resounding, “Yes, I would love to make love with you!” However, he will be less and less likely to get such an answer if “No, not now” has no meaning. It ‘s as if the man knocks on the door (makes a suggestion about going to bed) and the woman says, “No , not now, I have to finish making this cake.” Then there are a few more things to do, after all, only after your work is done, can you play.

Meanwhile the husband may keep his hopes up because what he hears is, “Soon.” However, as the time increases. he sees all this activity as delaying tactics, further indicating that she is “frigid,” and now moves on to feeling rejected and sorry for himself. What a miserable state, although “normal.” In spite of the normalcy, it is still a self-administered state. As a typical salesman who doesn’t take no for an answer, he will try just about anything to get her into bed. Threats, sarcasm, pouting, anger, bribery, “acting nice,” and perhaps liquor. If sex were a one time interaction, there would be little residual problem. However, since this is an ongoing relationship, the wife is likely to see all this “salesmanship” as an indication of how shallow her husband’s interest is in her as a person and in her feelings. She feels “shoe horned,” dammed if she does and dammed if she doesn’t.

If she doesn’t, she has a sour husband on her hands. If she does, her heart is not in it because he is not sensitive to her feelings and simply acting like an animal, just what her mother warned her about. If she does agree and goes through the motions, she does not lubricate very much, if at all, and the act becomes painful for her. Not only that but she “feels used” by the man that originally said that he loved her and would always love her. As one wife put it, “I feel like a sperm bank, that I am not special at all or he wouldn’t be so demanding.”

Because of the unevenness of libido (and their ability to make negative judgments about the other), they manage to make the situation go from bad to worse. Viewed by the husband, this is totally unsatisfactory, never enough. Viewed by the wife, totally unsatisfactory, always too much.

As they proceed with this script, buoyed by their own self-righteousness and the support of their like-sexed peers, they become increasingly sensitive (and unhappy with each other) to what every little gesture and intonation means, as long as it is negative. Before long, neither can say or do anything “right,” that is, in the eyes of the other. Each feels wronged, misunderstood, and mistreated by the other. They have reached the last phase of the relationship, wedlock, which rhymes with deadlock.

During this phase, if the wife meets a man who listens to her, understands her, and shares his feelings with her, the likelihood is a release of endorphins and a fast beating heart. Whether she follows through or not will depend on several factors, for example, the number of children she has, where she is in her personal life cycle, how much free time she has available, and her personal morality.

Meanwhile, if there is an understanding female in the office who laughs at his jokes, has cute legs, seems to sparkle in his company, and is a little flirtatious, he will release endorphins in his head and start making up erotic fantasies about what they would be like in bed together. Again, many of the same factors apply that will determine the degree of follow through.

It seems that one of the major factors involved is novelty and mystery. For some reason, I was just reading a book and looking at pictures about the life of Ernest Hemingway, who not only wrote many books but also “knew” many women besides the four he married. The search for the elusive “living happily ever after” is a rather common activity. Yet, novelty and mystery is possible within a marriage.

For that to take place, I invite the husband to re-frame (change his mind) about himself and his wife. The first step is to realize that labeling his wife’s lower libido and resultant decreased sexual activity as rejection is very painful, for him. He needs to view himself as worth taking care of so he does not spend time roasting himself with thoughts of how shabbily he is being treated.

It is important for him to translate no into not right now. Thus , he can take the position that he would not want his wife to do anything that she was not interested in. If he is patient and accepting, he will greatly improve his chances of participating in a higher quality sexual activity. However, it is important that he do this for himself rather than monitoring her response to his behavior. When he is taking good care of himself and feeling good, he can be cheerfully helpful with the household chores. He can offer a foot massage—without strings attached.

So many times the marital condition has deteriorated to the point that there is little or no affection between the two partners. Her position is that if she initiates a hug or responds to a kiss, it’s off to the bedroom. So, to protect herself from being accused of being a tease who doesn’t deliver, she walks around in a “porcupine suit.”

Meanwhile, her husband feels the caution and her stiffness and presents a pouting “what’s the use” posture, spending more time at work or with “the boys.” The riddle is how do two porcupines make love? The answer: very carefully and very seldom.

It is important for the husband to take good care of himself psychologically—to keep viewing his wife as a woman and as a friend. He will benefit from this and it is important that he do this for himself. As a result, he will not spend his time monitoring his wife’s behavior to see if he is getting results. That actually would only distract him. It would be like holding his breath, which is not the most comfortable internal condition. He will be the primary beneficiary, his wife the secondary beneficiary, if he decides to breathe naturally.

In addition to the psychological nurturing, it is also possible, and sometimes desirable, to take matters into one’s own hands, physically. If we call this making love with ourselves, we can enjoy our selves. Although masturbation is not to be seen as always preferable, it can be a way of reducing his physical pressure to a more tolerable point. From the mental/psychological viewpoint, it is important that we do this lovingly and not run images of neglect, such as look at what l’m reduced to, which only leads to resentment, another negative feeling.

Since we have been formed through the process of natural selection, only males can really appreciate the strength of the sexual urge that we experience. We are not wrong. However, the fact that females in general do not share this experience to the same extent does not make them wrong either—just different.

We men can not appreciate what having a period means. We do not have the hormonal variations and accompanying emotional roller coaster. Again, not having the experience does not make us wrong—just different. No amount of emphasizing either experience will change the difference, so we might as well accept it.

The value of acceptance is that we can create internal comfort which can lead to more friendly interactions between partners. There will be less of the judgmental stance and fewer times when we wear porcupine suits. We will be easier to get along with, a point of similarity since both sexes are interested in that.

Another point of difference is the focus of sexuality for the two sexes. At least in our culture, the female sexuality is diffused throughout her entire body, while the male sexuality is focused, at least for him, on his one outstanding characteristic, his penis. The females’ sexuality extends from the top of her head to her toe nails. Her hair is important. Eye brows, lashes, and shadow get considerable attention. The lips are emphasized, the ears adorned, the nails painted, and the style and color coordination of the clothing essential. Yes, the bust line, hips, calves, and ankles are important too. However, the genitals are not a major point of focus for her since it is an invagination rather than a protuberance.

In contrast, the male does not do much with his body except for activities such as weight lifting to emphasize his muscular mass. The primary point of his focus is his penis. It is the one outstanding, and frequently upstanding, part of his anatomy that feels especially good when stroked, played with, or placed in a vagina. Since the male has higher libidinal drive, is raised to be an action oriented problem solver, he is likely to see intercourse and orgasm as the way to solve a problem in the relationship. It is his way of being close, especially when considering that he is trusting his most valued member to a partner.

However, his actions are likely to be too goal oriented for the female. She would like more cuddling, caressing, and talk about feelings. She wants any problems in the relationship to be ironed out through the mutual discussion of feelings (psychological intimacy) before she considers having intercourse (physical intimacy). She prefers being intimate after feeling good rather than as a means of feeling good. She would like some compliments from her partner that indicate he cares enough to notice. As one wife said recently, “When we were going together, he would comment on the fact that I changed the color of my eye shadow. Now, he doesn’t seem to notice me at all.”

My hypothesis is that he might notice some of the changes, but since marriage is a serious business and he has to earn a living, he doesn’t bother to comment on what now seems to him like unimportant matters. Unfortunately, many males seem to view getting married as an accomplishment of a goal so the attitude is likely to be: now that’s done, now I can focus on my career because I have to take care of my family’s financial future. Again, this does not make them wrong, just different. The wife is more likely to see the marriage ceremony as the beginning of an intimate psychological relationship that involves frequent discussions of feelings.

Getting back to talking with the husband, I share much of this material on differences with him. I point out the typical way of using our sovereignty, that is to be judgmental and to feel resentful and misunderstood. By pointing out how he does this away from her (feeling resentful), it is clear that she is not doing it to him. I coach him on how to feel better by taking better care of himself.

Since the marriage is typically in a mess, I suggest that he has nothing to lose by experimenting with change. Either he will be ready to build a better relationship with his wife or he will be better equipped for his next relationship. In any event, he can treat himself better and feel better immediately during this period of uncertainty about how things are going to turnout.

I point out that he only “knows what he is thinking,” which is the basis of his experience. He does not know what his wife is thinking, only what he thinks she is thinking. Likewise for me, the action for me is within me. I am only guessing or interpreting what is going on inside of somebody else. That makes me sovereign in here and I might just as well take good care of my self.

Perhaps an example or analogy might be useful here. Imagine that you and I have been playing tennis each morning at the same place and the same time for several years. Each morning you show up at the same court with your racket and a can of balls and I show up with my racket and my can of balls. Even though we may have played tennis for several years, the first time I show up without my racket, I know that we will not play tennis. I don’t know what the new game will be, but I know that it will not be tennis.

The point is that if I change myself, the nature of the transaction (game) will change. How it will change is uncertain, but that there will be change is certain because I am 50 % of the game. Similarly, I suggest that each of the partners that I talk with change themselves in a constructive way, without waiting for the spouse to change. When I say constructive, I include seeing the partner as different, rather than wrong. Or put another way, to view their spouse as a friend rather than an “enemy.”

As part of the coaching, I suggest that the husband back off and let his wife initiate any sexual activity. Not that he can’t be friendly and affectionate, just the opposite, but not press for sexual interaction simply because he is aroused. Sometimes, Mary and I have covered this in the foursome so that his wife is aware as well. This is an adaptation of the sensate focus program developed by Masters and Johnson. When the individual sessions are concluded, the four of us meet again and proceed further with the sensate focus approach.

When I see the wife individually, I also go over the differences between females and males to invite her to see her husband as different, not wrong. She may better appreciate and accept the differences without the judgments that lead to the negative feelings. I also share the self-management skills based on the assumption of sovereignty within, which basically presents her with the option of doing her self differently, more enjoyably and more delightfully.

Of course, the wife’s feelings, of having been used, need to be acknowledged as legitimate. In fact, whatever she has done and felt, up until now, is the best that she knew how within the options that she was aware of. She went into this relationship as a positive victim (You Make Me Feel So Good) just as her husband did. That was the past. Now is the only time that exists and we can change our minds and make a different future.

By using her sovereignty differently, she can feel better now. She has felt disappointed and hurt in the past ostensibly because of her husband’s lack of emphasis on the importance of discussing feelings, just as her husband has felt rejected at not having all his sexual interests and fantasies acted upon. She has frequently used similar methods for trying to extract emotional responses. Threats , sarcasm, pouting, anger, bribery, “acting nice,” and possibly liquor. Just as his use of these methods made quality sexual activity more remote, her use of these methods made a discussion of feelings more remote. As one therapist said, “From the woman’s point of view, if the problems and feelings can be discussed, then the marriage is sound. However, the man’s point of view is that if all these problems and feelings need to be discussed, then the marriage is in trouble.”

Part of this is probably due to the (proposed) genetically linked emphasis on feelings for the female. In our counseling, Mary and I have seen time and time again the differential skill level when it comes to talking about feelings. The wife is usually very adept and also seems to have a better filing system for remembering all the important events. The husband is relatively inept at discussing emotions and frequently clams up because he is afraid he will say the wrong thing. We have heard wives who persist in getting statements about feelings from her husband, only to explode with, “How can you say that?” or “Do you see how insensitive he is?”

As for the filing system, I am likely to show the wife a “Hermann” cartoon. The wife sits up in bed in the middle of the night and yells at her husband lying next to her, “I still remember what you said last month.” My client will usually smile at this and I will add, think about the amount of pain that she has created for her self during the last month. She could have used her time better.

Sometimes it is ticklish for me to talk to the wife about self-management skills, especially regarding the sexual area. If this seems to be a problem, Mary will be the one to see her for the individual sessions. When I am the one, 1 will again emphasize the validity and legitimacy of any past feelings and actions. Now it is time for her to use her sovereignty differently and experiment with making changes that will result in her feeling better. The result will be that she will be able to have more positive input into the relationship, but not to make changes for the sake of the relationship, just for her self. I will add that in spite of the differences, there is also a unifying similarity, both the wife and the husband want to feel better in the marriage or they would not have come for marriage counseling.

I also point out that Mary and I cannot make her feel better, that is her business. We can only act as consultants. As your consultant, I can invite you to take better care of your self. You can do this by being more accepting and less judgmental of both your self and your spouse. Also, you can be more impish and reckless.

You say that your husband’s touching you doesn’t feel good because you know he is only after one thing and that he doesn’t really care about your feelings. I then share more about the legitimate basis of the differences and then may tell a story or two. I go through the “normal” life cycle of a relationship where two people begin by hand selecting each other on the basis of enjoyment and compatibility. From there they get serious, married, and then proceed to the wedlock/deadlock, a standoff where she is not going to feel better until she hears more talk about feelings, Conversely, he is not going to feel better until he gets more interest and attention sexually. Both are “right,” they are not going to move from their internal position that they married the wrong person and it turned out to be the “enemy” in disguise.

Could it be that the resulting mess is not a case of marrying the wrong person? I think so. It is not a case of “bad” people, but rather a case of two nice people following the typical pattern of marriage, which could be called how to ruin a relationship.

ls there anything that can be done to improve the situation? Yes, however, you have to be ready to be atypical, unconventional, experimental, and impish. Knowing that I am sharing much of this with her husband, the important position for her to take is be reckless and place a premium on conducting her self in an enjoyable and delightful manner.
When I was a kid growing up in Minnesota, one of the older boys grabbed two cats and lashed their tails together. When he let them go, they both tried to run away but couldn’t. They each saw the other as the “enemy” and proceeded to claw at each other. What a mess. What a weird picture. What a vivid image of how many marriages are conducted, frequent criticisms and put downs.

The “lashing” that seems to occur is psychological. When two people have had an enjoyable relationship, they sometimes get married. As they approach that occasion, they use “heavy” words like commitment, obligation, duty, and responsibility. They solemnize their vows. They speak of the “bonds of marriage.” They have become serious, very serious.

They see the actions of the partner as reflecting on themselves so they frequently correct their partner, all with the best intent. In this manner, the enjoyment level diminishes to the point where they begin to wonder why they got married in the first place. They probably have not heard the quote from Gibran’ s Prophet, “Make not a bond of love, rather let it be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.”

What we need to be aware of is that the spouse is not the enemy and that we are not “lashed” together, even though we typically lash out at each other. That was then. Now that you are aware of your sovereignty, you can do marriage differently. As for sex, that occurs primarily between the ears. Or another way of saying that is that our biggest sex organ is our mind. To demonstrate the power of the mind, I may share the following story.

I saw a wife who had been married about eight years. One of her complaints about her husband was that “he is always pestering me, pawing at me, wanting to have sex. His touch makes my skin crawl.” I remarked that I was reminded of another client, a man who had been married for seventeen years and finally had divorced his wife about five years earlier. As he recounted his dislike for his ex-wife, he said, “I can still hear the sound of her slippers coming down the hall toward the bedroom. I always tried to get to sleep before she got to bed because if I was awake, I would hear the sound of her breathing and it would make me sick to my stomach.”

As he spoke, it was clear that he was re-experiencing his distress in the present. So I asked him a question, “Was your wife breathing when you married her?” He looked bewildered by the ridiculousness of the question and said, “Yes, of course, she was breathing.” I then said, “If that is the case, then you must have changed your story about her breathing.” He said, “Yes, I guess I did.”

After I shared this story with the wife, I asked her if her husband’s touch had made her skin crawl when they were dating and first married. She replied, “Of course not.” Then she added, “I guess I’ve changed my story, but how can I change it again?” I then suggested that we suspend the usual way of figuring it out and maybe become impish in the use of our imagination.

I invited her to consider, “What if you (the wife) ‘knew’ that nuclear warfare would break out in the morning and annihilate humanity within an hour, who could stop the impish part of you from availing your self of one last orgasm before the end of the world? What if you were to roll over and “use” your husband? Don’t explain any of this to him, simply use him for your own gratification. He may be surprised, but so” what?”

She reacted with, “That is pretty ridiculous, I don’t know if I could do it.” I said, “I know you can, but I don’t know if you will. However, if you include the imp in you in your decision, the odds will go up.” At our next session, I asked her how things were going and she said, “You won’t believe this but there’s been a fair amount of atomic warfare but nobody has been hurt. In fact, I have kind of enjoyed myself. My husband is bewildered at the change, but he’s not complaining and he’s not asking any questions. I think things are much better between us.”

I have covered the ease of change in another booklet, “Change And Changing.” We frequently discount any approach that is easy or silly, especially if there is pretense, imagination, and impishness involved. It sounds too ridiculous. However, what is to be lost? Things are a mess now or you wouldn’t be here for consultation.

When the partners have each been seen individually and each is more aware of their unlimited (except self-imposed limitations) potential for change, then we get together as a foursome again. Since Mary worked as a sex therapist at Masters and Johnson, she presents the suggestions for touching, a la sensate focus.

The major point is that in the relatively structured beginning where there is exploratory touch, excluding genitals, the “toucher” focuses on what the spouse’s skin feels like, not on the results produced in the partner. In an A (wife) and B (husband) turn taking, in the privacy of their own home and with both unclothed, A touches B for her self, while B simply focuses on what her touch feels like to him. In addition, B’s responsibility is to keep her from touching him in a way that is uncomfortable for him. Thus, she does not have to concern herself with what her partner is feeling, but can stay focused on what she is experiencing.

After she has explored his body via touch to her satisfaction, then it is B’s turn to touch A for him self, excluding breasts and genitals. Of course, she is to keep him from touching her in a way that is uncomfortable for her, preferably non-verbally. They are not to go on to intercourse, whether they are aroused or not.

The point of this initial instruction is twofold. First, the wife needs to develop comfort that there can be touching without the inevitability of a demand for intercourse or a pouting if there is none. Second, that both can re-experience the pleasure of a sensual opportunity, for itself. A frequent outcome is that the husband can rediscover the pleasure of touching that is not sexually driven, that there can be pleasure in contact, even without intercourse.

This is not the place to discuss sensate focus at length, just to note that there are graduated suggestions that we share for their “homeplay.” Again, let me underscore the importance of touching for self rather than results. Also, that there is no goal, so that each t me is different and not a cookbook approach that precludes novelty. Although this sensate focus approach was originally developed for the treatment of sexual dysfunctions, we have found that it is very useful in reducing the awkwardness of a return to intimacy from the presenting condition of “stalemates.”

We also find it valuable to include some communication skills that are useful between the two partners. The main point is the use of “I” language instead of “You” language. You always… You never. .. You… You… You. The “You” language is usually experienced by the receiver as attack or criticism.

“I” language is about how I feel, not how you made me feel. It is a clear representation of the internal condition or interests that I have chosen, whether in or out of awareness. It is stated without blame or accusation. This is a very brief synopsis of the communication skills that we suggest, however, there are many more books that cover this topic more thoroughly.

To create some closure on this topic of male-female differences and similarities, the counseling approach we suggest does not always work. However, there are many couples who have found many advantages in changing their stories about what goes into relationships and who they are. The partners know they are different, but that does not mean they cannot enjoy each other, and the differences. The couples who become aware of their options as a result of implementing this approach, say that it is much cheaper than divorce. Also, they arc not as interested in being right at the expense of their partner. Instead of waiting helplessly (sometimes loudly) for their partner to change so that they can feel better, they now use their sovereignty to feel better now and then things seem to work out better.

For humor, I will end with a quote that shows how ridiculous we have been acting when we were “normal.” One spouse says to the other, “Why aren’t you more grateful when I point out how wrong you are?”

And the final phrase from the French:

“Vive la difference!”

This blog was originally self-published in 1993 as a pamphlet for the benefit of clients and others seeking to improve their relationships.

Creating Self-Esteem: A Gift to Yourself

One of my recent clients began our initial session with the following comment,

“I think I am my own worst critic.”

Doesn’t it seem tragic that a person would carry around a harsh, inescapable critic inside his/her own mind—a critic that can seldom, if ever, be pleased? Unfortunately, this is all too common a situation.

Another statement that is often heard is,

“I think I’m my own worst enemy.”

Again, this is not exactly a prescription for feeling good since what we think is what we experience. Not only is this approach an ineffective self-management strategy, it is also unenjoyable! I want to add that I think it is unnecessary as well, but furthermore, that even if that has been our approach thus far, we have the ability and potential to change our view, no matter what our age.

Basically, self-esteem is what you think and feel about your self. (For me, it is what I think and feel about my self.) In other words, if you think well of your self and feel good about being you most of the time, then you automatically have high self-esteem. If you think poorly of your self and feel that you are not okay most of the time, then you automatically have high self-esteem. If you think poorly of your self and feel that you are not okay most of the time, then you have low self-esteem.

As you may have noticed, I put think and feel together. The reason is perhaps best explained in Albert Ellis’ writing on the topic of Rational-Emotive Therapy (RET). The fundamental thesis of RET, as I see it, is: you feel or experience what you are thinking.

In other words, what you are thinking about (rational activity) is what you are experiencing (feeling or emotional activity). Possibly the most graphic and colorful way of presenting this is Ellis’ statement, “The reason people feel shitty is that they are thinking about shit. Further, they are going to continue feeling shitty until they change their mind.” Another variation is, “The reason people feel shitty about themselves is they are thinking that they are nothing but shit to begin with.”

Thus, you can see from my initial definition of self-esteem (what we think and feel about our selves) is a direct result of our own activity, i.e., our mental activity. And, since it is our own mental activity, it is entirely within our own domain, province, or response ability. We own it. It is not up to others. What other people think and feel about us is other esteem, the esteem of others, and not within our direct control.

By starting from the position that our self-esteem is not dependent on the thoughts of others, this certainly simplifies matters considerably. Your self-esteem is up to you, mine is up to me. If we have spent much of our life, up to now, thinking and feeling badly about our selves, it doesn’t matter, we can change that style of thought now. We do not have to wait until we have gained the esteem of others even though that could give us some positive excuses if we needed some.

To illustrate this distinction, we can recall the example of Freddie Prinz who starred in the TV show, “Chico and The Man”. As you may remember he had all the other-esteem anybody could ask for. In addition, he had all the things that we seem to be holding our breath for: status, wealth, good looks , promising career, etc. His suicide is clear evidence that he did not like himself: that he thought of himself in negative and self-destructive terms. With that kind of thinking, he felt so badly that he killed himself.

Many readers are likely to say to themselves at this point, “Changing my thoughts is not an easy thing to do.” (This is a very typical thought to have.) In other words, when we think about changing our thinking, then we are likely to stop ourselves from changing our thinking easily by thinking that changing our thought is difficult. (I might add, if we think we can, or we think we can’t, either way, we are right.) In this way, we can convince ourselves that we are in mental “chains.”

One of my favorite stories about this point is from the East, a Zen story. The young student eagerly approaches the master and earnestly inquires, “Master, what is the way to liberation and freedom?” The master responds with a question, “Would you show me your chains?” The student looks at his wrists and ankles in a perplexed manner and responds, “But I don’t have any chains.” At this point, the master asks, “Why, then, would you be interested in liberation and freedom, when you are already unchained?”

That is an “unusual” story, but it reveals our position in own life. It can be seen either as positive or negative. The good news is that we are already free, free to think (and therefore to feel) anything we want. The bad news is that we live in a culture or context where the custom is to use our freedom to point out how “unfree” we are. However, if we assume that we own our own thinking, anybody who wants to can change their mind.

Therefore, if you have been using your freedom to think that you are not okay, and consequently, you have felt bad about yourself up until now, it doesn’t matter in terms of what you can do now and in the future. Perhaps a clearer way of saying this is that you are free to “do” you differently than you have. You can use the awareness of your freedom to create (think about) your self as okay and feel good about yourself, now.

When you were born, you did not have any thoughts about who you were. You entered life from your mother’s womb with an intact nervous system, complete with all the necessary reflexes. In addition, you (if you are reading this) arrived with the potential to learn language as well as the ability to think. Of course you also had some feelings upon arrival, perhaps even some feelings about your arrival—however, I think those feelings were reflexive, the result of shock. I think most feelings in infancy were poorly differentiated and of a more or less reflexive nature. Since we can’t interview infants, nobody can prove me wrong in my speculation anymore than I can prove I am right.

Back to the question of the mind at birth. I don’t think I had one, nor did you. We had the potential for mind but no mind yet. The reason I say this is that we had no language, nor even an appreciation of language. Our parents could discuss any topic and it made no difference to us because we did not know what they were talking about, we had no decoding ability, no interpretative framework.

During our early months, our ears were bathed in a sea of words. We didn’t know what they meant at first. As we continued our growth while immersed in words, we began to acquire some basic language due to our potential to learn. I think of the computer and the mind as having some rough parallel and the early period of our life was when we “booted up our computer” and began developing a mind of our own.

Eventually, the booting up period diminished and we began the more adult form of word processing, which we can call speaking, writing, and reading. All these activities are based on what we call thinking, something we didn’t do when we were born but developed the capability to do later. Incidentally, a thought is not tangible in the sense that we can look at it or weigh it, however, it is very real to the person doing the thinking.

As adults, we have developed our own mind and now have the ability to use this interpretive framework to encode (talk and write) and decode (listen and read). The kinds of thoughts we have are sometimes lumped into groups called beliefs. The faceless people that make up definitions at Webster’s define belief as a “conviction that certain things are true.”

Now back to self-esteem, it seems to me that our thoughts about ourselves (our self-esteem) is a belief system that we hold in our minds, a conviction that certain things (about ourselves) are true. Are you with me so far? Now my next question is, when did we begin putting together this belief system? Obviously, the foundations were developed in early childhood . What was our situation or condition at that time? Answer: We were relatively helpless and dependent.

Dependent on others for our very existence because we could not feed our selves or clothe our selves (although we did our own breathing, sucking, and swallowing, etc.) . The “giants” in our environment did it for us. We could not help but learn (develop a self-image) that we were not enough compared to the adults around us. We were picked up and put in the car seat whether we wanted to or not. There were times when we would scream our heads off and the adults would not yield to our demands. We could not help but learn about our impotence to get the world to be just the way we wanted it.

Just as the foundation is important to the structural underpinnings of a house, the initial learning experiences of our childhood become the foundation of our belief systems about our selves and the world around us. The word processing of the adult is based on the boot disc of childhood. Not only did we develop a sense of impotence, we also were immersed in a language that seemed to be primarily focused on good and bad, right and wrong. We were sent to our room or otherwise (maybe not so wise on the part of the other sometimes) punished while being told that we were “bad”. We were rewarded for being “good”.

Even if the ratio of “good” to “bad” comments were even, the experiences around being “bad” and punished were more memorable. Since we were unable to act like adults, we frequently made “mistakes” and endured surprising consequences. Since our parents wanted us to learn good manners and acceptable behavior, they frequently corrected, criticized, and admonished us. I remember a line from somewhere where the comedian said, “I was six years old before I learned that my name was not No No.” We were likely to learn to be self-critical rather than self-accepting.

Now as adults, we are likely to look at our selves through these belief systems about that self we began to develop in childhood. We probably have beliefs (convictions of things that are “true”) about our selves based on our early experience. We may also have convictions about our convictions or beliefs about our beliefs, specifically that we cannot change our convictions or beliefs. I think (and believe) that we can!

To me, our self-image or self-esteem is our thoughts about our selves, what we have “conjured up” about our selves. We are the initiators and the “experiencers” of our thoughts, if we were brain dead, we wouldn’t have thoughts and feelings. I have an idea of who and what I am. Obviously, my idea of me is not me since I am more than an idea. It is simply an idea of me which I create in my mind. Thus, I am the creator of my idea of me and I am free to make up any view or idea of me. Nobody can stop me. I can make up a positive view or idea of me even though that is not the norm.

I also have an idea of who and what you are. Of course, that is not you, you are over there and my idea of you is in my mind and thus, my creation of you. I do not interact with you when I am with you, I interact with my idea of you. So I create me (my idea of me) and I create you (my idea of you) in my mind. Further, since I “have no chains,” I can use my mind any way I want. I could make up me to be wonderful and I could make up you to be wonderful. I could relax since I wouldn’t have to prove my self and I wouldn’t have to worry about you as a threat. A great benefit to my self. However, this is not the norm in this puritanical context since we base our self-esteem on our early patterning when we learned a negative view of our selves.

This helps us understand why the client opened with the line, “I think I am my own worst critic.” What is interesting to me is that most of our internal experience is based on our beliefs (our thinking), it is not the world out there dictating our experience. We know this through the expression, one person’s meat is another person’s poison.

An actual example of this statement could be the eating of a piece of meat. The one individual orders a steak and eats it with great gusto. A vegetarian might throw up just thinking about eating a piece of dead cow. Each may think their experience is determined by the act of eating the meat because their belief system seems invisible to them. However, there has to be two different belief systems involved because the meat is identical. Since they each are likely to have a common belief system of no awareness of a belief system (hence, no ownership), they will each attribute their experience to the eating of the meat with little or no awareness of their role in determining their experience.

Ellis says that it’s as easy as ABC. He makes the A the Antecedent event, a fancy name for stimulus, what’s going on in the environment. He makes the B stand for the Belief and the C for the emotional Consequence, another word for response. He states that events do not cause our emotional response, we have a belief that results in the response. Take two people on a float trip: the one experiences the grandeur of nature while the other one can’t wait to get back to civilization. Going to a dance may be agony for one person and ecstasy for another. (The question is why do these two people get married?)

Thinking about beliefs and self-esteem, it would appear that we do not necessarily see our selves as others see us. Each of us has a “story” (belief) about what kind of a person each of us is. We experience that (our own) story. As the author of that story, couldn’t we change it? Couldn’t we rewrite parts of it?

Only if we were aware that we were the author, that we did not like the story, and that we had the pen in our own hand. Yes, we may have had negative experiences in our childhood, why should we continue to give that portion of the story the central role?

Who could stop us from saying that was a tough time, I’m glad it’s over and I have a choice about how I treat me from here on? We could change our story from I used to be my own worst enemy, to now I am my own best friend.

Next, I would like to use an analogy from the field of art. Each day, as the painter (originator or creator) of your life, you will get a fresh canvas. By the end of the day, you will have filled that canvas with whatever you have thought and felt that day. If you look at that painting at the end of the day and basically don’t like it or don’t feel good about it, then you are free to use different colors and brush strokes the next day when you get your fresh canvas. For example, imagine that although I have all the colors available to me, I have consistently chosen to use dark purple, black, and brown while making short, jagged lines. At the end of the day, I end up not liking my painting (the experiences I produced).

As you can easily imagine, it doesn’t make any difference how long I have been doing this from this moment on, I am free to use pastels and make sweeping circles and huge hearts with wide ranging movements. Initially, I may feel a bit awkward about the change of painting styles. As I continue to experiment with my new style, I will become more accustomed to it. I can also feel excitement and enthusiasm that I create with my new story, reveling in my freedom of choice. I don’t need to intimidate myself or limit myself just because the majority of artists around me continue to use dark colors and little jagged lines. Others may be puzzled or look at me askance. My works may not be included in a major exhibit but the internal joy and sense of freedom that I experience is my most valuable guide and feedback.

Okay, so you have never considered yourself the artist in or of your life before; you nevertheless are. You don’t have a choice about that! The brush is in your hand whether you like it or not! It reminds me of a cartoon where the person is standing on the deck of a ship with the wheel in his hand saying, “Due to circumstances beyond my control, I have been left in charge of me.” It is true that we do not control the wind and waves (the external environment), yet we are in charge of the wheel (the internal environment). We are free to use our wheel (steer into) to complain about the wind, which seems to be the norm in this culture.

Perhaps I can use another metaphor to clarify this viewpoint. As you well know, the function of having a thermostat in your house or apartment is to keep the temperature inside at a comfortable level. It is clear that changing the thermostatic setting changes only the internal environment, not the external environment (weather). Obviously, the external environment can fluctuate a great deal and have little impact on the internal environment, except perhaps making it necessary to change the thermostatic setting slightly to maintain comfort. Clearly, the environment internal to the house is relatively independent of the external environment. Although they are interactive to some extent, internal does not control external and external does not control internal.

Similarly, even though there are some interactive effects, self-esteem does not “control” other-esteem, nor does other-esteem “control” self-esteem. If that were the case, everybody who was popular or famous would feel good about themselves.

To push this idea further, imagine for a moment that I am your friend and that I have just called you on the telephone because I am freezing and shivering inside my house. I complain to you about my discomfort and yet you know that I have a thermostat with a fully functional furnace. I go on and on about the weather being so cold and my feeling so miserable. When you think about the way the game is ordinarily played, you try to cheer me up, distract me, or sympathize with me. As part of my external environment, you are incapable of affecting me, which may help you appreciate the futility of trying to “cheer up” a friend who is “doing” depression.

In contrast, it would be far more appropriate for you to suggest to me that I turn the thermostat to heat and elevate the temperature setting. In other words, do something different, myself. Unfortunately, this is a relatively rare response in terms of how the game is played in this culture. If you do tell me to take better care of myself, I am likely to “do upset” because you are not being sympathetic and understanding. Furthermore, you don’t even care since I don’t detect any distress in your voice. I conclude that you are not much of a friend so I hang up and call somebody who will be more sympathetic and understanding. I keep calling until I find somebody who will stay on the line with me, at least until they tire of my whining and complaining.

I recall a Peanuts cartoon strip where Peppermint Patty is talking on the phone with Charley Brown saying, “I’m having trouble in school again, Chuck, what do you suggest?” He volunteers the following, “Be sure to do your homework, don’t sleep in class, and never try to give a report on a book you haven’t read.” Her response is, “I hate talking to you, Chuck.” Isn’t that an excellent “capture” of the way we feel when we get advice on what we can do rather than sympathy or blaming somebody else?

This seems to be the “norm” in this culture, little awareness of our own response ability. Generally speaking, people are sitting inside their “envelope of skin” (their domain) with a fully functional system (freedom, choice, and response ability), looking at the external environment (others) and complaining how bad they feel, wishing things “out there” were different so that they could feel good “in here.” Ironically, it’s as if they are holding their breath, waiting for the weather outside to change before they feel comfortable. They want the people out there (external environment) to start treating them better (warm up), and then they will feel better—not a moment before. Sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn’t it?

A question I once heard in this connection is, “Are you a thermometer or a thermostat?” There is quite a difference. A thermometer only registers the temperature of the surroundings in a passive manner . The thermostat, however, has the capacity to sense and set the temperature for comfort internally while taking into account the external situation, and yet not being controlled by what is going on outside. Since you don’t have any chains, you can change your mind even if you have been living your life up to now as a thermometer.

Because this seems like such a serious issue to most people, this might be a good time to remember something Oscar Wilde said, “Life is far too important to be taken seriously.” I prefer this approach to the alternative “Life’s a bitch, and then you die.”

I like to see the humor in things, which goes along with the old adage, “Laughter is the best medicine.” I invite you to chuckle at your self. As soon as you do, you will feel better. You will see how well and immediately your thermostat works!!! Of course, if you are normal, you may negate this option by saying to your self that there is nothing funny about the way you have been forced to live your life.

As a consultant, I see clients who are “doing” upset, worry, anxiety, guilt, depression, addiction, resentment, jealousy, envy, rumination, etc. (Have I left anybody out?) What that means to me is that they are sweltering or freezing emotionally. They are not taking good care of themselves. From my perspective, that is exactly like holding their breath, waiting for someone else to help them adjust their thermostat.

Since I am only part of their external environment, one of my early “confessions” in the way I “do” therapy is to indicate to my clients that I can’t help them. Many of my clients create surprise initially; however, when I smile and explain the concept of “response ability,” they begin to understand that changing their own temperature is up to them, since they alone have their hand on their psychological thermostat.

One of my approaches is to say that there is nobody in here but me, so I must be doing all of me, not just a part of me. Further, based on the premise that there is nobody in there but you, you also must be doing all of you. Thus, I can’t get “out of here” and “into there” to change or fix you; there is no room “in there” for me. If I am doing me and you are doing you, i.e., I run my temperature with my thermostat and you run your temperature with your thermostat, then I am unable to change your thermostatic setting (your comfort level). Most clients respond at this point with some kind of statement that they are aware that they need to learn to help themselves.

An analogy that may be useful is to position myself as a coach. I may use the local Baseball Cardinals to illustrate what I am talking about. The Cardinals have a batting coach whose function is to provide some input and feedback for the players. He may say things like lower your left shoulder, widen your stance, change your grip, or keep your eyes open. It is up to the player to experiment and pick out what is useful for improving his performance. It is clear that the player is in charge of himself, that the coach never bats for the batter. The coach is interested in all the players functioning better, he does not take sides. Thus, I can counsel both the husband and the wife in a marital situation and make suggestions about how they can use their internal thermostatic control more advantageously and quit “pretending” that their spouse is in control of their emotions .

Usually at this juncture, I add the bonus. If nobody can help you psychologically, then nobody can hurt you psychologically; help and hurt come as a pair. If you are playing the game as if you can help somebody, then you are automatically operating in the illusion that you can also hurt them if you say the “wrong” thing. This implies that you had better be extra careful choosing what you say. I have the delusion or belief that there is an alternative illusion.

I might add that I previously used this worry about saying the wrong thing to paralyze myself during my initial years as a therapist (when I was “normal” ). I put tremendous pressure on myself by viewing my clients as if they were in a precarious position with tenuous control of themselves in regard to their thinking and feeling. Therefore, I was exceedingly careful about what I said. In other words, I was freezing my self inside and attributing it to the weather outside (the “fragile” client). The joke was that somebody (client) who was not using their control to produce comfort went to consult with me (one who also was not using my control to produce comfort). As you can well imagine, most of the time neither of us felt better at the end of our inter-action.

As I became more and more serious, I produced sufficient discouragement to get out of clinical work and go into Industrial Psychology for seven years. I told myself that I couldn’t take the “pressure” of seeing clients under such intense conditions. I was oblivious to, or unaware of, my response ability. I did not see alternative ways of viewing the situation; I thought my only choice was to “get away.” However, I had forgotten one of the secrets of the universe: “Wherever I go, there I am.” Thus, I took my serious approach with me, although I eventually changed my mind. Incidentally, I would like to find the clients that I “worked with” 25 years ago and apologize to them. Maybe we could even have a good laugh together.

Now I operate in a different illusion, delusion, thought pattern, reality—whatever you want to call it. In a therapy situation (a consultation) where l can’t help or hurt my client, my only job is “doing” me and the only thermostat that I control is mine. So, I usually let my clients know that since I don’t have a job running them, I will use my freedom to produce comfort within me. I do it for me because I like me and I like to experience relaxation and comfort. Secondarily, it is a positive role model for my client—they may get some clues for themselves by observing how I run my thermostat.

Perhaps the following client story will be a useful illustration. I saw a lady who was feeling miserable. She said that it was because of her mother-in-law. She related how miserable her mother-in-law “made” her feel, how she called her at all hours, drank too much, interfered too much, etc. After listening for awhile, I said something to the effect that if her mother-in-law would only “act right,” then she could feel much better. The client agreed that was the case.

That being the case, I asked her to send her mother-in law in to talk to me so I could explain to her how she should act (adjust her daughter-in-law’s thermostat) so that her daughter-in law could be happy. My client snorted and said, “She would never come to see you. Anyway, she’s too old to change.” My response was, “Then I guess you are out of luck. If your mother-in-law controls your feelings and she won’t or can’t change, then you are destined to feel bad. We don’t have much to talk about.” She blinked a couple of times and said, “I guess it’s up to me.” I agreed with her and began to focus on how she could “be more gentle and loving within her self in spite of her mother-in-law.” I think she liked the “in spite” of part of my comment.

As I think about how I would have reacted to what I am writing (making up) now with the kind of thought processes (illusions) I did 25 years ago, I would be creating a variety of reactions, just as you might. For example, you might have become indignant with me for making light of your troubles. You might have thought, “He doesn’t know how cold it is in here. He is not in touch with reality (whatever that is), it’s 17 degrees below zero.”

Translated, this means your circumstances are extremely difficult and you would like some sympathy. You think I just don’t understand what it is like to have these kinds of problems and live in these kinds of conditions. That is true, I don’t know anybody else’s circumstances (external weather conditions), or even their internal climate. It doesn’t matter too much because the mechanics are the same—change your thermostat to heat or cool and adjust the setting in one direction or the other . Don’t sit on your haunches and whine while waiting for the weather out there to change. I recall a saying that is appropriate here: “Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they’ll be yours.”

Some of this may sound unsympathetic to you, and you could get very indignant about my “cavalier attitude.” You are perfectly justified. I don’t feel very sympathetic. What’s more, you don’t need sympathy, you need to change your thermostat!

The game of sympathy is patronizing and could serve as a distraction for you. That is, you could distract your self from what would have the greatest utility for you: changing your own thermostatic setting. You could create a relatively comfortable internal climate leading to a condition of high self-esteem. This is in marked contrast with what the majority of people in this country experience, namely an uncomfortable interior environment, a condition of low self-esteem. They are waiting for the world around them to change so they can feel good. Either that or they are waiting until they “improve” or become successful,” whatever that means.

How did all this begin? As I mentioned earlier, when we were young, we were probably parented by people (amateurs) with poor self-esteem who were apprehensive about how they would be judged as parents. Thus, they corrected, preached, interrogated, and punished their children a great deal in an effort to make them into “good kids.” They also told us that we were “too little” or “not big enough.” This matched our own experience since we couldn’t lift them, but they could lift us. Since they are so powerful, they must be right.

So, we spent our childhood waiting to grow up so we could do what we wanted to do when we wanted to do it. Then, and only then, could we be happy. We were learning the pattern of waiting to feel good in the future when we found our “mythical mate” and achieved success. As we lived moment after moment, days became years and now we are what is referred to as “grown ups.” Now we are doing exactly what we want to do in our thinking. When you disagree with that statement, aren’t you doing exactly what you want to do?

Take a look at it, do you want to continue what you are doing with your own mind? Are you enjoying your life as much as you would like? What you are doing in your thinking is what you want to do, based on the assumption that there is nobody in there but you. You may have been operating on the assumption that you are not the artist in your life, that you are not the person in charge of your thermostat. This assumption was initially developed in childhood when it was true but that assumption is not the case anymore and may not serve you well now.

I invite you to “play around with” a different assumption, a different set of illusions. Specifically, there is nobody else but you in there and that you are already in control of your internal climate, even though you are not in control of the “weather outside.” Then it follows that you are the authority of your life, the person in charge of your thermostat. If you play the game of life from this position, I think that you might start using pastels for your paintings and create a more comfortable interior climate. I don’t think you need to hold your breath and wait for changes in the external weather. In other words, you can use your sovereignty immediately to feel better without waiting for your spouse, your parents, your children, your boss, your lover, your relatives, your whatever, to change.

You can also make a change in your self-esteem setting, arbitrarily and capriciously. In fact (whatever a fact is), that will be the only way you will initiate change. If you postpone feeling good until you improve and become perfect, you will wait forever. As I mentioned earlier, you will at first feel awkward “doing” you differently, but who can stop you? Who can stop you from making up elation at changing? Once again, laughter is the best medicine. So if you haven’t liked the picture you have painted in the past, laugh at your self. Sure, it is fine to have a moment of regret; but don’t spend too long on it. Regret doesn’t feel good at the present moment and it is not the avenue to feeling better in the future .

If you are “normal” in this culture, you have waited throughout your childhood to become a grown up so you could do (and feel) what you wanted to when you wanted to do it. You were going to feel good…in the future. If you made up a series of paintings similar to mine while I was growing up, you may have become a “groan up” without being aware of making that choice. You made your choice moment by moment, outside of awareness.

I invite you to become “abnormal,” to operate from the illusion that you are not only okay, but that you are “doing” you perfectly. You see, there is nobody quite like you, with your fingerprints, your life history, and your thoughts. Nobody else looks through your eyeballs in the same direction as you; others are all looking in while you alone are looking out. You and I are unique and worthwhile. How about treating our own selves as if we had value?

How would that feel? I think we would feel comfortable and relaxed very quickly after we made that thermostatic adjustment. We don’t have to wait until the weather changes. Most people believe (have the illusion) that they have to wait to feel good, which is exactly why most people are doing a great deal of waiting, but not much feeling good.

You may wonder if this wouldn’t create chaos if people did exactly what they wanted. They already are…and it already is! From the perspective of my assumptions, people are already doing exactly what they want and pretending that they don’t want to do what they are doing. Although we are already unchained, we use our freedom to pretend that we are imprisoned. Thus, we freely gripe about our situation instead of making internal adjustments. Of course, this does not negate the possibility of changing our situation, if that is an option. While we are changing our situation, we can feel okay during that time as well.

I think that the reason people are treating each other so badly is because they are first and foremost treating themselves so badly (low self-esteem). The lower a person’s self-esteem, the greater his interest in other-esteem and the greater his need to attempt to control others. I don’t think that anybody who is managing himself in a gentle and loving manner internally (high self-esteem) would be interested in fighting, raping, or abusing others. The epidemic in our society today seems to me to be low self-esteem. In my view, that is the issue that needs our primary attention. Yes, we can hurt each other physically and financially, but we are still sovereign within our envelope of skin, as far as our feelings go.

Many will disagree at this point and began pointing to the heat and cold of the external weather, which, of course, is true. Nevertheless, we are still sovereign within. Victor Frankl in his book, Man’s Search For Meaning, tells an inspirational story about how he endured and even triumphed in a terrible external situation. Although he was in a concentration camp for three years, which to me is the worst kind of external condition imaginable, he used his mental freedom to write his book in his imagination. One quote is, “People often forget that it is just such a difficult external situation which allows a person the opportunity to develop beyond themselves spiritually.” Isn’t that something, writing about “opportunity” under those circumstances? He must have been “free” in his mind even when he was not free insofar as his body.

Another quote I like is, “Those of us who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts, comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a person except one thing, and that is the last of the human freedoms, to choose one’s attitude in any given situation, no matter what.” The concentration camp was a prison to his body, not to his mind! He had no mental chains!
To me, that statement symbolizes the freedom I am writing about. By focusing on that, I am obviously neglecting to focus on our inability to change the external environment, which seems to be a necessary and central belief for low self-esteem, since the environment is “in charge of us,” and must change first. Here again I would like to point to that relatively “invisible” belief that we are being “environmentally operated” since that was our experience during the booting up period of early childhood. We also probably believed in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. We have updated those beliefs, why not update our own self-image in our own mind to include being currently free to think and feel any way we want about our selves.

So if I am free inside to manage my mind (and thus, my feelings) anyway I want, what could I do? I could start out with the assumption that I am a unique and worthwhile person, that I am okay. I could base this on (if I need a base) the assumption that “God doesn’t make junk.”

As soon as I use the word God, a number of readers could have some negative reactions because I am getting into an area that you hold sacred. Well, this is an important area to me also, and I simply invite you to listen in to what I am thinking or making up. It is important for you to realize that you are making up your reactions. It couldn’t be me or else you would always agree with everything that I write, because that’s the way I would prefer.

To begin, I want to say I am not a theologian. Although I was raised in a relatively religious background, I did not study for the ministry. I am not officially qualified for getting into theological discussions and knowing my “facts.” (On facts, I want to add a quote that I read somewhere, “Facts, however, do not speak for themselves, they depend for their wit and wisdom on the voice of the ventriloquist who holds them.”)

As a unique and precious being, I am as much of a theologian with my God as anyone else is with theirs. I like two ideas that I took with me from my previous exposure to religion. First, “God Is Love.” Second, “Make A Joyful Noise Unto The Lord.” If God is love and God is my source, then I am a manifestation of the divinity, and so are you. If I am a manifestation of the divinity, it would seem appropriate for me to treat my self divinely, as if I had value. It would also be appropriate for you to treat your self divinely, as if you had value. If we do that, I think we will treat each other better as a result.

With regard to the second quote, how else can you or I make a joyful noise unless we start out from joy? You can’t make a joyful noise if you’re busy feeling shitty. So let’s do God’s bidding and get on with it. Lighten up…a step in the direction of enlightenment.

Do you need further justification for treating your self as if you had value? In case you do, here it is. If my good friend left his car with me to use while he was going out of town for a week, I would take good care of his car. I would not try to squeeze into tiny parking spaces where there was an increased probability of the doors being nicked. I would not mash on the gas and squeal the tires nor would I slither to a stop with full brakes every time I stopped. I would probably vacuum it and wash it before I went to airport to pick him up. I would even top off the gas so he would have a full tank awaiting him upon his return. For a friend, I would treat the vehicle or loaner well.

Well, God, whoever He or She is, loaned me this vehicle (my body, mind, and spirit) for my use for awhile. I am presently its driver or caretaker. l will be turning it in some time in the future, exactly when I don’t know. However, I do know that I will be turning it in at some point. Therefore, if I want to honor my God, I will treat me (His “loaner”) gently and lovingly. I won’t be excessive in eating or drinking nor will I smoke. I won’t neglect appropriate exercise nor will I lament my inability to control the external environment (that is God’s job). I will treat my self as I would a friend, I will respect my uniqueness, and I will attune my self so that I realize that I am already “at one” with the Spirit called God. I will also make the same assumptions about you and treat you accordingly.

That is my theology. My God is a very secure God. He, She, or It is probably not holding His/Her/Its breath to see if I eat meat on Friday or where I worship. I don’t think God is going to do upset about what I do or don’t do. Instead, I like to think that God is somewhat like a parent who has sent the kids out to play. Because God gave us the freedom of choice, I think God assumes that we will end up happy and that we will not take the game of life too seriously.

I have shared my illusions about self-esteem. I made up what I, wrote: you have made up your reactions. I hope, for your sake, you made up some positive and valuable reactions for your self. If you did, I know it will be good for you, and those around you. If not, that is okay, too. I know that I have enjoyed sharing what I made up with you.
Let Go And Let God!
_________

Thoughts about thinking……

If you always think what you have always thought, then you’ll always feel what you’ve always felt.

If you always feel what you’ve always felt, then you’ll always do what you’ve always done.

And if you always do what you’ve always done, then you’ll always get what you’ve always gotten!

P.S. If you don’t like what you’re getting, then go back to the beginning and change your mind (thinking)!

This blog was originally self-published in a booklet form in 1986

A Serious Case for Silliness (some thoughts for psychotherapists)

Mother Goose and Grimm

A couple of years ago, I made a presentation entitled, ”The Importance of Not Being Earnest in Therapy.” It was not particularly well attended (it was Saturday afternoon and a nice day), but the reactions that have come my way suggest to me that there may be some value in sharing the issue I discussed with a wider audience.

Just to give you an indication of what the audience had read before arriving, let me quote the rest of the blurb that the program chairman made up. The full title was, ”The Importance of Not Being Earnest in Therapy: a Re-examination of the Role Models that Psychologists Present.” Following this was: “This presentation will provide a somber reappraisal of the role of solemnity in psychotherapy. It asks the question: If you are a serious therapist-who needs you?! Joke therapy, cartoon therapy, and other irreverent strategies will be discussed.”

I fully expected to have several members of the audience attack me-in a serious defense of the honor and dignity of psychotherapy. Instead, there was some interesting (and interested) questions, and I got two hugs, about six handshakes, and an expression of interest on the part of a local university teacher who does clinical supervision and would like to co-author a book on the use of humor in therapy. In addition, two weeks later, I was called by the program chairman of the Society of St. Louis Psychologists to present it once again – since many local members had not attended but heard about it and wondered if they could have a second chance. As a matter of fact, I think the presentation was instrumental in my subsequent election as President of the Society, a very appropriate form of revenge.

Of course, I would present it again. I have not presented anything before to a psychological group and I guess I felt the time had come. Also, I had not published anything since Dave Birch and I published my senior honors thesis way back in 1958 at the University of Michigan. I marvel at the contribution I have made to the literature: no increase in the glut of paper, typists’ time, post office overload, etc. I must confess that I wrote a book for my own amusement about two years ago and have not bothered to publish it yet. It’s tentatively titled, “My Dog Doesn’t Have to Make Car Payments,” and my dog, Tipper, came up with the idea and co-authored it. I recently reread it, and I enjoyed it.

Back to my talk – actually it was more of a happening, I want to share that John Chaves talked to me several times before I decided that there would be anybody who would be interested in hearing what I wanted to say, and, when I finally agreed, it was only on the condition that he, personally, would introduce me. It turned out to be an excellent introduction, although I don’t remember much of it because I was busy being nervous. What I do remember was: “After numerous conversations with Marlowe, it’s become clear that he has either totally blurred or completely lost the distinction between work and play.”

What he was alluding to was that I enjoy my work (or play) with my clients, not just a little bit, but substantially. It’s fun and I am so far from “burn out” that I anchor the other end of the continuum.

However, I am getting ahead of myself because I want to share the sequence that I went through. First, I began my presentation with the following statement: “If you’re serious, get out – there’s a panel next door on Track B discussing stress that features four M.D.’s and two Ph.D.’s that ought to be a picnic for you.” Next I expressed my pleasure at being with the psychologists who had elected to attend. It went something like this, ”I’m really glad to be here with you today. I work day in and day out with clients who are suspicious, withdrawn, judgmental, hostile, depressed, paranoid, argumentative, and cold. Because you psychologists are warm, accepting, nonjudgmental, eager to learn and receptive, it’s a very pleasant contrast.”

After the laughter subsided (and nobody left), I read two quotes. The first was from the March ’81 APA Monitor (p. 5) in regard to the new private practice division that narrowly squeaked though. It’s even in bold print. “We are alone,” is the statement by one advocate of the new division for solo practitioners. “We suffer from stress and burnout. People in independent practice live six years less than other psychologists.” Now, that’s serious, right? Maybe-in my case being alone (i.e., away from other psychologists), has been my haven for developing a gentleness within myself. Further, the result is “turn on” not “burn out.”

Speaking of burnout, the second sharing focused on the January, 1981 issue of Psychology Today, p. 88, entitled, “That drained-out, used-up feeling.” It asks the question, “Why has burnout become such a big problem in the helping professions? It may be that we are trying harder than ever to do something about human suffering, but without success.” This article is a book review that covers four books on burnout. (I might add that trying hard is what makes life trying.)

Subsequently, on page 89, I read, “There can be little doubt that burnout is a serious problem.” I suggested a correction, ”There can be little doubt that burnout is a problem of seriousness.” Further down the same column, the articles goes on to say, “The reality is that it is very difficult to help people.” My comment was, “If you want to talk about reality, then the sentence had better be changed to: It is impossible to help people.” This is not to say that clients do not find their therapists helpful – it is just the distinction that the therapist needs to make so he does not play God (and a distraught one at that) and takes better care of himself rather than “burning out,” a clear indication of improper self-management, not a badge of “sincerity.”

You see, I agree with Oscar Wilde who says, “Although education is an admirable activity, it is well to remember from time to time, that nothing that is worth learning, can be taught.” I also like his comment: “Life is too important to be taken seriously.”

I want to add that I recently went back to teaching (I had taught University of Michigan extension courses about seventeen years ago and vowed I would never teach again. So you see in this case, never lasted seventeen years). My four opening comments to my class were: (1) My goal in this course is for me to have fun, I hope you do. (2) I can’t teach you anything; my teenage daughters have taught me that. (3) I want to share tools that you can use so that there are four less heart attacks, five less ulcers, and six less divorces than you are already programmed for and don’t even know it. (4) The only rule is that everybody is responsible for themselves. I need to add, so that you don’t come unglued, that this was not in the psychology department where it could not happen, but in the

M.B.A. program at Washington University where the students were in their fourth semester and ready to go out into the world. What I wanted to do was provide some counter-balance to 14 years of content oriented education by focusing on the neglected issue of gentle self management strategies. It was an elective, limited to fifteen students and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I might add that I was not only asked back but there is sufficient demand for two sections now.

Back to us “shrinks” and “burnout”! I have a problem with the seriousness most of us do for two reasons: first, it doesn’t feel good for the therapist and, second, it presents a negative role model to the client. I’ve come to be aware that almost all my clients are already serious when they come to see me – they don’t need lessons in how to be serious, they seem to have that perfected.

You see, if you take a serious client with a serious problem and you add a serious therapist-nothing much positive can happen. It’s a little like pouring water on somebody that’s drowning. My purpose is not to make anybody wrong, for I was serious for a long time, in fact, my badge of honor was an ulcer when I was twenty-one. I think that either approach is “right,” I simply have a choice between being “right” and feeling bad (plus being ineffective) or being “right” and feeling good (with clients finding me helpful).

I also want to add that I’m not against seriousness-it’s good for my business so how could I be against it? It’s just that if I’m tense, serious, and watching the clock, #1, it doesn’t feel good to me and, #2., the client cannot learn much in the way of positive change, but rather how to be more serious. You notice I repeat ideas that I’m serious about. It checks out in terms of my guts – I enjoy myself enormously much of the time and I don’t have ulcers, headaches, or high blood pressure. It also makes sense in terms of social learning theory, i.e., a role model for the client. Let me hasten to add that my clients are unaware that I’m not serious to begin with. Since I do not abide by the usual fifty minute hour (the sessions are frequently two-three hours), the client comes in seriously and tells his serious story. If I were to utilize some abstract symbolism, it might go something like the following in the “boiled down” version. “Doc, I’ve got this big dagger stuck in my rib cage (translation: psychological pain), I think it’s in or near the heart. It weights sixteen pounds, has a black handle with a skull and crossbones etched on it. The blade is serrated and it’s a little rusty so that every time I breathe, it hurts.” I “active listen” until he/she (take your pick and make the sentence read the way you want to) feels that I understand his problem which is usually signaled either by a statement like, “That’s my problem, Doc, what do you think?” or by a non-verbal comment like a big sigh and sitting back.

Incidentally, the story about the knife usually includes a discussion of fingerprints, i.e., the client’s perception of who put it there, e.g., his spouse, his mother-in-law, his mentally retarded son, his boss, etc., or sometimes a little more abstract notion like his upbringing or religious background. A comment about causality is frequently preceded by a phrase like, “If only …” or “If it weren’t for. .. “.

Thus far in the session, I haven’t announced that I am not serious and he assumes that I am. I have been listening to get his ”picture of reality,” getting used to his language and imagery as well as listening for those moments when the “dagger” suddenly disappears. It usually happens only momentarily, e.g., when he mixes in a “light” or positive image. For example, a client who is talking about his depression or worry and is teary-eyed and sad, will happen to mention something like his trip to Hawaii, his grandson, his flower garden, when he enjoyed a book, etc. It can be just about anything, but the change is quick and dramatic-the client may smile or even laugh.

At this point when I have both pieces of information, i.e., the dagger and the disappearance of the dagger, I’ll ask questions like how long was the depression and watch the dagger re-appear. In a minute or so, I’ll ask about the trip o,r the flowers or whatever and check out if the dagger disappears. When I’m clear about this, I may take any of several routes, depending on what style of impishness I feel. Sometimes I’ll say that I’m confused. There seems to be two people here-the one talking about depression and the other one that talks about flowers. That usually leads to a perplexed look when I share my observations and then I wonder how they can change the feelings so easily. This is the kind of question that frequently results in the client appreciating the power of his internal imagery (or movie). This experience also has built into it the possibility of the client recognizing his own power (responsibility, which can also be spelled response ability).

Sometimes, I’m mischievious and ask the client to bring in the “dagger sticker,” i.e., the mother-in-law, the spouse, the mentally retarded child, etc., so that I can explain to that person how they should act so that my client can feel good. Again, there is likely to be raised eyebrows and a quizzical look. The client is likely to say, “they won’t come in” or “they won’t listen to you.” My comment then is, “I guess you’re stuck,-since your equation is: he or she did it to you and you can’t feel better until they start treating you better, so the interview is over.” The client will look funny and usually say something like, “I guess it’s up to me to learn to live with the situation.” At this point I indicate that we can continue with the interview.

This is frequently a good time to confess to the client my views regarding some of the most important issues in psychotherapy. Some examples follow: “I can’t help you.” This is frequently met with some surprise, to which I add, ”and I can’t hurt you.” At this, most clients smile and say something like, “I know it’s up to me to help myself.” I may go on and say, ”since I can’t help you and can’t hurt you, I guess I might just as well have a good time” or that ”then I might just as well stay relaxed, if you don’t mind.”

I may also confess that I’m not serious, that they only assumed I was. I advance the notion that they came to see me because they were interested in feeling better more of the time. Therefore, I might share some ideas that I’ve found helpful-not that I know that it will be helpful to them. Thus, self-disclosure is very much in order for me. (Probably a reaction formation to my experience of four years on the couch where I couldn’t even see my therapist).

Another focus that the client frequently finds useful is that of stories and anecdotes, especially Eastern stories. An example of one of my favorites is the Zen student asks the Master, ”Master, what is the way to liberation?” The Master says, “Show me your chains.” The student holds up his arms, looks at his wrists and says, “I don’t have any chains.” The Master then asks, “Why, then, are you interested in liberation?” As others have stated, when you tell a story, you can bypass the logical “left” brain and speak directly to the intuitive “right” brain.

A further avenue toward rapid change is to share some cartoons that illustrate the ”double bind,” the paradox, the issue of responsibility, or the power of language. I think cartoonists probably have not been screwed up in graduate school and have a way of getting to the essence that is not available to most people helpers.

It’s all free form from here – I may tell an occasional joke, I may share something about what another client did (sometimes I even make up an incident with a fictitious client). For example, one of my clients and I talked about choice and I illustrated it concretely by saying that I have the choice of wearing my watch on my right wrist as well as my left wrist. Further, that one aspect of choice that I needed to be aware of was the attendant awkwardness when I changed a habit. However, if I used each occasion of awkwardness in the changeover to be a reminder of my own power of choice or response ability, then I would simply be strengthening my awareness of my sovereignty over myself. The next time this particular client came back, he was laughing and said that since he did not “wear” a watch, he decided to put his shorts on backwards. Thus, everytime he went to the bathroom, he had to sit down and while he did, he used this occasion to remind himself that he had choice and was in charge of his own life.

Silly, isn’t it? Which reminds me of a statement that I made up several years ago. I don’t think I’ve ever heard it and it’s so obvious that I almost feel embarrassed to repeat it. The statement is, ”You can’t get out of seriousness by becoming more serious.” I guess, then, that there’s only one way out-silliness, laughter, light-heartedness, humor, even frivolity and whimsy.

The most astounding “confession” that I make to my client is that “I made it all up, so please don’t take it seriously.” I usually indicate that I could have made up any number of sentences, I think there is an infinite pool of them, but I made up only the ones I made up and none other. I guess that’s true of what I’ve written in this article also, I made it up. I could have made up something entirely different, but this is what I did make up. When I think about you, the reader, I guess you might even be making up your reactions to what I’ve written, since I’m reasonably sure there will be more than one reaction, even if you’re not. If you make up a positive reaction, I’m glad, since it’s good for me but it’s even better for you. Similarly, when the client gets in the mood for making up an enjoyable therapy session, it makes for an easier time for me to feel good and for the client since he is getting exactly what he wanted-he is feeling better.

I’ve had some discussions with other therapists in the past and I guess that was the basis of my reluctance to share the point of view that I’ve made up. For example, a therapist might ask me how in the world I could stand to be with a-client for two or three hours? My response is usually that I enjoy it or it’s fun. One therapist even asked me, “How can you charge for having fun?” I suggested that the client had probably had plenty of experience with seriousness and that maybe the client needed some exposure to the positive emotions. (I lost my cool’for a moment and asked, “How can you charge for being serious?” That ended the conversation abruptly; I feel a little badly that I was sarcastic.)

So, as we draw to a close-what’s the bottom line? The primary answer is that I enoy my work/play, that I don’t feel anything remotely like burnout and that there are multitudes of worried and upset clients who are willing to support what I have been making up, economically. By the way, it’s also economical for the client since I usually see my clients about six times on the average.

This blends into the secondary answer, value to the client. Everybody knows that therapy is serious business just like most people who are married know you can’t have fun in marriage or that you can’t enjoy raising your children, going to work, etc. This is our Puritanical heritage, after your work is done, then you can play. What my typical (I made that up) client is likely to say is, “I’ve never actually enjoyed therapy before,” “I feel better,” “I haven’t laughed this much for ages” (as Norman Cousin’s experience points out-laughter is the best medicine), or “I didn’t realize I had any playfulness left.”

In any event, if a client has experienced breaking the taboo against having fun in or enjoying therapy, he is very likely to make up similar decisions in other “serious” areas of life, such as working or marriage. For, if you can enjoy therapy, you can enjoy damn near anything. (Here’s to your good health during a long life-Cheers!!)

P.S. I know everything that I’ve written can be seen as silly-I hope so, because burnout sure isn’t silly, is it? Or is it?

P.P.S. Just to put this article in perspective, being silly all the time is just as much a problem as being serious all the time (also equally impossible). However, it is my opinion that psychologists have erred in the latter direction the majority of the time. I’m inviting you to reverse the trend!

If I knew the letters that came next, I’d use them but I would like to conclude by saying that as I re-read what I wrote, I see that this article is remarkably free of jargon. I think many people, other than psychologists, can also understand what I’m writing about. The reason that I want to include this idea is that, for the most part, much of the public is intimidated by or confused about Psychology, partly because of our jargon. You may say that is their problem – I think it is ours.

A Lifetime of Thoughts from a Psychologist

Beginning with a little humor by Brian Crane in his comic, Pickles…

Pickles - Grandpa

Used by permission from the copyright owner

I have been thinking thoughts about thinking……….

…..and thought I would write about some of the insights I have learned from interacting with

thousands of clients
students
seminar participants

over 50 years in the role of “shrink” or coach, professor, and seminar leader.

Napoleon Comples

I will also add some of the lessons I have learned living my own life, with the hope that you may create some value in the way you run your life.

Lockhorns

My intent is to share some basis for my thinking in this relatively unconventional and unusual manner, and then add several stories of individuals who have utilized some of these ideas to create breakthrough experiences and transform their lives quickly and easily.

Sound incredible, read on.

To begin with I would like to share a comic strip, Geech, that I think is informative as well as providing an opening perspective. I share this comic to forewarn you that I am writing—aka crafting, constructing, making up, fabricating, composing, creating, formulating, etc. – these words in the way I choose to write this blog: narrative, or story, and if you were me, that’s exactly what you would write or create.

Geech

Further, If I were you, then I would be reading it the way you are reading it, with your preconceptions, perspectives, judgments, and perceptions. You will decide before long either that this approach is of interest or that it is too weird and far out—time to close the book. Either way, I respect and support your choice, because then I would be you and that is the way you do it.

The following letters (“chicken scratches” that build into words) are meaningless until you decide the meaning.

The basis of my comment is that I know what I am implying, however, I don’t know what you might be inferring (making up), since you will be deciding that. My implication and your inference may be similar or even identical (I hope), or not (even in the same ballpark?).

However, I will likely never know.

To provide you with more perspective on what I am referring to, I will share some information that I read in a newspaper.

Homeless Dave

A 57 year old homeless man in Tempe, AZ, found a back pack with $3,300 and a laptop in it and turned it over to the authorities for return to the owner.

There is more to the story which I will share shortly. But, with just this much information, I will suggest that you have probably already made a judgment, perception, or reaction about the situation.

One likely view is that since many people think this is a “dog eat dog” world where it’s “finders, keepers, losers, weepers,” they might judge that it was foolish for him to turn in the money. The justification could be that it was probably drug money and nobody would try to claim it or that the authorities would not make much of an effort to find the rightful owner. You might also think to your self, I wish that windfall had happened to me, I could sure use the money. All mine and nobody would know.

I could label this mind set as an attitude of “Grabitude.”

On the other hand there are many people who would do a different perception, judgment, or reaction about the information in the first part of the newspaper article and applaud his honesty. You might be thinking isn’t it wonderful that even a person in those dire circumstances could do the “right” thing by turning the money over to the authorities.

Same information, two different reactions or judgments based on preset perceptual patterns or biases or mind sets that we formed from our experiences as we grew up. Remember we came into this world knowing nothing and doing no judgments at all, until we made them up. More on this later.

Now I’ll add some more of the story in the paper. The man, Homeless Dave, was a recovering alcoholic, who was sleeping in a church basement and working as much as he could to pay a judgment that resulted from an accident and his third DUI. He had lost his driver’s license as well and his only transportation was a broken down bicycle. He had been sober for four years. He admitted that it was a great temptation to keep the money, but stated that it wasn’t his money, he hadn’t earned it so he couldn’t keep it and live with himself.

I wonder what he would have done if he had found a similar amount of money 5 or 6 years earlier when his major focus was getting and staying drunk. Probably he would have kept it, same situation, a very different way of looking at the world, and a very different behavior.

This story was national news in the fall of 2010 and it turned out that many people sent the man money and several invited him for Thanksgiving dinner.

The people who thought he was a fool, may have made comments to self and others, but there was no ground swell there that would have resulted in a news story. It was picked up in the local legal news and some lawyers volunteered to help him with his legal difficulties.

Bottom line—the same printed information viewed through two different “presets” or lenses or perceptive frameworks will result in two different outcomes—thinking of Homeless Dave as a sucker or a hero. It seems obvious that the person reading the article about Dave “supplies” or creates their experience or interpretation of what they are reading, not the newspaper account since the words on the paper are the same for anybody reading it. Just the reader-perceiver makes the difference— and YOU are the perceiver!

I would like to add that it is possible that some of you did not create much of a reaction to the first bit of information about the $3300, you could have looked at the finding of the money from a relatively neutral preset. However, I would guess that you might have some clear and “strong” presets if the topics were gun control, politics, same sex marriage, birth control, religion, size of government, your favorite sports team, legalizing drugs, vegan diet, animals used for drug research, education, and congress to name a few.

Some of the indicators of a non-neutral preset are loud volume when speaking (aka shouting), red faces, intensity, and derogatory terms applied to anybody that disagrees. We were not born with these presets, each of us constructed our own, and I might add that we think (that is a thought) we base these positions on “clear” evidence, facts, and logical reasoning.

Sure, you betcha, as they say in Minnesota! And we are likely to say, if you had an “open mind” and were unbiased and could listen to reason, you would have to agree with me. In my mind where I make up stuff, I would like to point to the cartoon below.

J Flitt - Fooling self

The almost universal position is that we are not fooling our selves! We make up an internal model of the world and assume that it is identical to the “world out there” and call it reality when it is only the internal reality that we make up. Everything that we have experienced is always filtered.

DO AND MAKE

You might have been surprised or curious when I underlined do and make earlier when I was writing about perception or judgment. I ask the question, who is doing your perceiving, your judging, and reacting? It turns out to be you, the person you see reflected in the mirror, you the owner! However, we do this activity so quickly and automatically that it seems to “happen” to us rather than we are actively involved in the process, thus avoiding ownership.

The “norm” in this culture is to think of having perceptions rather than actively involved in doing the perceiving. We think our reactions are the result of or caused by the written information, however, our mindset or preset world view seems to be in the role of determining factor.

If we change our perceptions, we will change our experience. Remember we entered this world knowing nothing or no thing. As we booted up our mind, we selected a unique set or mix of presets from what was around us, that as an adult we use to make judgments about the world around us. I will illustrate with a Baby Blues comic sequence.

Baby Blues

Next we have a young daughter demonstrating her preset that some yes-man had called an early morning meeting trying to worm his way up the ladder. When her mother indicates that the daughter was responsible for calling the meeting, the result is a quick switch and a different experience.

We learn some of our presets early and on our mother’s knee – as illustrated in this Sally Forth comic strip by Greg Howard.

Incidentally, we did not arrive from the womb with our perceiving patterns in place. We did not make judgments at all. We were in a buzzing, blooming world of stimuli and we began to assemble our perceptive patterns, and the language labels, from the home environment, initially.

Hi and Lois

Later we began to see that our parents were not the fountains of knowledge that we had initially thought they were so we chose from the larger culture without being aware of choosing our orientations or perceptive apparatus. If we had been born in China in the nineteenth century we would likely be speaking Chinese, venerating our elders, and eating with chop sticks. The first time we saw people eating with knives and forks, we would likely think it weird and peculiar. However, most of the people reading this far were born in this country and speak English, which also includes much of the cultural norms.

The cultural norm that I will be focusing on is our assumption that we are at the effect of other people and circumstances, that we are pawns of our environment, simply because that is the way we think and talk.

Instead, I am suggesting that we provide the meaning, and hence the experience, as we look at the various stimuli in the world. A stimulus (be it a comment from somebody else or a happening in the environment) is not a “trigger” but rather an invitation to create a meaning and experience about it, based on our mind set. This may seem weird to you, similar to my eating with chop sticks when you had never seen chop sticks used before. I am suggesting that the world around you (including people) does not cause your reactions and experience, rather that you are the cause because you are in charge and no matter where you go or what you do, you live your entire life within the confines of your head (mind).

Fast Track

A great speech in the first two panels about responsibility for self, to Bob, followed by a negation for herself, “opting out” her ownership. She is in charge of herself, however, since she states that she can’t help it, that preset dictates her helplessness and irresponsibility for her own emotions.

MBA STUDENTS

Let me approach this as I would in a class. I had the wonderful opportunity of being involved in the role of adjunct professor with 28 sections of part time students at the School of Business at Washington University in St. Louis. Most of the students were between 25 and 40 years of age, working full time and attending night classes. They were from different companies and at different levels, some married, some not, some divorced, some with children, others not, and both genders.

The title of the course was “Interpersonal Competence in Organizations” which sounds impressive. It was one of the “touchy feely” types that was a left over from the fad of getting people to interact more effectively by being exposed to encounter groups or sensitivity training of the 50’s and 60’s.

Thus it was loosely organized and very interactive and student driven. I indicated to the students that we would not be talking about organizations and that interpersonal competence was based on intrapersonal competence, the competence within. Therefore the focus of the course was how each of us managed or operated our selves, what we “brought” with us to any situation, our presets.

The first night after those few remarks by me, I asked how many of the students were managers. Several students raised their hands and then I selected a student who had not raised his/her hand and asked what about you, you didn’t raise your hand. She/he would usually quickly say that they were not a manager yet. Then I asked that person who was managing them right now, at this moment. That seemed to be a surprising question and the student would pause as if looking internally for a boss, spouse, parent, or somebody in authority, and then would usually say something like I guess I am. I would respond with, “Bingo, 24/7!”

Next I would select somebody who had raised their hand and ask them who do you think you are managing if that other person is in charge of her/him self? Don’t you realize that each person is in charge of one person and only one, her/his self. Therefore, the other person will decide if they follow your directions, or not. My favorite way of expressing this was the following statement:

Due to circumstances beyond my control,
I have been left in charge of me.
How about you?

After a few moments of pause to let this sink in, I would then ask again how many of you are managers and all the students would raise their hands, and of course, I would also raise my hand again. I would also point out that each student chose to raise their hand, I did not “make” them raise their hand. I “invited” them, they chose.

This was clearly the beginning of a very different and unusual class in academia and many of the students seemed a little awkward and somewhat bewildered, especially since there was no syllabus handed out. On the one hand, this unorthodox course with it’s lack of emphasis on reading, research, and writing papers did not belong in an academic setting. Yet, on the other hand having some graduates who were knowledgeable about business while not being very effective in self-management did not seem to be desirable either. No one dropped the course, in fact, the classes were filled and had a waiting list because the students enjoyed the ease, informality, and typically created considerable value for themselves.

Ironically, in spite of the feedback from the students (the customers), the curriculum committee saw fit to drop it from the class offerings. I was sorry about that decision, however, I did not do upset about it. I, also, had created a great deal of enjoyment and value as well. By the time this occurred, I had already begun doing the graduate course offerings in two other places at the university for a total of 40+ additional sections.

Back to the MBA course, I spent time talking about ownership and how powerful we were inside and how powerless we were with others. Why?, because those others were in charge of themselves as well. We have no leverage with others. Of course I’m referring to the psychological domain where we cannot help or hurt someone else, although the cultural story is that we can. This is in contrast with the physical and financial area where we can help or hurt someone else. For example, we can assist someone to move something or we can hurt them by hitting them. Financially, we can lend someone money or we can steal from them. I’m suggesting that the psychological area is very different. The cultural norm or preset seems to be that we can help or hurt the feelings of others, or we can be hurt or helped, even though nobody else can get into your mind or my mind. This may sound weird to you and if it does, you are doing a preset judgment based on the “usual way of fooling your self.”

Baby Blue - 2.png

The comic above illustrates how the wife “choses anger” and attributes that to her husband even though he didn’t say a word. She is operating from the conviction (or that the way she is fooling her self) that she can read his mind, not being aware that her thoughts are only a guess.

TEACHING

In regard to this view, there are some consequences when everybody is operating from a position of ownership. For example, I would tell the students that I could not teach them anything since each of them was in charge of what they learned. Now this is a strange statement from someone playing the role of professor at that moment. I would continue by saying that nobody has ever taught me anything, nor has anybody ever taught you anything. Again this may seem strange to you since if you are statistically “normal” in this culture, you will think, and say, that your teachers have taught you a great deal. That way of thinking and phrasing makes it seem as if the teacher is powerful and the student is an empty vessel where the teacher pours in knowledge-known as the “mug and jug” approach. I propose that the teacher is powerful within and that the student is also powerful within. The teacher’s role is to set up a cafeteria line of ideas and information and it is the student’s role to select and sample for what is useful and valuable. Keep what serves them and ignore or discard what doesn’t fit their interest, that is called learning. This is similar to buying and selling. Selling is offering and the buyer decides to make the deal or not. If there is nobody offering items for sale, there is no buyer. Also, if there are no buyers, the potential seller will not make a sale. Getting back to the classroom, I would say that I have some thoughts and ideas to place on the cafeteria line that you may find useful and it’s up to you to determine if they have value for you. Pick out what you want and experiment to see if they are useful for you, never mind if they are useful for anybody else. That is your end of the deal since I know I can’t teach you anything. I would recommend that you don’t sit there passively, waiting for me to teach you something. I confess my impotency with you because we are dealing with the psychological arena, not the physical or financial.

I would also recommend that you change your pronouns to reflect ownership. Instead of saying, and thinking, “she taught me a great deal,”

Non-sequiter

I would suggest, “I learned a lot when I was in her class.”

I see that as a very important distinction and the passive phrasing is far too common in our culture.

CONVINCING

As soon as I mention the next topic, you can probably anticipate my view. The focus is on convincing and I think nobody has ever convinced you of anything, nor has anybody ever convinced me of anything. The way I look at it is that I may use some of the data I got from you and convince myself, you don’t get to vote since I have the only vote that counts. Since you have been left in charge of you, your vote is the only one that counts for you.

When we phrase our experience passively, as in he convinced me, where is our ownership? What happened to our “power?” Nonexistent! In terms of the passive sentence structure, he, the other person, is the subject or doer and me is the direct object, the doee. If somebody else can convince you, then you have no choice or response ability.

MOTIVATION

On to the next topic, motivation. People go to hear motivational speakers to “get motivated.” However, the speakers are like teachers, similarly impotent to do the job. I suggest that the only motivation that counts is the one you decide inside. The speaker, boss, parent, or teacher can invite you to demonstrate motivated behavior using money, threats, praise, etc., however, it is your choice to respond, or not. Some people leave the motivational seminar or the bosses’ office and use their motivation to grouse about what was said and the waste of time. Others, leave excited (having excited them selves) thinking about how they can utilize the information they just heard. Same talk, different reactions, just like the newspaper article about the homeless man. Thus, I am consistent and tell the students that I am incapable of motivating them so don’t sit there passively, waiting for me to “change or charge” them.

INFLUENCING

The last item that is consistent with the three previous topics has to do with influence. Think about it, if I had the ability to influence the class members, I certainly would do it, and I would do it quickly, no long series of classes.

However, I think each class member will decide how much influence I have with them and it is likely to range from a little bit to a lot, not at all sensitive to my vote. However our cultural norm is full of stories about she was a good influence on me or he was influenced by the wrong crowd. Or, society makes me act this way. Once again, where is the owner? The way we think about and phrase our views suggests that people are moldable globs of protoplasm at the effect of society. Incidentally, I have never met society, I’ve only met individuals, but once again the cultural norm is to use our power to pretend that some abstract concept (society) is in charge of us. (Also, incidentally, I think we are moldable globs of protoplasm—but only from within, by the owner!) I would like to add a perspective about experience, which is different from knowledge. Knowledge can be exchanged or transferred while experience cannot. Experience is what you make up about what you think is going on “out there” within you and can be described but not exchanged. Think about chocolate ice cream and you can describe the taste, texture, temperature, etc., however, you cannot transfer the experience. The novice has to actually partake to gain their own experience.

Andy Capp.png

INVITING

After sharing my inability to teach, convince, motivate, or influence these students, what am I left with? Answer: I can only invite responsible (response able) and capable individuals to consider the benefits of experimenting with some different ways of thinking. I can begin to set some items on the cafeteria line and invite them to pick up a tray and explore some different ways of thinking. I would also promise to share some stories about how some students, seminar participants, and clients had created value for themselves easily and quickly.

FREEDOM

At the end of the first class session I would relate a story about a young man who approached a guru and asked something like, great sage, what is the way to liberation and freedom. The elder then asked the youth if he would mind showing him his chains. Whereupon the youth became perplexed, looked at his arms and legs, and responded that he did not have any chains. Then the old man asked why would you seek liberation and freedom when you are already unchained? A very interesting question. I then suggested that the students use the freedom that they are already “stuck with” to experiment with using their freedom in a way that serves them better. I also indicated that at the beginning of the each class I would ask for anybody who was willing to share their breakthrough experience, also known as using their freedom to operate themselves in a more constructive manner.

IMPLEMENTATION

Bill, Jr.

I can share an example of a response to my question in the next class session. Bill raised his hand and animatedly told a story of his interaction with his father that took place over the phone. His father, Bill, Sr., had a pattern of telling his son Bill, Jr. what he should do. Bill, Jr. had a well established pattern of choosing (outside of awareness) upset and anger as his response, (while attributing the power to do this to his father). The father was assisting his son by paying half of his tuition so he felt entitled to express his views. When his father called the previous night they began in the familiar pattern with his father telling and the son beginning to do his usual anger pattern. All of a sudden Bill, Jr. flashed back to the class and shifted into the position that he was in charge of himself and his father could not “drive him up the wall” as usual. Instead he listened from an internal position of comfort and even thanked his father for some of his comments.

Bill, Jr. was very aware of using his freedom differently and felt great.

Shortly thereafter his wife who had been in the other room came in and asked him who he had been talking to. When he said it was his dad, she was incredulous because it was such a sudden change. When he related this in the class he added that he felt fantastic knowing that he could change so quickly and that he looked forward to more exchanges with his father in order to practice his breakthrough. He said it was a relief to realize that his father did not need to change first before he could feel comfortable. Quite a change from dreading his father’s calls.

Ruth Nails

About 2 weeks into the class meetings, Ruth, probably in her mid 20’s held up her hands in display and proudly announced, “I have fingernails!” She then related how she had bitten her fingernails all her life. Even as a child her parents had tried all sorts of methods to help her stop this pattern, putting vile tasting substances on her fingers, making her wear gloves at night, etc., to no avail. As an adult she was acutely aware and ashamed that she could not stop this behavior where the evidence was easily visible to the world. Even though she did not bite her nails in front of others, she still felt that since the results were so obvious that “everybody knew.” She related all this with considerable excitement and enthusiasm, adding that she was a little baffled about the ease of change.

Of course one of the class members asked what did she do to stop. Her answer seemed surprising to many of the other students because her answer was NOTHING. She went on to explain that when she realized she was in charge of herself and that she was the one who was doing the biting of her nails, all she had to do was nothing, or no thing since she was free to do herself any way she wanted. She said she realized that she had always stopped, especially when she drew blood, so the issue was staying stopped, i.e., not biting, and to do that was to do nothing (no thing) about her nails and, lo and behold, in a couple of weeks or so, there were her nails.

Simple, quick, and easy to change a pattern of long standing— because being aware of being in charge is vastly different than being at the effect of a “bad habit” or a “compulsion.” (This is similar to the previous student who had played the role of being at the effect of his father’s comments and felt that his dad had to change first.) Ruth added that she felt a little foolish in retrospect since the solution was so simple and easy, however, her main feeling was proud and triumphant. She knew that she was done with her pattern of biting her nails! At the next class she held up her hands once again proudly announcing that she had had her first manicure. I might add that this may not seem like such a big deal to a man, however, it is more likely of interest to a woman.

EASY CHANGE??

You may be doing a little bewilderment or skepticism about the ease and simplicity of the change by the two students who changed so quickly, and with no effort I might add. Part of the explanation is that when I talked about change with the students, I used the word, pattern, rather than habit. The difference is just semantics, right? However, even though they are similar in some ways, there is a major difference. In our cultural “story” or preset about changing a habit typically involves effort, difficulty, and a lengthy period of time, besides being unenjoyable. You see, the word habit comes with the “baggage” of strength and morality. Habits are either weak or strong and good or bad. In the student’s mind, she had a “bad” habit that she had to work hard on “overcoming” since “it” was very “strong” and had lasted many years. It’s as if the habit is in control. In contrast a pattern does not seem to have strength or morality linked to it, thus, easier to change. More skepticism??

You may think that this emphasis is so trivial that it is not even worth mentioning. I would like to refer back to the story about the homeless man finding all that money, when with very little information you probably already made a judgment about sucker or hero. In other words, you probably have internalized the cultural story about habits so you would in all likelihood have automatically dismissed my distinction as unimportant. I understand and if I were you, I would have done the same.

TIME FOR A LITTLE HUMOR

I haven’t entered a comic for some time so I want to invite you to lighten up since I don’t want you to take me seriously, just lightly and playfully. I will add a comic just for chuckles from time to time. Weird, I know.

The Duplex

DRIVER OR BACK SEAT PASSENGER

Even more central to ease and simplicity is the issue of who is driving your vehicle or unit. Although you have never done this, except perhaps verbally, I would like you to imagine driving your car while you are in the back seat.

Ridiculous, right? Yes, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Contrast that thought with how you do your driving while in the driver’s seat. You are at the wheel and there is no difficulty involved with changing lanes and directions, even a u turn, or in the case of the Bill, Jr. and Ruth, “I turns.” If you think of your self as being in the “pawn” position where other people or events are “steering” you and “making you feel” one way of another, then you are in the back seat and changing your behavior or feelings becomes difficult or impossible.

Bill, Jr. had clearly been operating himself in the illusion of no choice since it was his father (in the driver’s seat) that was upsetting him and he spent his time yelling at his father to get off his back i.e., quit telling him what to do. (Of course he was also telling his father what not to do.) When he clicked into the alternative illusion of having been left in charge of himself, he made an “I turn” and began operating himself more constructively quickly and easily—to his wife’s surprise. Incidentally, his father did not have to change first!

Many people spend a lot of time waiting for the other person to change their behavior first so that they can feel better. Why wait? Why not take better care of your self immediately? That would be a great example of using one’s freedom in a way that serves one better, as well as a clear example of more effective intra-personal competence which becomes the basis of better interpersonal competence.

Ruth Nails apparently thought her “compulsion” or “habit” of biting her nails was in the driver’s seat and she was along for the ride, unable to reach the steering wheel. When she used her freedom (that she already had, but not aware of) to begin operating her self with the wheel in her control, she “disappeared” the issue at once. She stated that for the first few days she realized that she had moved her hand to her mouth fairly often, a decision made outside of awareness, but becoming aware, she would simply smile and lower her hand, no longer “compelled” to continue to bite her nails.

Ease and simplicity of change is certainly not the norm in this puritanical derived culture, it may even seem like an illusion. Actually, I would say that it is an illusion, a very useful illusion compared to the usual illusion of somebody or something causing my feelings, with me trying to drive from the back seat which results in great difficulty of changing.

Professor Doodle

(Addendum to comic: Think or imagine something else)

If you are in charge of your imagination (thoughts), it is very simple to think of something else, virtually anything else, and thinking of something else results in a different feeling. Contrast this with making up, and experiencing, the following: I can’t stop thinking about my ex and how she/ he fooled me so badly. Or, it makes me so mad to think of how I was duped, I can’t help dwelling on it. Sentences of your impotence that you will serve until you change your mind.

I can hear the comments about how I make it sound so easy and it’s hard to put it out of my mind. I will expand on this later.

Earlier I used the words puritanical derived culture and I would like to go back to our early history. There were many nationalities represented early on the East coast: Spain, Italy, Germany, England, France, as well as Scandinavia. Of all this mix our constitution was written in English and the question is why English? The most likely explanation is that the Puritans from England emphasized education and founded a number of schools and universities.

As I read about the Puritans they were not a happy go lucky bunch, rather severe and judgmental. They were interested in feeling good, just like us, however, it seemed that feeling good was postponed for a long time, like heaven. We are “downstream” from the Puritans and we still tend to postpone feeling good until we get a degree, a job, a marriage, children, lose weight, etc. Happiness is just around the corner or down the road but not NOW. Also we emphasize judgment of good and bad, right and wrong, about our selves and others. I would agree that judgment is important, however, what about judging for utility or usefulness?

For Better or Worse

Bottom line: Back to—due to circumstances beyond my control, I have been left in charge of me, what are the circumstances beyond my control?

Answer, I grew up and became an adult. However, I started out as an infant, just like you, totally helpless and not responsible for anything. I (and you) was not responsible financially, legally, religiously, behaviorally, or emotionally—just a bundle of reflexes. I had no mind, just the potential for mind, incapable of caring for my self. As I just said, the circumstances beyond my control is that I grew up, developed a mind of my own, that I own. Over the years as a youngster and teenager I gradually took over the administration of my “unit” and learned a degree of responsibility, as well as response ability, my ability to respond differently to the same invitation or stimulus.

I went from a “me” to “I” in many areas. Remember how toddlers were likely to say, “me want” instead of “I want. For example, I had role models and learned to say, I bought these shoes, not the store made me buy these shoes, an example of financial responsibility. In the legal area I said I voted for so and so, not my wife made me vote for him or her. In the religious area I was responsible, in my case after being trained in Sunday school and religious instruction. At confirmation, I was told that I was responsible for my church attendance, no longer my parents. I learned I was also responsible for my physical behavior, saying I brush my teeth, not my dentist makes me brush my teeth.

Unfortunately, there was no training or role models for emotional responsibility. Actually, there were negative role models, or models of irresponsibility making statements like, you kids are driving me up the wall, a clear example that the parent thinks the children are at the wheel.

Baby Blues - 3

On the positive side, a parent might say you make me proud when you bring home a good report card. Again the parent is a me, in the back seat, not an I in the driver’s seat, bereft of choice. Why is this important? Let’s go back to 5th grade and look at sentence construction as in the boy hit the ball. The boy is the subject, the active agent, the doer. Hit is the verb that describes the action. The ball is the direct object or object of the verb, the recipient of the action, the doee.

What is critical is the fact that the ball has no choice regarding where and when it is hit, the boy is in the driver’s seat. Similarly, when the parent (or any other adult) states that the child is “making” them feel one way or another, the parent has inadvertently as well as linguistically placed the child in the driver’s seat and taken a back seat or ball position. This was so clearly demonstrated with the 30 year old student, Bill,Jr., at the effect of his father’s comments, and I would suspect that the father had inadvertently played the same role, thinking that his son’s yelling and obstinacy “made” him feel bad.

With that kind of “victimology” mind set, it seems as if person A’s feeling are determined by person B and B’s feeling dependent on what A says and does. And if each person does not have the responsibility for their own feelings, then how can each feel better if the other person is unwilling to change their behavior? Gridlock!

If either one understands their psychological omnipotence for self (since they are stuck with the wheel in their own hands) and their impotence regarding the other, that person can shift their feelings independent of the other person, as demonstrated by Bill,Jr. who changed before his dad changed. Another way of making this point is to think about leverage, the ability to cause movement. The cultural “story” seems to place the leverage of change in other people’s hands, other people teach, convince, motivate and influence us as if we are puppets and they are the puppeteers. This ignores what we are “stuck” with, being at the wheel, where changing direction and speed is simple and easy, especially with our “power” steering!

Before going on to another example of rapid change, I would again like to indicate that I am focused on emotional behavior. I want to reiterate what I covered earlier: I think of three different domains as physical, financial, and emotional, the first two are very different from the third in terms of effect. In the physical area we can help and hurt somebody else. In the financial area we can help by lending some money or we can hurt by stealing some money from them. The psychological area is different, since each person is totally responsible for themselves—and their perceptions or interpretations! Our mind is our own and we own it, a sort of sealed system. The stimulus outside does not trigger, it is simply an invitation for a person to choose a reaction— from many possible reactions.

THREE UMPIRES

Perhaps a story about three baseball umpires may illustrate the point. The 3 were discussing their work.

Umpires

The first ump said that he calls them the way he sees them.
The second ump states me, too, if they are balls, I call them balls and if they are strikes, I call them strikes.
The third ump then says they ain’t nothing until I call them.

We are each our own umpire, making all the calls for ourselves, underlining how powerful we are, although only for our self! At a ballgame with 40 thousand fans (aka umpires no matter how far away) the “perception” of the home team pitcher’s pitches is that the majority are strikes. The perception of the opposing pitcher is likely to be that he is throwing mostly balls and that the umpire is blind.

At the beginning of my THOUGHTS, I asked you to make a “call” about whether Homeless Dave was a sucker or a hero—with very little information! When you read about the rapid and easy change the two students, Bill, Jr., and Ruth Nails made, you provided the call whether it was one of surprise, doubt that it could be that easy, even impossible, interesting, or any other reaction. Your reaction was not dictated by the words you read! The meaning or reaction you applied or supplied to them is your own. You are “stuck” in the driver’s seat, in the umpire role, whether you are aware or not, or whether you like it or not.

I have a drawing of a person at the wheel on the deck of a sailboat, dressed in a slicker and a hat so that it is impossible to determine the gender since we are looking at the person from behind. Attached to one leg is a leg iron hooked up to a chain that leads to a bolt in the deck. The message is clear, the person can not leave the wheel! We are not in charge of the wind or the waves (external circumstances), however, we are in charge of the rudder, i.e., how we steer, how we react to the wind and waves.

Since I think that cartoonists have a knack for “capturing” what I am trying to explain, I will turn to a Hagar the Horrible sequence. Hagar is a Viking and the first frame has him approaching his home with a big bag on his back.

Apparently Hagar has completed a successful raid. He yells, “Helga, my love, I’m home.” The next frame shows Helga with her hands on her hips and angrily yelling, “Don’t give me that love stuff, you’re 10 days and 4 hours late.” In the third frame, Helga has slammed the door in his face and Hagar is standing outside with a big smile on his face saying, “Wow, she counts the days and hours I’m away.”

The norm in our culture is to do anger or hurt in a situation like that. The likely behaviors in the former would be to knock down the door and beat the wife. In the case of hurt feelings—go to the tavern and commiserate with the bartender. Hagar is the umpire and he has made an unusual “call” that not only benefits him immediately but also avoids berating his wife, the secondary beneficiary. He does not need anybody else’s permission nor can anybody stop him since nobody else can influence him.

MORE IMPLEMENTATION

Burt McTemper

A middle aged client, Burt McTemper, presented several issues that he wanted help with. I indicated that I could not help him and he seemed surprised since the friend who referred him to me had said that I had helped him a great deal. Of course, being in the psychological domain, I am unable to help or hurt, I can only invite or “coach,” i.e., offer hints, tips, or suggestions that he might experiment with to see if any are useful to him. To me it seems important to convey my impotence over anybody else from the beginning, just as I did in my classes.

Burt had hired me as a consultant, not as someone who was going to “fix” his problems. Although I didn’t say this to him, my view of him was that he was in charge of himself, and further, that if he used his control more constructively, he could fix or disappear his own problems.

He introduced one of his issues by saying that his temper had gotten him into a lot of trouble. I asked what kind of trouble and he listed fighting, a broken jaw, getting arrested, two divorces, getting fired, and his kids wouldn’t talk to him. I agreed that this was a lot of problems and then I added that I would suggest not doing bad temper anymore. He looked a little incredulous and added that he couldn’t help it, that he lost control when “somebody set him off”. (Clearly somebody else was the driver.) I indicated that I didn’t think he lost his control, rather that he used his control to make his voice louder and his face red. I also said that he was probably talking English because if he did not have any control he wouldn’t be able to talk any language. I also asked if he ever hit anybody and when he answered affirmatively, I said that takes a lot of coordination which is another word for control.

His next alibi for not being able to control his temper was that his dad had a bad temper also. I suggested that he and his dad were two different people and although his dad was a role model, my client certainly didn’t imitate his father in every way, he chose what to imitate, although not in awareness.

His next reason for “his lack of control” was that he had always had a bad temper, it was the way he was and so far he had not had very good luck controlling himself if somebody “sets him off.” That phrase indicates that other people were seen as the trigger of his behavior. He added that he knew he shouldn’t, that he considered himself a good Catholic and that he had tried hard and didn’t know what else to try, which I interpreted as being open to suggestions.

I told him that I had an idea that might be useful but that it was sort of silly. He looked expectant and I said I needed a little more data first. I asked him when was the last time he blew up at somebody. His response was about a week ago. Then I asked him if he could remember what the guy looked like and he went back in his memory or archives and said he could see the other person and that he was red in the face and yelling. He went on to say that he was doing the same thing, but they didn’t get into a physical fight, just verbal.

Next I went back to his statement that he had always had a bad temper and I indicated that he had only done bad temper from time to time up to now, that he hadn’t done bad temper tomorrow. He said of course not, it’s not tomorrow yet. I then asked him to imagine that he didn’t do bad temper for a week, then added how about a month. Then, let’s go big, how about a whole year? I then asked if he didn’t do bad temper for a whole year, could anybody, including himself, say that he had a bad temper? His answer was I guess not. I then added that this would be the case and that you have to do bad temper in order to experience bad temper.

You notice that I inserted “do” and “doing” in my conversation. Why?

Because if you’re doing something, you can stop doing that something, whereas if you “have” bad temper like a mole or a birthmark, you are stuck with it. This is similar to the thinking that was characteristic of Ruth, the student and her nails. She had a bad habit. When she experimented with the idea that she was in charge and she was “doing” the behavior, she realized that she could simply not do it. You may notice that I was talking to my client in a way that assumed that he was in charge of himself—that he was at the wheel, that he was doing the driving.

My next move was to ask him to recall the scene of his recent blow up, which he did. Okay, you are back in the middle of that and you can feel your self starting to do anger. My question is what would you have done if your priest had appeared in the middle of your spat. He responded that he would have stopped, of course. I then asked him how he could have stopped if he didn’t have control? He looked confused, especially when I handed him a cartoon to look at.

Marcia

This is an old Miss Peach comic focused on Ira and Marcia, two young children in kindergarten. The principal asks the “normal” question can’t you learn to control yourself as if she isn’t in control. Her response is surprising since she is aware that it is her choice.

I asked Mr. McTemper what he thought of the cartoon and he responded with you got me. I said I didn’t get you, you recognized that you are like Marcia that you pick your spots whenever you want.

For example, you said you would not do bad temper in front of your priest. I also suspect that if you were insulted by a member of a group of Hells Angels you would not bring up and demonstrate your bad temper. He admitted that would be the case.

I then said here is my silly idea. I am pretty sure that it takes a second or two for you to get to full flare. During that instant you can picture your priest, like you just did here earlier, or you can think of the Marcia comic. Actually, you can think about a lot of things, me, Monarch butterflies, Australian aborigines, in fact anything else. The idea is to flash over to a different scene or channel which is a way you can interrupt your buildup. It appeared to me that he was doing a dry run in his head which seemed to be confirmed when he stated, you know that might work.

At this point I mentioned that he had a pattern or preset of “looking for” people who disagreed with him or acted in a way he did not want them to and then he would choose to begin doing anger with no awareness that it was his choice. He still would probably be on the alert in this regard, and the good news is that he would have a chance to start to flare and interrupt, in other words, a chance to practice. So the world out there was not going to be different, that was not under his control. What was different is that he now had the opportunity to do himself differently than “he always had” in similar circumstances. Be prepared to feel a little weird because it’s a little like learning a new dance step, not that it’s difficult, it just feels awkward.

At the beginning of the next session I asked how he did himself during the interval. Burt’s response was that he did feel weird and awkward but that he was pleased that he now had the ability to do himself differently (of course, he always had the ability, however not in his awareness). I asked him if he had a lot of practice and he said yes and that he was feeling less weird as time went on. I then observed that this was a rather momentous shift that he had made and he agreed. I asked if he was surprised at how fast and easily he could make the shift and again he agreed.

I thought I would have a little fun and said that since this was such a big step that he had taken so quickly, that maybe it was too quick and he should go back to his old behavior for awhile. He looked a little aghast and basically said no way. I then added it seems like it doesn’t make any difference what I say, it’s only what you say about what I say. He agreed and I added it seems like it’s always that way.

AUTO PILOT

Before I go any further, I want to focus on our decision making, especially what we decide outside of awareness similar to a decision making that “seems” to be robotic. As we left infancy and toddler hood, we began taking over the “administration” of our unit. We started from total helplessness and began a 180 degree journey of change toward adulthood and responsibility. We began dressing ourselves and developed patterns (not habits) that we follow throughout our lives. For example, by the time we have arrived at the age of double digits, we have well practiced patterns of which leg goes in the slacks first, how we hold our eating utensils, which way we fold our hands and arms, etc.

Now as an adult, 20, 40, or 60 years later, take a moment to “see” which leg goes in your slacks first. Usually most people will immediately say left or right. Next, when I ask them to imagine putting the other leg in first, they say that they would have to lean against something or they might say that they would fall over. In other words, they have been putting the same leg in first for years and doing the opposite is very awkward, some would even say difficult or hard. Actually, it would take the same amount of energy so it would not be hard, just awkward.

They have been free to put the other leg in first for years, but they never did, hence the awkwardness, which is testimony to the accuracy of their decision making regarding which leg is first, outside of awareness. If they had made a 5% error rate over the years, they would not think it awkward. I prefer that term, outside of awareness, instead of what most people would use, unconscious, which I think of as out of commission.

The person is in control, just deciding in auto pilot and what is very important is that the pilot can get out of auto pilot and make decisions in awareness, clearly ownership, as demonstrated by the previous three implementations. A short example of robotic behavior—in an electric failure at night, we still flip the switch when we enter another dark room.

Back to that feeling of awkwardness when simulating (in your mind) inserting the other leg first, most people would say it is almost a loss of equilibrium or balance. This is the result of a simulation, not an actual outward behavior. You never moved a muscle yet created the feeling of loss of balance. What this suggests is that we are very robotic in much of our physical behavior and very sensitive to not doing any variation. I suggest that this adherence to our early patterns also applies to our emotional decisions and accounts for the type of language such as, “You upset me,” and “You make me laugh.”

Next I ask, what if we had developed a program in our mind that basically could be described as avoid the awkwardness that would result from changing any emotional patterns? What would that mean if we avoided awkwardness? We would never change, we would never cross the threshold to a new way of thinking and behaving. Remember that I alerted Burt to the accompaniment of change, that he was likely to feel a little weird. Having heard this he was less likely to stop his move into a more useful pattern.

I might add that I alerted you in the beginning that I was making up everything that I am writing. Of course this is the case since this sentence wasn’t there before I made it up. Likewise when I talk, I make up the sentences (ad-libbing) and then others make up what I said.

Calvin and Hobbes

Incidentally, I like what Calvin was ad-libbing about special effects and dance numbers. Bill Watterson points out a philosophy of life that I subscribe to and recommend to you, the reader.

This parallels movies where the audience is exposed to the same light and sound, yet there are frequently major differences in how the light and sound are experienced by different individuals. Each person is “right” in their own mind—there are different versions because of the variety of mind sets or predispositions as well as different life experiences, different genders, different ages, etc.

So far, I have given three examples of implementation and more to come, however, I have “lost” all the readers who have focused on the unconventional ideas and missed the value. Similarly in my private practice clients would self select since no one size fits all. Those that created value continued and those that didn’t, never showed up again. Once again I support either decision, because it I were them, that’s what I would do.

Before going on to another example, I would like to add another cultural story about feelings. We seem to have the mental capacity to “split off” a conceptual portion of ourselves and make it powerful or at the wheel. Think about how the previous client, Burt McTemper, thought about his temper. It seemed a separate part that “took over” and he was in the back seat. He could easily make a significant change when he realized that he was doing the bad temper. He came in with my temper has gotten me in a lot of trouble, clearly a me, not an I. He followed with an I sentence as in I can’t help it. In that powerful sentence with an I, he seemed to make himself powerless. This is common as in, I couldn’t stop myself from eating the whole pizza, I was helpless, I didn’t know what I was doing, I lost it, to give a few examples.

This is also the case for jealousy as well, my jealousy made me do it.

SENTENCING

Using those sentences of powerlessness is a way of creating the feeling of powerlessness. Let me explain what I mean. In the first panel of the comic below, the young man makes up a sentence about the present and future. It turns out to be a “life sentence” since being alone is lonely and being with Lisa is crowded. As long as he thinks like this, he will feel lonely or crowded.

Funky Winkerbean

For a moment I want to step aside and invite you to imagine being in a court room where the judge is sentencing a person found guilty, to 10 years in prison. The judge uses a linguistic sentence to mete out a judicial sentence AND the prisoner has to serve the sentence. Now go back to sentence and see what the young man in the comic has sentenced himself to—never finding what he really wants. He is simply serving his own “life” sentence when neither being alone or with Lisa is any good.

What is of more interest, since he was the “judge” that sentenced him, he is also the judge that can commute the sentence. How would that go? He could say he enjoys being alone because he values his privacy and he also enjoys being with Liza. Serving this sentence will facilitate a different experience. You can also see how those powerful “I” statements of powerlessness led to a seemingly impotent experience.

We saw that previously in an earlier comic, “I can’t help it.”

Before I continue on the topic of sentencing and the importance of how we “language” our experience, I want to share some personal background.

I was brought up in a fundamental religious background with a heavy emphasis on sin, guilt, and the threat of Hell. Because I did not know alternatives, I thought of myself as being born in original sin and going downhill from there, which didn’t facilitate the development of positive self esteem. Because of this dis-ease, when I was in graduate school, I sought out a therapist for “help.” Since Sigmund Freud’s theories were the most common thought at the university, I ended up with a psychoanalyst in analysis for about 3 years. He had studied with Freud, smoked a cigar in the session, and seemed primarily interested in my childhood and any dreams I might have. Of course, I did the usual blaming of my parents, attributing the cause of my problems to them, and my therapist never pointed out that was then (history), you are now in now, free to do my self differently.

We sorted through yesterday’s broccoli looking for clues to my difficulties and analyzed my dreams. The emphasis was on the past, not what I could do now and in the future. I was encouraged to do “free association” which turned out to be expensive over the amount of time I put myself through this effort. I finally quit against his advice since I did not seem to be making much progress even though I “knew” that change would take a long time.

He never said that he could help me, however, that seemed implicit when he was the knowledgeable doctor and I was but a patient—although I turned impatient. I want to add that he never told me that he couldn’t help me, which might have been helpful since I might have begun to look for wisdom within rather than waiting for his wisdom to fix me.

As I look back I think he was as sincere as I have been in my practice, so I disappeared any resentment that I created when I quit. Also, I figured out, or relabeled, that it was a great experience of my learning what not to do. Whenever I asked any question about him, he always turned it back to me saying this is about you, not me. He talked very little and I do not remember any humor. I laid on the couch and he sat at a desk where I could not see him, apparently providing the “blank screen” for my ramblings. I remember crying about some of my childhood memories and I hoped that he could see that I had suffered enough and that he would get out a stamp and stamp my forehead with a big OK. Of course that was unrealistic but the peculiar part was when I realized that even if he had, it would not be enough.

From what I have shared about my interactions with my clients, NOT PATIENTS, you can see that I approach this process very differently. I use comics and encourage humor since a person can’t get out of a hole by digging it deeper anymore than a serious/grim person can get out of seriousness by getting more serious. So although the client and I talk about topics considered serious, we don’t have to do grim while discussing. I have come to the conclusion that if our interaction isn’t enjoyable, not much is being accomplished. Most clients come in pretty serious and wanting to feel better so I don’t see where a focus on the past and a lot of “gut grinding” is relevant to creating a present that leads to a better future.

Think about this. If a person enjoys counseling sessions, he/she is well on their way to their goal—which is to feel better. I very much enjoy interacting with my client’s so I’m not watching the clock and I do delight when the client does an aha experience. And I want to add, I am clear that I did not “help” the client, she/he took some of my suggestions and created value by experimenting with changing their mind and behavior. I view my “coaching” sessions as the client and I getting together and “ad-libbing” about different ways of thinking.

A last word about the Freudian approach where the mind is divided up into different categories that he “animated” like id, ego, and superego, the latter being somewhat equivalent to our conscience and the id being like our primal, uncontrollable raw nature. Another word that he introduced, or at least made popular, was an unconscious that was very powerful and clearly difficult for an individual to control. The difficulty I see in this categorization is that they become alibis for irresponsible behavior. Just as temper and jealousy were separated out and blamed for explosive behavior, the unconscious occupies much the same kind of niche. Remember statements that were used to split off and make powerful sentences like my temper took control, the statement that it must have been my unconscious also is an alibi that “seems” to absolve the person for the responsibility for their behavior.

Again it seems like a case where a person sentences her/him self to a pawn position by ceding the power to a powerful construct that does the controlling. Back to the back seat.

Life from Effect

Although this may seem simplistic I tend to think of the mind’s operation differently than most. Many people sentence themselves as being at the effect of the mind in statements like, my mind is driving me crazy, or my mind has a mind of it’s own, denying ownership. Just as we have a hand that is a useful tool in scratching or turning a page, I think of my mind as a tool for thinking thoughts, AND I can change my thoughts.

I recall a speaker that made a sentence that I will never forget: my mind is my favorite toy! That statement certainly suggests ownership as well as playfulness. I also like a statement that is very different but captures another aspect of our minds, this time from a Buddhist elder:

“The mind is like a drunken monkey staggering from one thought to another. People who do meditation certainly encounter this when they attempt to “still” or “empty” their mind.”

The way I think about the mind is somewhat analogous to a TV set. There is the channel that I am watching, i.e., I am aware and it could be called focal attention, almost as if there is nothing else. Then there are all those other channels that are available if I choose or select, however, they are outside of awareness until I do. Additionally, and importantly, the remote is in my hand!

Lockhorns - 2.png

If you have read this far, you have been making up your interpretation and experience of what I have written. If you are sitting down, you are probably not aware of the pressure on your backside resulting from gravitational pull.

Notice how you changed channels for a moment. We can direct our minds to some extent but it will never be still. Thinking back to Burt McTemper who had created the issue with his temper by thinking of it being powerful and uncontrollable. I invited him to change channels (i.e., interrupt his usual pattern of anger). And when he did, he created sufficient benefit that he basically disappeared the problem he formerly had been appearing. He made an I turn and I did not have to explain anything about the use of his mind. Because he created value from changing channels, when I suggested that he go back to his previous pattern, he rejected my comment.

ANOTHER IMPLEMENTATION

Ralph Holder

Ralph Holder was about 40, married with three children, one a 10 year old boy. He described himself as a workaholic and felt he was loosing touch with his family and felt that he wanted to do himself differently. I shared some of the ideas about being stuck in control, my not being able to help him, being free since he did not have any chains, etc.

The third session was different from the beginning, he came in glowing, obviously eager to share. The family had a membership in a health club and on Saturday he had asked his son to go along while he worked out. The boy wanted to go swimming so he went along. They agreed to meet in the lobby when they were done and while there, his son asked if he could have a soda from the vending machine. He agreed and they got in the car and drove away. In a couple of minutes the son placed the opened soda in the plastic cup holder attached to the window. Somehow the soda can ended up on the floor spewing the contents in every direction. The father pulled over to the side of the road and began gathering steam to rage at his son.

He looked over at him and saw that he was terrified, pushing up against the door in an attempt to become tiny and trying to apologize. He said he remembered that he was in charge of himself (both literally and figuratively at the wheel) and all of a sudden he disappeared the rage that he had initially chosen (he changed the channel). He stopped the car and got both towels out and began wiping up what he could while telling him not to worry, that it was an accident. He said his son seemed to be looking at him as if he were a stranger and waiting for the explosion. They rode home and he still seemed to be holding his breath, not realizing that I had made a significant change in me. With ownership and freedom the result is all kinds of possibilities and options.

When he arrived home he gathered what he needed to do a better clean up and started the process. He said he felt a little weird cleaning up without cursing and slamming things around, and yet feeling thankful, as if he had just given himself a gift. This was very different for him since he was picky about his car and ordinarily he would have been growling and sizzling. Next he said, and this is a shocker, when I took the cup holder off the side of the window, the plastic strip that would have stopped the can from going through was missing! I could not believe my eyes. I told my son but he still seemed to be in shock and not trusting of my different behavior. I am very happy that I am a changed man and he will just have to get used to it. And I know what you are going to say that I shouldn’t “blame” it on you and I won’t, I know I did it using some of the ideas you shared with me. I also realized that what I am thinking or imagining or making up in my mind, a functional cup holder, may not match the external reality, a dysfunctional cup holder. So another lesson I learned is not to be so certain about being right, I may not know what is going on! A very significant learning!

A major, if not tectonic, shift made quickly and easily by Ralph Holder a 40 year old man. Just like 50 year old Burt McTemper who was being “run” by his bad temper.

I have seen much older people make similar shifts in their thinking and behavior. One woman in her mid 60’s asked why hadn’t she been aware of this way of thinking before, adding that she could have had a much better life. Good question? The role of victim, sometime referred to as “victimology” is so much the norm in this culture.

Like the elephant below, the cultural norm about ownership, seems to be invisible.

CHILDHOOD LEFTOVER

My view is that this powerless or victim mind set is a leftover from our childhood. If you think about an individual’s first few years, we are very helpless and dependent as I’ve mentioned earlier. In a way we spent our early formative years being operated by the giants (mainly parents) in our environment.

Dennis the Menace.png

They picked us up, we did not pick them up. They put us in the high chair or the car seat whether we wanted to or not. If we think about how a house is built, we know that pouring the foundation is the first step that determines where the walls go and eventually the roof. In our foundation experience we had little say and our adult thinking rests on that. I wrote about this earlier when I mentioned that the adults were role models of emotional irresponsibility. Recall the sentence: you kids are driving me up the wall.

I think this is embedded in our cultural norms. I just saw an ad about some supplement that began, take charge of your health. Or another ad that began, take control of your credit cards. Doesn’t this suggest that the underlying assumption is that you are not in control, that you are not in charge. My question is who has been in charge of your health, if not you? Who has been charging items on your credit cards, if not you? Many “helpers” or “help programs” emphasize that the first step is taking control of your life, suggesting that you have not been in charge so far. How can one take charge if they are operating themselves from helplessness, i.e., not in charge? As I explained earlier this is why I begin from the assumption that the client or student is already in charge. I talked to the client with the temper issue as the doer, the nail biter as being in charge.

Mother Goose and Grimm

A psychiatrist, William Glasser, points out that in most behaviors we frequently use do and doing. As an example, in answer to the question what are you doing, the person might respond with I’m doing some gardening or I’m doing some housework. Alternately, we can skip the do and doing and simply use the word ending in “ing” such as I am gardening or I am reading, which implicitly seems to suggest the person’s active involvement. When it comes to feelings, the question is not what kind of feeling are you doing, but how are you feeling? Or what kind of feeling do you have? The answer is usually not an “ing” word but instead a descriptive response like I am angry, I am sad, I am hopeful, I am worried, or I have this feeling that something bad is about to happen, with no sense of the person’s active involvement or ownership. Glasser suggests that we shift to “ing” words for the feelings that we are doing. For example, he would use words like I am angering, depressing, guilting, etc. Although awkward it would more clearly make the point of ownership and lead us to minimize our doing negative feelings.

Why is this significant? When we are doing gardening, we can stop gardening or continue, we are at the wheel and steering. When we are in the back seat of our vehicle making comments about what is happening to us, especially when we use sentences like he makes me so mad or she makes me laugh, apparently no choice involved, except of course, the choice to give voice to the passive sentence. It’s as if the other person is the puppeteer and the individual making the statement is the puppet! When we make sentences reflecting passivity, we end up sentencing our selves to the position of doee, rather than the doer.

Remember the unusual starting point that due to circumstances beyond my control, I have been left in charge of me, how about you? I want to ask you who does your eating, your breathing, your thinking, your dressing, your reading? Clearly it is you and you can change what you are doing. You can eat more or less, you can speed up your breathing or you can hold your breath for a couple of minutes, you can change your mind, you can change your clothes, and you can change what and how much you read. If you have been left in charge of you, where does it say everything except feelings? The predominant cultural story is that feelings “happen” as a result of circumstances, especially how other people are “treating you.” Since we seem to be in the back seat and other people make us feel different ways, we have to either get away from them or make them change, whereupon we run into our impotence to convince them to act differently.

The result is we live in the illusion that we are emotionally at the effect of others rather than living responsibly, owning our choice, a much more positive illusion. What if we changed our illusion 180 degrees and played the game of life as if we choose our feelings (our emotional behaviors), similar to how we choose what we do in all our other behaviors? What if we operated our emotional behavior in a manner similar to how we operated the remote control for the TV set? In the latter case we watch what we enjoy and skip the programs that we do not enjoy. In our emotional behavior it seems as if we dwell on our worries and hurts and skim past the “feel goods.” Many people end up “medicating” themselves with alcohol and other drugs as well as food in an attempt to feel better.

Hi and Lois - 2.png

Allow me to sketch out an analogy that you might use to run your self more enjoyably. Imagine the following in terms of physical pain and pleasure. If I accidentally touch a hot burner on a stove, I will immediately jerk my hand away because of the pain. I will not debate should I or shouldn’t I, or start wondering who turned it on. My movement away is immediate.

Now suppose I am petting my dog or cat, or touching a satin or velour pillow, I may continue this behavior for some time. Why? Because I enjoy the sensation (and I am in charge). Of course, I will eventually stop, whether it’s to answer the phone or simply because I’ve had enough. However, there is no urgency in the stopping. In this model of physical behavior, it is clear Velour that we tend to interrupt pain and extend pleasure, similar to how we operate the remote control of the TV.

In my presentation of this idea to clients and students, I may use a couple of sheets of paper to represent the burner and the velour, with rapid withdrawal from one sheet (pain) and lingering on the other (pleasure). Then I suggest that we usually do just the opposite when it comes to our emotional behaviors, extending time on the burner and minimizing time on the velour.

That may sound bizarre, yet it seems to be embedded in our cultural heritage. Think about the Puritans, they seemed to be postponing their happiness until they reached heaven, not now. From what I read, their motto might have been, stamp out joy now, wait until later. Since we are living “downstream” from them, it is no surprise that we follow some of the residuals. How does this show up? One way is that we live in a “as soon as” mode. Starting as youngsters we might say as soon as I get into high school, I’ll be happy, followed by as soon as I graduate, I’ll be happy. The flow continues as soon as I get a job, as soon as I get a new car, as soon as I get married, as soon as I have children, as soon as I get the college expenses paid off, etc. The next to the last one is as soon as I retire with the last one, as soon as I get out of this nursing home. We can live our whole life in this anticipatory mode, of happiness just around the corner, reaching a goal is followed by a new goal where the payoff is equally transitory.

Another aspect of our Puritanical heritage is our distrust of feeling good. This is revealed in statements such as the following, I’m feeling too good, this can’t last, I’m going to have to pay for this, I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop, I’m wary of feeling too good because I know there will be a downer following it, etc. We’ve absorbed this attitude and behavior as we grow up and spend precious little time on feeling good, quickly removing our hand from the psychological velour. This is similar to using the remote to find a program that we do not enjoy.

When we use the remote to get on psychological pain, we tend to extend our time on the burner. There are a number of burners-—guilt, depression, worry, jealousy, anger, apprehension, envy, to name a few. How do we extend the time, by analyzing, going over and over the topic attempting to figure out the how, what, and when as well as how it could be different. An example might be when a person has an argument with their spouse at breakfast and then spends considerable time going over it (hand on burner) when they are in the car alone, yet blaming the spouse for their upset.

Further, on the way home, they are likely to spend their drive going over it again, Wouldn’t you think that if it were the spouse that is responsible, wouldn’t the spouse need to be present. If the driver realized they were at the wheel, they could turn the channel to something more pleasant like music they enjoy. That would be revolutionary, wouldn’t it? Possible, but not if you’re operating your self from the back seat.

I like a quote from Oscar Wilde,

“Life is far too important to be taken seriously.”

In my interaction with clients, I will invite them to consider joining me in doing some delight as we talk about serious topics. I might say that we will talk about serious subjects but we don’t need to do grim. I once gave a talk at a psychological meeting with the title: “The importance of not being earnest in therapy.” The blurb accompanying the title was, Marlowe asks the question, if you’re a serious therapist, who needs you? He explores the use of comics and humor, even whimsy.

Since you’re likely to be doing seriousness about what you are reading, you may question the appropriateness of my approach to dealing with clients “in distress.” Here is my rationale. The typical client (if there is such a person) is not feeling good and they want to feel better. That is the bottom line, they want to feel better. Unfortunately, they are typically operating themselves from the back seat where they are at the effect of circumstances or other people. They are blind to their internal sovereignty. My approach as a coach or consultant, that they have hired, is to invite them to consider using their own inescapable power on their own behalf. Notice I use the word invite since I am unable to teach them or to convince them. I’m even impotent to influence them in the least because they have been left in charge of themselves. Once I say what I say, then the client makes up (or interprets) what I said, in so far, as the client is concerned. Clients who create value for themselves tend to continue for additional sessions. Clients who do not make up value simply do not make additional appointments, clearly a case of self-selection.

My thinking is very different from the way I thought when I first became a therapist. At that time I thought I had to be very careful about what I said. It was as if I had to be cautious about what I said because what if said the “wrong” thing, the client might go over the edge. I was operating my self as if I was in charge of the client’s mental health. As a result of this early thinking, I was very up tight in my interactions. This led to a somewhat laughable situation, a client who was uptight sought “help” from a person who was uptight, obviously ridiculous. After I changed my mind, I felt free to say what I thought and left it up to the client to make up whatever they wanted. Thus, I began to enjoy my sessions with clients. Instead of role modeling “uptightness”, I naturally modeled ease, an invitation for the client to do ease as well.

TIME ON THE FLOOR

Mr. and Mrs. Tall Short

I also became more creative in my coaching, sharing hints, tips, and suggestions for the client to evaluate for their utility. One kind of silly example that comes to mind involves a couple in marriage counseling. The husband was well over six feet and had a deep baritone voice. The wife was petite, barely over five feet. When they got in a argument, he would stand over her and loudly make his points. She would intimidate herself and often end up crying. Of course he blamed her for his anger and she blamed him for making her cry, they were totally unaware that they were choosing their emotional behaviors. I asked if these arguments ended up with constructive results and they both agreed that it was more destructive than constructive. Next I asked if they enjoyed these verbal bouts. Both agreed that they weren’t enjoying themselves during the process of arguing.

I then ventured that if arguing was not productive and also unenjoyable that it would be a gift to both of them if they ceased doing that activity. I then talked a little about how two people can see the same movie with the same sights and sounds and yet create different reactions and interpretations.

Further, that neither one could convince the other that they were wrong. Given this futility, wouldn’t it be wonderful to be listened to and not told that their position was ridiculous or wrong? Then I shared the comic about the observer and the worker, when the observer said, “I wouldn’t do it that way if I were you.” I ended this part of the discussion with comments that both were right, for themselves, but not for the other. Further, that we, as a culture, have an addiction to “being right,” at the expense of feeling good.

Lastly, we can go to the mat about being right or we can have a good relationship, we cannot have both.

As I listened to this situation, I said I had a silly idea. I stated that I thought I had a possible solution but that it was a little bit ridiculous, but probably not as ridiculous as arguing when it was not enjoyable and had no constructive pay off. When I saw interest, I stated that the husband had a deep voice and that was not going to change and there was nothing wrong with his stating his position forcefully. However, speaking of position, I suggested that at the very beginning of an argument, and they both agreed that they knew when they were starting down that track, that the husband would lie down on his back on the floor and do his “presentation” from there, while his wife stood up next to him. As they imagined this scene, they both smiled and thought that might be useful, even though it was kind of weird.

At the next session they both were smiling as we got started. They reported that they had become very alert to the movement toward arguing and thought about the ‘‘gift” of not going further. The wife said it was most enjoyable when she heard his voice starting to get loud and she would simply point to the floor and they would both laugh. Of course, we had also talked about due to circumstances beyond our control, we had been left in charge of our selves (and we can interrupt)! What a neat set of “I turns” with ease, simplicity, and quick positive results. What about the future? That is up to them. Mr. and Mrs. Tall Short may reenter their old pattern momentarily but it will never be the same.

If you have read this far, I imagine that you have chosen to do some curiosity and would like some more examples. I will continue in that direction and it will become more clear that there are no standard situations and solutions. The basic idea is to develop alternative ways of looking at the issues based on the premise that the person is in charge. In a way the goal was to use one’s remote to interrupt the behavior that was painful or unproductive, get off the burner. In the first two examples, Bill, Jr. and Ruth, they simply saw an application of the concepts to dealing with his father and her biting her nails. The same is true for Ralph Holder with the soda cleanup. With Burt McTemper it was a situation where he was a client and we explored different ways of interrupting his issue.

PROCRASTINATING SMOKING

Ed Noquit

The next client, Ed Noquit, (I did not use any real names for my clients), had several issues. The one he focused on mostly was his well developed skill of procrastination, affecting his work performance as well as getting behind on his bills and chores at home. Another issue that he had “appeared” was smoking. He had been trying to quit with little success. Of course, “trying” to quit is very “trying” and did not result in quitting. As he talked about these two issues, I thought about an idea that might appeal to him. Since he had identified himself as a world class procrastinator, I wondered out loud if he could use procrastination to his benefit. He seemed surprised and intrigued so I continued in a manner that can best be described as improvisational theater. I pointed out that he was not smoking at the moment and that after he left he would have to light up in order to smoke.

With his unusually well developed procrastination skills, I asked him what would happen if he simply procrastinated lighting up? He smiled and said he wouldn’t smoke. He decided then and there that this would be an interesting challenge. He added that he knew that he would be reaching for his cigarettes and have urges to light up, but that would give him plenty of opportunity to practice his skill. I joined in and said that a lot of people talk about the difficulty and distress of going “cold turkey.” I invited him to delete the word, withdrawal, and replace it with the idea of his body waking up to a nicotine free existence. He might have headaches or feel dizzy but welcome these signs as indications of being on the way to doing himself differently in a healthful manner.

This is kind of bizarre and not generally applicable, however, over the next few sessions, Ed reported that he was pleased that he could use his procrastination skills to his advantage with the result that he was not smoking. In addition, he thought that focusing on his use of procrastination made it possible to distract himself from much of the discomfort in his changeover. He also said that he was not procrastinating as much at work and home chores. In effect, he had moved from the back seat into the driver’s seat! He was living his life in a more useful illusion than the one he had been using, the one where procrastination was running his life.

MORE MBA CLASS

Back to the MBA class, about the third session, Benjamin Smart, one of the students decided my approach was too weird and blurted out that this was just a bunch of bullshit. I could see the class members go on high alert to see how this challenge would turn out. I replied that he was very perceptive and agreed that it was a bunch of BS. I continued that his comment was BS and the rest of the professors were also talking BS, and further that the books they were reading were a bunch of made up BS. I went on to say that since all thoughts and ideas are BS, we have a level field. Now the trick is to use BS that is beneficial and skip the BS that does not have utility. In other words, use your freedom to sort for ways of thinking that serve you better than the victim BS.

TRAGEDY

Percy Pond

A couple weeks later, Percy Pond, who had not said much, began talking about the value of some of the BS from the class. He said that just before the semester started their two year old daughter had drowned and he had almost decided that he couldn’t go on and was going to drop out of school. Now he was glad that he hadn’t dropped out because of the value he and his wife had created from some of the ideas talked about in our class.

Without going into details about what happened, Mr. Pond said the idea of being in charge of feelings instead of being at the effect of feelings was central. He relayed that he had been sharing some of the ideas from the class with his wife and over the last weekend they had made some resolution toward getting on with their lives. He said they had been doing a lot of self flagellation and regrets focusing on if only I, or you, or we, had done this and not that, which was spending time on the “burner.” We realized that this was very painful and also did not bring back our child. He said they came to an acceptance of what happened and although that there would always be an emptiness, they had each other. He knew that they would return to the burner from time to time but knowing they were in charge of themselves, they would not dwell there and could keep their visits brief. During his sharing you could hear a pin drop!

PERSONAL HISTORY

Although I did not share the following personal history with the class, I can share an experience that has some similarities that my wife, Mary, and I encountered much earlier in our marriage. When our identical twin daughters were almost three, Mary gave birth to a third daughter. The delivering physician appeared and I was told that this infant girl was severely deformed and not expected to live. Mary was still in recovery and it fell to me to tell her when she woke up. Not surprisingly, I was stunned and felt like our world had exploded. She was anxious because the nurses were avoiding saying anything and when she saw me she asked what was wrong. I had thought that I would be “strong” for her and contain my feelings, however, I began crying and she joined me.

Although the baby was in trouble the doctors and nurses did what they could including keeping her in an incubator. After 2-3 weeks of touch and go she was stabilized and Mary and I were left with finding a nursing home since she needed 24 hour care and we were ill equipped to do that since we had two little ones to care for already. As you read this, you are making judgments about us based on what you might have done in a similar situation. Remember even if you disagree, if you were us, you would make the same choice. And if I were you, I would do what you would have done.

We spent the next two weeks visiting various nursing homes where we saw all kinds and ages of deformities, a very dark experience. I was more “normal” then and put myself through all kinds of scenarios. Our physician asked if I needed medication to help me sleep and I thought that might be a way of dealing with my pain with the potential to become an addict. I thought about drinking myself into a stupor. I also considered suicide since my life seemed to stretch into a dreary gray future. I even considered abandoning the family and becoming a beach bum. The path that I came up with was based on my Viking heritage. I would keep a stiff upper lip, put my shoulder to the wheel and keep my nose to the grindstone. Sounds pretty grim, doesn’t it?

Fortunately, a friend of mine knew a father who had a little girl in the nursing home that we were considering and gave me his number so I could get a parent’s perspective. When I called him, he was very open in his sharing of his experience over the last five years. Several times during our conversation he would say, “Marlowe, you may think this is the end of the world, but it really isn’t.” I think he was trying to give me hope. However, the voice tone conveyed resignation more than hope, as if spoken from the bottom of a well. As I hung up the phone, I turned to Mary and said, “I have just had the best example of what I am not going to do to myself. It is a tragedy to have an infant like ours, however, I am not going to make a tragedy of myself.”

This decision has been key in the way I have chosen to live. My (and your) experience of what is going on “out there” is determined by how we choose to view or umpire the event, not determined by the event. Each of us is stuck in the role of umpire who makes the call, and that call is our experience, i.e., what we make up! And in our own mind we are always “right” although our experience may not match somebody else’s interpretation.

An unexpected plus has been in my private practice where before when I heard some of the terrible stories from my clients, I had intimidated myself since I didn’t have comparable experiences—for example, being raised by an alcoholic parent or being molested or finding the body of a parent who had committed suicide, which were all good justifications or alibis for living a lousy life. Now I had a similar passport, I just chose to not use it.

To provide closure about our third daughter, because of a strong heart and lungs with a functioning digestive tract she lived or existed for thirty three years. She never talked or was toilet trained, had little muscle tone, unable to feed herself and spent her life in a wheel chair or bed since she could not walk or stand because her knees were “frozen” and her feet were bent under, among other signs of impairment. We went to see her fairly often to begin with, however, when years passed and there was no recognition, we slowed down. There was a financial toll, but with help from one of the grandparents, it was not over whelming. When I wrote the check, I would momentarily get on the “burner” since the money could have gone into the twins college fund. I would get off the burner quickly by saying to myself that it provided a great opportunity for me to learn a very important lesson, that it isn’t so much what happens to me, it’s what I make of it internally. As I said, I am the umpire in my life and nothing means anything until I make the call. How about you?

In answering that question, you will answer one of two ways based upon whether you are at the wheel of your “vehicle,” or in the “back seat.” If you are in the latter position, the “event” is driving you. If you are at the wheel, you may initially choose the victim position, and then change your mind which will result in a different experience! Using the vehicular model I am suggesting that as you drive down the highway of life, on occasion you may head for the ditch. However when you get feedback from the rumble strip or the burner, you can easily and gently steer back into a smooth lane.

Earlier when I made the comment that early childhood trauma justifies leading a lousy life, I also used the word alibi and I want to make two points. First, if I were that person, I would do the same thing, since then I would be that person and that is the way they are operating themselves.

Second, I want to say that although we are products of the past, we are not prisoners of the past. Remember we are stuck with freedom to choose. We cannot change the past, nor can we change any of our foot steps up to now. However, we are free to make our next step in a new direction.

SHOE = NOW

Ellen P. Shoes

I would like to share another story about a client who kept the past alive in a way that hindered her interaction with others. Ellen was an attractive divorcee in her early 50’s who had difficulties interacting with others over any extended period of time. She said that she was always worried (doing considerable worry in my book) about being abandoned and gave a number of examples of relationships going sour due to her sensitivity to being left.

Although most of the examples were about relationships with men, she had issues with women, too, just not as often. She had been married twice and was now afraid to date because she said she did not want to get hurt again, which meant to me that she thought of herself as vulnerable. That in turn placed her in the back seat as a potential victim.

I said that this issue seems to be a well established pattern and I asked her if she had any thoughts about when she started this sensitivity. Her immediate response (or alibi from the past) was to relate something that happened to her when she was about four years old. Her mother was pregnant and was going to the hospital to deliver. Her father was a business man who had to travel and they had just moved into a new city and they did not know anybody who could take care of her during the week or ten days that her mother would be in the hospital. This occurred many years ago, before the advent of the drive thru delivery.

The father’s solution was to take her to a convent and have the nuns take care of her. After the mother had been checked into the hospital, the father said they were going for a visit and she would need a small suitcase with some clothes to wear . She thought this would be a festive occasion and she was encouraged to pick out a nice dress and wear her patent leather shoes. They went to dinner and afterwards her father took her to the convent. As she was relating this story it appeared to me that she was reliving the episode all over again (back on the burner).

When her father was leaving, over her protestations, he said he would come back for her soon. The father left and the nun that was to take care of her picked up her suitcase and asked her to come along to her room. Ellen thought her father would return soon so she wanted to stay by the door. The nun who was serious and part of an order, ordered her to come along now. Ellen began crying and resisting. To the nun this probably looked like disobedience and stubbornest so she spoke more harshly and tried to drag Ellen down the hall. At this point Ellen got sick and threw up. What she remembered specifically was the vomit on her patent leather shoes. In addition, the nun made her clean up the mess. As she finished her story she appeared flushed and said that she had just been reliving the whole episode and she thought that this was responsible for the issues she was having in her adult life.

Her next question was how could she get over this negative incident. I indicated that it was part of her past and it was not necessary to get over it, however it was important to neutralize that memory. I ventured a guess about what was happening when she began doing the feelings of abandonment. For example, the person glances at their watch and quickly says that they have to go and then they leave abruptly (at least for her perception). Or somebody has agreed to have lunch and they are late. Or somebody has promised to call and there is no call. She agreed with these examples and gave a couple more. I then guessed out loud that when she next interacted with the person who was late or didn’t call, she was on full alert trying to figure out whether this was “legitimate” or ‘intentional” and a way of distancing. To the other person the questioning might come across as clinging or a cross examination, not very enjoyable. The unfortunate outcome of her attempt to “protect” herself was to produce what she feared, another relationship on the rocks.

So what could she do? I indicated that the pattern she described was well practiced and she was likely to continue, unless she added something. I asked her what would happen if she began to do her fear of abandonment and she looked down at her shoes and realized that they were not patent leather. She seemed surprised and said something to the effect that seeing her shoes was reassuring. In my terminology she used her freedom to interrupt her time on the burner and that felt better immediately. Surprise! I told her that since she had a well practiced pattern, she would have plenty of occasions to practice looking at her shoes and lessening the “heaviness” that she frequently brought into her interactions with others. The short version of this is “lighten up.” In subsequent sessions she indicated that she was enjoying her interactions with others more, not being so serious. She was especially pleased to hear feedback that she was more fun to be with or that she had more of a hang loose attitude. She also was pleased that she was in charge of her feelings so she did not need to do all that fear of being hurt, especially because she was no longer vulnerable, she was in charge of her self.

Arguing

Before I leave this area, I want to make a couple of comments about the nun. In line with the “presets” that I wrote about early on when I was discussing Dave, the homeless man finding the money, that you used to determine whether he was a sucker or a hero for turning in the money. It would appear that the nun was looking through a lens or preset that children should be obedient and if they weren’t they should be dealt with firmly, if not harshly. Had she “done” a more nurturing preset, she would have tried to sooth the little girl who was so distraught. Same situation, both “right,” yet very different depending on the eye of the beholder. Of course, if I or you had been the nun, we would have done the same as she did.

REVIEW

What do all the examples of implementation have in common? And there are more to come. I have written a considerable amount of BS about the underlying fundamentals that make it possible for individuals to create a major shift in their feelings, quickly and easily. To begin with, they all were relatively unaware of their internal sovereignty regarding their emotions or feelings. Although they were at the wheel all along, they thought or pretended that they were passengers and other people or circumstances were in the driver’s seat. For Bill, Jr. it was his father’s behavior of telling him what to do and Bill, Jr. resented “being treated like a child.” For Ruth, the compulsion to bite her nails was in the driver’s seat. Neither of them had mentioned any problems in class but they heard something of value in my introductory remarks (BS) and checked out the utility on their own and were surprised and delighted with their breakthrough experiences. In a sense, they “discovered” their own hands firmly grasping the steering wheel and then it was simple and easy to steer in a way that served them better.

Burt McTemper hired me as a consultant to coach him about “controlling his temper that had gotten him in a lot of trouble.” I let him know right away that I could not help him, I just had a few tips that he might use. I asked him to imagine that he did not do bad temper for various periods of time with the implicit idea that he was doing, not having, a bad temper, that the bad temper did not take over. Then it was simply a matter of inviting him to do interrupts when he began doing his temper. He felt a little weird when he realized the steering wheel was in his hands, however, the payoff was immediate and valuable, thus self reinforcing.

Ralph Holder had been living his life as if incidents, such as a spilled soda, had been running his emotions. He had heard my BS about being in charge of his emotions and at the beginning of his build up of his rant, he remembered the idea that he was at the wheel. Upon “discovering” the wheel in his hand, he immediately steered out of his rant (the ditch) and unto a smooth lane and attempted to reassure his son that he was done being an explosive ogre. Of course, the son was young and not in charge so his father’s reassurance fell on deaf ears. The lesson is that we can invite people to change their feelings but they will decide and the son had enough previous data to be distrustful of such a chameleon like change in his father.

For Ed Noquit, it was his smoking and well practiced procrastination that seemed (at least to him) to be steering him. Although I couldn’t teach him or convince him to view his “bad habits” in a different way, I could invite him to imagine these patterns in a different and useful light. I was sort of teasing him with the challenge of demonstrating his skill at procrastination by postponing lighting up the next cigarette. I already saw him as a person in charge of himself and he did enough curiosity about this new arrangement to discover the wheel in his own hands. As he moved through this process he seemed to revel in his procrastination so that he didn’t focus very much on the usual difficulty of withdrawal and cold turkey.

For Mr. and Mrs. Tall Short, the couple had collected a great deal of data about the futility of arguing while not realizing that they did not have to continue, each was operating as if the other person was pushing their buttons. They agreed logically that it was unproductive and a waste of time and yet they continued this pattern, talk about automaticity being outside of awareness. Due to the size and volume difference, I thought it would be fun to invite them to take up different physical locations with him presenting from the floor. They saw the humor, and the very quick payoff, and started smiling. As we went through several additional sessions, they realized that they were in charge of themselves and not the other. As they stated along the way, we’re having discussions rather than arguments. Not that we resolve everything but we are much more respectful of each other, as well as ourselves.

Hi and Lois - 3.png

Percy Pool and his wife were dealt an awful blow when their daughter drowned. They have to do some grieving and each individual does it in their own way and their own length of time. During the time they felt overwhelmed, he was exposed to some ideas (BS) that he related to his wife, and together, they made use of the burner concept and the notion that they were in control of how long they would linger. It sounded like they had some quality talks and were available to each other. The umpire story was also utilized which clearly points out how important it is to be aware of having the steering wheel in our own hands, not in others or in fate.

Ellen P. Shoe had been living her life as if other people’s behavior was ruining her life, which meant that she was in the back seat. Her poignant story of her experience at the convent indicates that she had a good reason for continuing her apprehension at being abandoned. I invited her to look at her shoes as soon as she began to feel apprehensive. She used this “interrupt” as a demonstration to herself that she was at the wheel in the now and this made it possible for her to interact without diving all the way into OMG, it’s happening again.

To sum up, most people are unaware of their internal sovereignty for their emotional behavior. They are already in control, since they grew up. However, their early experience of being “operated” by the giants and very few role models of ownership, results in the cultural norm of victimology. In addition, they have been making emotional decisions robotically based on their early history and outside of awareness. I have enjoyed my career of dealing with people who are pretending to be victims until they “discover” their own hands on the steering wheel.

Another impediment to change is the belief that change takes a long time, is very difficult, complicated, and is also unenjoyable. Who wants to attempt a struggle like that? I would like to suggest a different model of change that I see demonstrated in the behavior of the people described above. How about quick, easy, simple, and enjoyable? I know that is not the cultural norm and many of my clients, students, and seminar participants have “accused” me of making change sound simple and easy, i.e., not being realistic! I suggest that what you say is true, for you, since you are the umpire and you are “stuck” in control.

Calvin and Hobbes - 2

Remember our current cultural tone is downstream from our Puritanical heritage. Listen to Calvin’s father talking to his son about wholesome life principles. The father who loves his son asks him to sit down and listen. He listens and his reaction is to emit a howl like ARGGH! If you haven’t heard some version of this from the people who love you (parents or other family members) or are interested in your welfare such as educators and clergy, you must have been brought up in a bubble.

If you look at that statement where suffering builds character, it seems that if you want character, you should seek suffering as the method of achieving it. What do you get, suffering! How about nothing worth having comes easily? Once again there is an implication that anything that comes easily is of little or no value, sort of out of bounds. If you have sentenced yourself with a statement similar to the statement that Calvin’s father made, remember, you will serve that sentence, and defend it by calling it being realistic. The individuals who made quick and easy major changes might now say that they are the ones that are being realistic.

I would like to describe another comic that I think captures what I have been writing about. It is a Gary Larsen one panel drawing and the scene is obviously Hell. There are five figures in the picture, two devils and three workers. Of the three workers one has a shovel and a second has a pickax and both look worried and are sweating profusely even though they are not working. The third is pushing a wheelbarrow loaded with lumps of coal—and he is whistling!!! And doing his job. One devil is saying to the other devil, “You know, we’re just not getting through to that guy.”

Far Side

Once again, it is not the circumstances, it is once more what we make up about the circumstances that we experience. Remember, we do not have any chains, that is unless we imagine chains and limitations. We are “stuck” with freedom to make up what we choose.

It would behoove us to choose wisely.

SELFISHNESS

I would like to write a little about this concept and expand it so, like procrastination, it is not all “bad” or useless. I think that like the continental divide, there are two facets to focus on. Like the divide, water on the west side of the mountains runs into the Pacific and the water on the east side runs into the Gulf or Atlantic. I view one aspect of selfishness as avarice and greed where if I grab more, you have less, or vice versa. This side results in competition and conflict.

What if there were another side of selfishness that had to do with taking care of self—with no cost to others? An example would be when Ralph Holder began to wind up and rant at his son about dropping the soda can, he interrupted since he realized he was at the wheel. He smoothed out and said no problem while he was mopping up what he could. Isn’t that selfish of him to do that, to take better care of himself and feeling better? There was no cost to his son, in fact, it was more of a gift! When Bill, Jr. took better care of himself while talking to his father, that was a gift to self as well as a gift to his dad since he was not yelling back—it was even mystifying to his wife. Also when Ellen P. Shoes selfishly took better care of herself, she was more enjoyable to be with as far as others were concerned.

When I look back over my interaction with my clients, I “see powerful” people presenting themselves as powerless in that other people or circumstances are making them feel bad. The reason they come to talk to me or other professionals is that they want to feel better. Isn’t that selfish of them?? Of course, it is. Much of the time the client was interested in getting some techniques to change others. How do I get my son to do his homework? How can I convince my boss to give me a raise. How can I get my husband to listen to me? How can I get more cooperation in raising the kids? On and on. Stop drinking, less or more sex, less temper, quit smoking, etc. Why do they want other people to change their behavior-—so they can feel better! That seems somewhat selfish and the problem is that they have little or no leverage on others to make that happen. They have gathered a great deal of evidence for their impotence with others, yet they remain unaware of the other side of the coin—that others are impotent to make them feel angry, disappointed, good, joyful, hurt, humiliated, etc.

Shirley Edge came to see me because her mother in law was driving her crazy. She went into detail about her behavior, calling at all hours, criticizing every thing she did, drinking too much, on and on. One of my client’s statement was that the mother in law had her on the edge, that she was on the verge of going to the booby hatch. After she slowed down a little I said that it seems like your mother in law is in charge of your mental health. She seemed to agree when she responded with, yes, she’s got me on the ropes. I then stated that since the mother in law was in charge of her feelings, that she should send in her mother in law to see me and I would tell her how she should act so that you can feel better. She looked askance at me and said the mother in law would never come to see me. I then ventured a guess that she was out of luck since the mother in law, the source of her problems, would not come to see me. At that point she slowly said that she guessed it was up to her to learn how to take better care of her self. I responded with I guess that would be doable and began sharing ideas based on the idea that she was in charge of her self. Since she began to think of her self as being at the wheel, and hence less vulnerable, she felt better and even saw some humor in some of her mother in law’s behavior.

So what about the possibility of feeling better before others or circumstances change? For most people who are envisioning themselves in the back seat with somebody else steering, that would seem not only impossible but ludicrous and ridiculous. With all that discussion, arguing, bribing, pleading, threatening, crying etc., with no results, it doesn’t occur to them that they don’t get to vote on somebody else, that they are impotent to change others no matter how hard they try. They would say they are frustrated (not doing frustration) and ready to give up, but when they think they see an opening, they try, try again.

If they could understand and accept their impotence with others, (and others with them) they could stop doing frustration. Not only that, but it might occur to them that this is a two way street. If they are unable to change others, wouldn’t it make sense that the other person is unable to change or affect them. If they had that thought, they could lighten up and take better care of themselves as Shirley did-—before any changes in the others. Radical and impossible. If I gave up trying to get them to act better, they would just get worse. Maybe and maybe not, however, in the meantime you could feel good and isn’t that what you are after? If the guy with the wheelbarrow can whistle in Hell, couldn’t you be more gentle and kind to your self? Bill flipped over to taking better care of himself before his father stopped telling him what to do, an effectively selfish change within, which could be a gift to his father since he wasn’t doing anger with his father. In a way the people who come for “help” are ineffectively selfish and since I can’t help them, my coaching “invitation” is to provide tips and hints on how to take better care of themselves (become more selfish). I don’t see people who are already effectively selfish in the way they operate themselves, why would they bother?

TENNIS ANYONE?

Perhaps an analogy would be useful. Even if you have never played the game, I am pretty sure that you know that it takes at least two people, two rackets, a can of balls, and a court with a net. A serves or hits a ball to B and B returns it to A, etc., until one misses, whereupon another ball is put in play. No matter how often people have been playing together on the same court, if one player shows up without his/her racket, it will change the game, they will not play tennis. I don’t know what the new game would be called or how it will be conducted, but it will not be tennis. Imagine that player A was without his/her racket, they have not only changed self but they have changed the game. They have not changed player B at all, however it is a new game and B will adapt, as will A. Bill changed himself, (he did not bring his usual racket of pretending he was at the effect of his father) and his dad will adapt to the new game. Bill’s wife recognized that there was a new game even though she could hardly believe such a quick change.

Later I will refer to this analogy when the topic is marriage.

Funky Winkerbean - 2

MORE IMPLEMENTATION

Sue Waters

And more transformation. Sue Waters was a seminar participant who was very skeptical about the ease and quickness of change. Of course, she was right, for her, she practically stated something similar to Calvin’s father, nothing worth having comes easy, as well as that change can’t last. That was her sentence and she was serving her sentence. Her challenge to me was about getting her two and half year old daughter to change because she (the daughter) was frustrating her. (Who is in the driver’s seat?) I didn’t ask her that question but did ask for more specifics.

Sue described one of the “frustrating situations” that occurred at bedtime. She gave her daughter some water, tucked her in, kissed her good night and shut off the light. Within minutes the daughter was asking for a drink. Sue would be busy with dishes or the phone and that didn’t matter to the daughter. She was so persistent that eventually Sue would bring her some water, just to get her quiet. I asked Sue to picture herself walking down the hallway with the water. In response to my question about what kind of feeling she was doing (not feeling) as she was walking, she used the words, angry and frustrated. From her description I said that I could picture that and that she was entitled to do those kinds of feelings. Her response was that she was not doing those feelings but they were caused by her daughter’s obstinacy. I said I understood what she was saying but that I wasn’t sure that the daughter was the cause.

Next I asked her to imagine herself walking down the hall with the water glass in her hand and smiling. She smiled as she said that would be really different. I suggested that it might be worth experimenting with, just do that a time or two and see what results from your change. I thought to myself she has already done it mentally at my suggestion, a sort of dry run.

At the next meeting when I asked who wanted to share how they had changed their lives, Sue volunteered. She said she had thought about smiling and looked forward to walking down the hall smiling. In fact, she was washing dishes and hoping her daughter would not forget and call soon. As she walked down the hall toward her daughter’s bedroom she felt a little silly, which was better than feeling (doing) grouchy and frustrated. Her interaction with her daughter was very different (since she didn’t bring her racket). She felt that they had a good visit rather than the preaching and exasperation she had previously done about how the little girl did not need more water and had already been tucked in, so she should just go to sleep and quit making a fuss about the water, especially since she had already had something to drink. Sue changed the game or interaction when she changed herself!

MORE ABOUT THOUGHTS

I would like to share a little more about thoughts before I proceed to more examples of implementation. First I would like to ask you where you went to high school. The majority of those who have read this far will retrieve (see) the building in their mind’s eye. Next I will ask you to remember your favorite teacher although it is possible that some of you do not have one.

Many of you will not only remember the name but will visualize the person and perhaps even “hear” that person’s voice. Next up, who was your least favorite teacher? Again see and hear that person. Now in addition to sight and sound, you also probably did a feeling associated with each teacher, positive with the favorite and negative with the least liked.

I suggest that our thoughts are a combination of seeing, hearing and feeling, which I term or call video, audio, and feelio. (You know I made up that last word.) I will add that various individuals will vary in the manner in which they think with some emphasizing video, others focusing first on audio and others feelio. Just a reminder, I am making this BS up, and it might even have some potential or utility—of course, that will be up to you, as usual.

As I share this with clients and students, I ask them to visualize some scenes. The first is to walk along the beach seeing the waves rolling in, hearing the surf and feeling the wet sand on your bare feet. When I ask what feelings are you doing, the most likely answer will be terms like relaxed, serenity, peaceful, etc. Of course, there are people who do not like the beach and talk about the sand blowing or the flies bothering them and then I offer the choice of a float trip or mountains. I then ask the person to come back to the present and then describe a different scene like the stabbing scene in the movie Psycho where most will create the experience of fright and horror. A third scenario could be telling a joke that has a surprise ending and the feelio most likely would be laughter. The last scenario involves walking in a run down part of town on a very hot and humid day. You glance up and see the Goodyear blimp so you are not watching where you are walking. Suddenly you step on something soft and you lift your foot, look down and realize it is a dead rat and it has been there for several days. You can see the maggots and smell the rotting flesh.

That scene is usually followed by words like repulsive, sickening, revolting, etc. In the space of a few minutes, most people have experienced four different emotions: peaceful, horror, laughter, and disgust, two positive and two negative, or two velours and two burners..

I would like to point out some things. Did you notice how real those emotions felt? As real as any emotions you have ever done. And did you notice that there was probably no beach, no stabbing scene, no joke and no dead rat in your immediate surroundings? All you need is your imagination. Is there ever a time when you are not imagining what is going on? An interesting question and I will have more to say about that later.

Did you notice you can do only one emotion at a time, just as you cannot sit and stand at the same instant, only sequentially. Also, you can change your emotions quickly depending upon what you are imagining or thinking about. And changing emotions does not require “hard work”, it is much like using the remote to change channels. However, since we are in charge of our self, we can use our power to pretend that we are powerless by sentencing ourselves in the following manner, I can’t get rid of the feeling, I can’t change my feelings, I don’t have control of my feelings, etc., and we will serve our sentence! The latter is the cultural norm, feelings are not chosen, they happen to me, and I will add, they (the emotions) just happen to be at the wheel and they just happen to be steering, as in my temper took control. In addition, those feelings are caused by other people or circumstances, so I am not responsible or response able, hence unable to use my remote and change my feelings.

Another point—the video, audio, and feelio are all involved together as we think our thoughts. I will sometime hold up the middle three fingers of one hand to represent the trio and move the hand around. As I move my hand, I point out that although they are somewhat separate, they are joined and always “travel” together. What is the value of knowing this? Answer: if you don’t like the feeling you are doing, change the video or audio you are doing, like Burt McTemper when he was building up his anger when he thought of the priest or cartoon. Of course it helps to be at the wheel or have the remote in our hand, not in somebody else’s hand. Pick your illusion, you will live it.

There is an old joke about the patient who goes to the psychiatrist and says, “It hurts when I keep hitting my head with my fist. What do you recommend?” The doctor responds simply, “Don’t do that.” It is that simple but often dismissed with, that’s easier said than done.

I was reading a Dear Ann type column and the daughter who was writing about her problem had recently discovered that her father had been having an affair. She goes into some of the sordid details and the “impact it made” on her and her mother. That sentence places the father’s behavior in charge of her feelings, she is not responsible. She ends with “How can I get over this betrayal, anger, humiliation, and sadness?” The response is right on saying that if you act like the victim and keep “wishing” it were different, “you’ll keep renewing your disappointment and grief in perpetuity. The power lies with YOU!”

MORE IMPLEMENTATION

Nell Raped

Nell Raped was a graduate student in her mid twenties who came to see me about a couple of issues, writers block and a phobia. We had 10-12 sessions and she listened to my BS and picked out what was useful for her and resolved her issues to her satisfaction. Almost a year later she called me early in the morning to tell me that she had been raped the previous night. I asked if she wanted to come in later that morning and she said no because she had been up all night between the police and a trip to the hospital and needed some sleep now, so we made an appointment for the next day.

When we met she told me what happened which began with her walking home alone from the local tavern because her husband was there having fun playing pool and she was tired. She was a little tipsy and didn’t have a care in the world but thinks she was followed. She may have left the door unlocked, expecting her husband and went directly to bed. As she was falling asleep a man burst into the bedroom, pinned her down and began raping her. She struggled and thought she had scratched his face but he was much stronger and put a pillow on her face with such force that she was suffocating. She thinks she lost consciousness but recovered enough to hear him leaving.

The police kept asking for a description but the bedroom was dark so she did not get a good look at him. The staff at the hospital did an examination and took some swabs as well scraping under her fingernails, which took the rest of the night. She had called the police and then a girl friend next door who ran to the tavern and told her husband. He returned and grabbed a knife and went out in the dark to see if he could find somebody with a scratched face. Her girl friend was practically hysterical and my client said she acted like she was the one who had been raped.

As she related these events, she seemed fairly composed, certainly not agitated. She said that it was fortuitous that she had used some of the tools that she had learned (not taught) in our previous contact. She stated that it was over for now and it would be some time before she would know if she were infected or pregnant but she would deal with that at that time and she was not going to spend time doing much worry because it wouldn’t change anything. She had been asked about her experience by some of the people she knew and she said she did not want to talk about it. Her husband had said that she needed to talk about it, to get it out, that stuffing it would finally explode, a typical cultural story. He also indicated that he thought she was repressing the experience or being in denial since she was relatively calm, almost as if he expected her to be a hysterical mess.

Her comment to me was that talking about it was somewhat like reliving it and spending time on the burner. The statement that I remember well was, “No matter how many times I re-rape myself, I can never un-rape myself.” What a great job of steering! We made an appointment several weeks hence and there was more good news about that awful night, no pregnancy or infection along with the comment that she was very pleased with the way she had handled herself in the crisis. I asked about her relationship with her husband and she indicated that the situation between them was quite good. She said she had expressed her wish that he had stayed home that night instead of running around looking for the rapist. He said he realized that and he apologized so that did not come between them. Also he said he was glad that she had gone to counseling because she had gained a great deal that showed in the way she handled herself. She added that he was very understanding about her pace of returning to intimacy which meant a lot to her.

Miss Peach.png

NON-IMPLEMENTATION

Ann deTail

Ann deTail was a 45 year old woman that had heard about me and came in thinking I could help her fix her marriage. She and her husband had been married for almost 20 years and had one teen age daughter. About 5 years earlier her husband had an affair over a summer when Ann was helping her father with a health issue and Ann and the daughter were out of town. I don’t recall exactly how this liaison came to light but this topic became front and center over the next years.

Ann was doing upset and outrage and determined to know all details. For example, she had a calendar for that summer and had written all the details that she extracted from her guilty husband. She told her husband she could not forgive him unless she knew everything that had taken place.

Unfortunately, he bought into this and spilled everything even though there were not many times. Twice they met in a motel and Ann had to know the name and the date. Once was at their house on the couch and a couple of times in the car at a park. What Ann did with this information was to keep it alive. They could not drive near the motel and the park was also off limits. The couch was thrown out and a new replacement was installed, although that didn’t work too well because she said the new couch reminded her of what had taken place. As if the couch could talk. I think the couch was mute but that Ann had a very active mind where she spent hours on the burner.

After a few sessions where I had listened closely and had shared some ideas (BS) about the price she was inflicting on herself, she acted as if she had no choice. I relayed a quote from Albert Ellis, an abrasive psychologist from New York given at a meeting early in my career. “You dumb assholes, don’t you realize that the reason people are feeling shitty is because they are thinking about shit..and they will keep feeling shitty until they change their damn mind.” Incidentally, when I first heard this statement, I judged him to be very unprofessional and created the reaction that he offended me and I was on the verge of walking out. It was only later that I thought it was an excellent statement, partly because it was easy to remember. I modified the inherent principle by talking about burners on a stove with the contrast being velour.

Ann thought that bringing in her husband would help. Sam deTail was not eager to have another whipping but Ann went through her charges again just to review what had happened. She said she felt betrayed and it was up to Sam to earn back any trust. Sam was passive and guilty, or guilty and passive. He asked both of us what he could do to make peace with Ann. I indicated that he could not change her, nor could she change him, because they were each powerful within. I must have been talking in Greek from what I could observe of their comments and reactions. At one point I said that most people wouldn’t sit still for all this interrogation and Ann responded, “He is my husband and he is married to me, so he has to take it. He ruined our marriage!” It seemed to me that she had adopted the role of victim of Sam’s behavior and she was not going to let go no matter what.

Ann held “trump cards” that seemed to give her “power” over Sam and was not about to give up in spite of the unfulfilling marriage. One of the memorable comments made by Ann was, “How can I look at you without feeling disgust?” Five years ago and the “betrayal” was fresh and in the drivers seat for her.

For Sam it was “guilt” at the wheel.

In our last appointment (as it turned out) they made an appointment for the next week, called to cancel, and never called back. Incidentally, they never paid their bill which was fine with me, because of their preset they hadn’t gained any resolution so there was no value achieved. Also, incidentally, if I were Ann, or I were Sam, I would have done the same thing that they did.

Also, I did not agonize about the result, it just demonstrates that this BS is not useful if there is no application, especially when there is a reluctance to experiment with different thoughts. I felt sorry for both of them, how they used their minds for self torture rather than experimenting with change. The result is a major contrast with the way Nell Raped used her mind and thoughts in dealing with her rape!

DISAPPEARING WORRY

Sally Worrier

Sally Worrier was a seminar participant who listened through the first three sessions and in the fourth said she had been trying to tone down her worrying but wasn’t having any success. She described her mother as a continual worrier about every little thing and attributed her worrying to having learned how to worry from her. In other words she was presenting her alibi for her worrying and felt helpless to change.

I asked her if she had any girl friends that were good worriers and she immediately named Bridget as a “bigger worrier.” I indicated that it sounded like Bridget was in a class of her own and Sally agreed. I suggested that she ask her friend the following: Since you are a more proficient worrier than I am, would you do me the following favor, when I realize I am doing worry about something, would it be alright for me to call you and name my worry and have you take on the worry because you are so much better at it than I? Sally laughed and said that it was silly but that she would talk to her.

At the next meeting Sally volunteered that she had talked to her friend and that they had had a good laugh about it. Bridget had also agreed to taking on any of Sally’s worry. The result that she reported was that when she noticed that she had begun to do worry, she would think about calling her friend and then chuckle at the thought. Of course, she interrupted the worrying. In my terminology when she got on the worry burner, she made a channel change thought that ended in a chuckle—and she can’t do chuckle and serious worry in the same instant.

BASIC FORMULA

I have shared several instances of rapid change and implementation based on some non-standard assumptions (and I may do a few more.) First, each person is responsible (at the wheel) for what they internally experience or make up about the world. It is not the circumstances or the people, just their thoughts (umpiring calls) about their unique situation. Second, if the resulting feelio is negative, painful, or not useful, they can shift their audio and video to something else, and thus, their feelings. If the way you feel is not better, keep changing channels, you have the remote. If you think that it is not that easy, you will be right! On the other hand if you think you can use your internal sovereignty to your benefit, you will also be right! Because of the rapid change, you are likely to experience some initial awkwardness as you feel better more and more.

By the way, the reason many people don’t feel good much of the time is that they are so adept at feeling bad.

The statements above are made about the majority of people who are considered “normal” in our culture, whatever that is. What I am writing is probably not very relevant to individuals who are clearly diagnosed in categories like severe autism or schizophrenia. Also what I have written would not be relevant to people in the third world who are starving. I am only addressing the people who have read this far, knowing that it is all BS!

MORE BACKGROUND

A recent article in the Scientific American focused on sight and seeing. I don’t remember the exact numbers but it was something like the following. There may be one hundred million stimuli in your visual field. However, you have only ten million retinal cells so only ten percent of the stimuli can be picked up. Next, the optical nerve has only the capacity to transmit ten percent of the retinal output. So ten percent of ten percent means that our visual cortex is receiving only one percent of the stimuli out there, in other words, a tiny sample! Combine this with the variety of presets and different life experiences and you can begin to appreciate the variety of thoughts possible about anything. When you (and I) were born we did not know anything because we did not have a mind. Now we have a mind of our own that we own and we think we know things, however, we only know and experience our thoughts about things!

You can begin to appreciate the unreliability of so called eye witnesses! I have lived quite a few decades and I have concluded that it is not worth “going to the mat” about much of anything since I don’t know what is going on, I just think I do. Meaning, I make up thoughts about what might be going on, just like everybody else. I refer back to Calvin and Hobbs where Calvin says everybody is ad-libbing their lines and Hobbs says that is why it is hard to tell whether it is a tragedy or a farce. The ending line is what we need is more special effects and dance numbers. I have had a lot of fun in my career as a coach or consultant, as well as my life in general.

APPEARING AND DISAPPEARING

Joe Smoke

If we have been left in charge of our self, then if we begin (appear) a behavior, we can also stop (disappear) that behavior. We are in control. I would like to share another example of this sequence, this time about Joe Smoke who had been a smoker since his teen age years, a total of thirty some years. His wife was also a devoted smoker and they talked about quitting from time to time. Joe stated that he did not think he could quit unless she joined him so he thought of himself as at an impasse (a self made impasse). Of course, he was right!

I suggested that he was not limited and that I had some ideas that might be useful in eliminating what he called his “bad habit.” First I asked about his initial experience of smoking which was that he coughed and felt dizzy and sick with his eyes watering. I stated that he had a great deal of persistence to override his negative experience to become a proficient smoker. Now, he had tried hard several times to quit but he had failed because he was “hooked.” I then told him that I had an idea of how he could unhook himself easily.

My suggestion was that he carry his cigarettes and lighter during his unhooking so that he could light up any time he wanted. He looked surprised and wondered if that was all. I then added the following. Smoke all you want but first you make an agreement with yourself that you will light the cigarette with a five dollar bill. When you put the cigarette in your mouth, take out a five dollar bill and light it with your lighter and use the lit bill to light your cigarette. As you smoke let the bill burn so you aren’t able to light a second cigarette with it. In essence, you will spend five dollars for each smoke. Smoke all you want!

He looked dubious but added that it was worth a try. He pulled a five dollar bill out of his wallet and put it in a special compartment for his next smoke. In the next session he described his experience with his new rule. He said he couldn’t light up in the car while he was driving which was where he had always smoked. He couldn’t light up at work in front of everybody, they would call the men in white coats to take him away. (This occurred in the era before smoking restrictions and he usually smoked several times a day at his desk.) Of course he couldn’t light up in front of his wife so he had effectively eliminated most of the locations of his smoking behavior.

On the previous weekend after three days of not smoking, he decided that he would do a smoke. He went into his detached garage where he could not be seen by his wife. It was winter and he was shivering as he pulled out a cigarette, lighter, and the bill. As he contemplated lighting the five dollar bill, he decided that it was ridiculous and he put the bill back in the compartment. At that point he knew it was over. Incidentally, I ran into him about twelve years later when he shook my hand, reached in his wallet and pulled out the five dollar bill and said, “This is the original and I have saved thousands of dollars.” He added that of course his wife had noticed and wondered how he had stopped. He didn’t tell her about the money but she said that if he could do it, she could do it. And when she thought she could, she disappeared her smoking behavior. More money saved and BETTER HEALTH!!! Weird—and effective.

As you think about Joe and his disappearing of smoking, he basically did NOTHING, he did not light up, and no longer smoked. Look inside yourself and see what you have said about this to yourself. Some will say that they could never do that, or it is too weird, or it wouldn’t work for them—and they are absolutely right! Why? Because they are sentencing themselves and they will serve their sentence. Others might say that is something I could do, it certainly is weird but it is a clever way to change my behavior. They, too, will be right. Like Henry Ford is reputed to have said, “If you think you can or you think you can’t, either way you are right.”

As long as I am writing about smoking, I will write about my experience that I created. This is way back in the dark ages when the media was free to do major advertising about the delights of smoking. Hard to believe but flight attendants passed out free samples of cigarettes as one boarded the plane with the result that everybody smoked on the flight, whether it was first and/ or second hand smoke. In addition the movies of that era had considerable smoking involved and the actors were frequently seen in the ads. Ronald Reagan for Chesterfields and John Wayne for Camels. In addition, my dad smoked 5 or 6 cigars a day.

This was also when I was more “statistically normal” than now. In my early twenties, I “appeared” smoking and continued to smoke roughly 2 packs a day for about twenty some years. As I began, I was certain that I could stop easily, however, as I kept smoking and began to buy into the cultural story that nicotine was addicting and that stopping a strong bad habit like smoking was extremely difficult. In an attempt to quit, I tried pipes and cigars from time to time but that was still smoking. How did I disappear all that? Read on.

Since I enjoyed playing poker, I was one of seven fellows who got together once a month and played from 6 on a Friday evening to 6 in the morning on Saturday. Five of us were dedicated smokers and each of us would bring 3 or 4 extra packs because we knew it would be a long evening and nobody would want to leave the game to get more cigarettes. The haze was such that it was difficult to see the person across the table. Add some drinks and consuming a lot of snack food resulted in more haziness.

You can imagine how I felt on Saturday. My friend Dave, a non smoker, picked me up after a poker night and we went to introduce him to another friend of mine that he wanted to meet. Fred was a smoker and smoked my brand. We were sitting around his pool having a beer when he offered me a cigarette. I didn’t have any since I had vowed to stop smoking once again, not that my vows had meant much. After a second beer I accepted his offer and lit up. I immediately felt sick and put the cigarette out.

On the way home I asked Dave for a favor, to bet me one dollar of his money against twenty dollars of my money that I would not smoke a cigarette for a year. It was June 28th and I think the year was 1975. Dave did not want to bet me but I insisted and he relented. Later that night Mary and I went to a party where there were plenty of smokers. I brought a pack just in case and naturally I had (did) the urge to light up. Fortunately, I had the twenty dollar penalty in mind and did not light up.

Many times I would feel the urge and many times I simply interrupted so I had a great deal of practice. The next morning when I woke up I realized that I was on the other side of the smoking issue, I had disappeared it! I chuckled at my previous efforts to stop when it was so simple, don’t light up—similar to Ruth’s don’t bite your nails. Instead of doing something, it was simply do nothing or no thing.

Of course I still did the urge, especially when somebody else was smoking. Also I had the signals from my body such as headaches, dull sensations in my chest, etc., as I moved into a nicotine free experience. However, I did not call that withdrawal, but instead labelled it simply as my body is waking up, like the “pins and needles” one gets when their leg has gone to sleep. I also saw my disappearing smoking as a “gift” to my self and my health, not deprivation, as well as not being a negative role model for my daughters.

You can also see where I got the idea of the five dollar bill with Joe-— he said he was not a betting man so that’s when I suggested the lighting up with the five dollar bill. One of my clients was very wealthy and he said that a hundred dollar bill would not be a stopper. So I suggested he write a large check to some person he detested and he chose George Wallace, Governor of Alabama. He created that vision as an interrupt and disappeared smoking.

There’s more! A year later, June 28, I made sure to have lunch with Dave. I told him that he owed me a dollar. He seemed puzzled until I reminded him of our bet. He laughed and handed me a dollar saying that he did not think I could do it. I took the dollar up to the counter, got change, and bought a pack of cigarettes, I think they were thirty-five cents. I lit one up and promptly felt dizzy. I reinstalled the program and smoked a carton during the next week. My wife and others were aghast and worried that I would be “hooked” again. In my mind it was kind of a joke because I knew there was no problem ahead of me and I smoked my last cigarette on the fourth of July.

I called Dave and asked him to renew the bet for the next 51 weeks. He said he would give me the dollar now and I told him I did not want it until the year was up. For the next nineteen years I smoked one week following June 28th. I saved the dollars I collected and then smoked a cigarette later in July so that I had “lost” the bet and gave Dave twenty dollars.

Wait. There is more. From time to time during those 20 years when I was smoking for a week a year, I did some smoking cessation seminars, usually in the evening in a church basement. My opening remarks included a welcome and glad to see you here, that is a clear demonstration of mastery. Of course, had you gone to a movie instead that also would demonstrate self mastery, used to attend a movie. I continued with the fact that you light up several times a day is also clear evidence of self mastery—there is nothing but self mastery and you can use it for your self or against your self. Then I would add that before I proceed any further that I would like to make a confession. “I am a smoker at times just like you.” I could see that this was received with a little confusion. At that point I would say, “The difference is that I am a very efficient smoker, I can get all the smoking I want done in one week each year. I would think that you are inefficient smokers since you take a whole year to get your smoking done.” I shared some of my earlier smoking behaviors and then indicated that it was primarily a function of how we think and use our mastery. Of course, a non smoker would think smoking for a week once a year is ridiculous and ask why in the world would you do that. A smoker would more likely ask how do you do that.

At this point I would cover some of the thoughts that I found useful and answer any questions that they might have. I would do a follow up session a week later and the ones who had a preset that I was out of my mind did not show up. They represented about a third of the group. Another third reported that they had done “nothing” about smoking and it was surprisingly easy. The remaining third indicated that they were not ready to quit but that they now knew how to disappear their smoking pattern easily when they were ready.

I want to add a comment, nobody has any difficulty stopping smoking, no matter how long they have been smoking. You see as each lit cigarette burns down to a stub, the person will put it out in an ash tray, throw it out the car window, or step on it, demonstrating that they have stopped smoking. Kind of weird but every smoker has practiced “stopping smoking” as often as they have practiced lighting up. I suggest that stopping smoking is not the issue, doing something called lighting up turns out to be the step to skip, and the person will never smoke again— as long as she/he continues to do nothing or no thing about cigarettes. This is similar to Ruth’s doing nothing about her nail biting. Finished, ended, game over! Probably too simple for most people who are into struggling to build character and nothing worth having comes easily. I have occasionally heard a statement from an ex smoker that it was the hardest thing he/she has ever done. Another statement that I have heard, if I had one puff, I would get (do) hooked again. That brings up the question, who is at the wheel? A cigarette is inert, how can something inert do hooking? It must be a function of thought and thinking!

There is no one program or method that will appeal to everybody. I was a participant in a seminar where the leader asked an individual who was having (I would substitute doing) difficulty with staying stopped to come up front. Next the leader asked if he had a good relationship with his mother and the answer was very good. Then he asked him to look around in the audience and pick out a woman who reminded him of his mother. The leader asked that woman to come up and kneel and put her arms across the seat of a chair. Next he asked the fellow to imagine that this was his mom and there was a guillotine blade ready to fall if he lit up. Could he stop?

The answer was yes!! Again the way to change a behavior that is not serving you, create some kind of interrupt by changing your thinking.

Before I share another implementation story, I want to again point out that most people are unaware of what they “bring” to their judgment and perception experience. I once heard an Aussie begin his talk with the following remark, “You Yanks may have a bit of a problem understanding me from time to time but you’ll have to remember that you are listening with an accent.” Our cultural story about accents is that they reside only in the speaker, never an awareness that the listener has an internal accent during the intake. This is similar to the concept of preset that I began with when I mentioned Dave, the homeless man finding a lot of money and turning it into the authorities. Generally speaking, most people have a preset that will be part of their umpiring call—as to whether he was a fool or a hero. In the next story about a client, you will bring a lot of presets into play as you umpire.

ANOTHER IMPLEMENTATION

Marge Fearful

Marge came to see me about her marriage to an abusive husband. She said she was fearful because she had been told in no uncertain terms that “they could handle their own problems” and she was forbidden to seek counseling. The husband was a construction worker and a heavy drinker who would get angry over just about anything. He was powerful and she was much smaller than him. He would grab her upper arms, lift her off the floor and shake her and often slam her against the wall. It was no surprise to me that she was re-experiencing her feelings as she related this scene. The two girl friends that she had confided in both told her that she had to leave before he crippled or killed her. However she had two children in grade school and no money. This was probably 30 years ago and there were no women’s shelters at that time. She indicated that she felt trapped, that there was no way out. Talk of counseling or divorce was met with anger and a shaking.

What a dilemma, no easy solution in sight. Although she felt helpless, I saw her as powerful within, like all my clients who have been left in charge of them selves. I commented on how fearful and frightened she appeared. She agreed and talked about how she dreaded his return home. Next I made a comment about how traditional it is to attribute their feelings to somebody who is not even there. This was too big a jump when I pointed out that her husband was not in the room and yet she was doing fearful.

Would that suggest that you are creating your own fear now, at this moment? She looked perplexed and indicated that she had good reason to be fearful, look at her situation. I responded with I think you are totally justified in feeling fear, you do have a good reason, however is it useful to do fear in this moment in this office and attribute it to your absent husband? It might even be possible for you to skip doing fear at home! That was too big to digest, I know, however, it didn’t hurt to mention it. (And for those grammarians who are missing and have been missing quotation marks, I don’t use them much because I do not recall all the conversation verbatim, OK? A little humor.)

I thought she seemed perplexed, although that of course is a guess. I also thought that she seemed to be turning that idea around in her mind. Her behavior was to stay, not jump up and leave the office that was in my house, perhaps partly because she thought highly of the doctor who had referred her to me. As she thought about this, I also mentioned that I thought that she might tell her husband that she had sought counseling. Her response was to look more fearful and say that it would just lead to violence. I pointed out that she had never prevented him from turning violent even though she had “been walking on egg shells” and still could not prevent his angry outbursts. She made another appointment. As she left I wondered if she would show up because of my atypical approach.

She did keep her next appointment and had not told her husband about her previous visit. I expanded on some of my reasons for saying what I had said and she seemed interested. She was still jittery but engaged. As we discussed topics like being left in charge of self emotionally, she seemed more relaxed. We made another appointment.

Once again she showed up on time and she had not yet told her husband. A few minutes later the door bell rang and she quickly accessed her fear. I did some apprehension (rather than I was apprehensive) as I walked across the living room to the open the door. As I suspected, there was a stocky man in workman’s coveralls. He was red faced and agitated and blurted out in a loud voice, “Is my wife in there?” I also registered that he had a bulge in his pocket. My first thought was to slam the door and I knew that he had come for a fight and I was no match for him. I said she was and pushed the storm door to open which he grabbed and thundered by me as I stepped aside and pointed to the office. He strode quickly across the living room and I followed a couple of steps behind.

As he rounded the corner and spied his wife, he pointed at her and yelled, “God damn you, I told you not to go to counseling!” I stepped up beside him and said in as even a voice as I could, “Would you like a cup of coffee and join us for awhile?” He slowly pulled his hand down and turned to me as if he had not heard me so I repeated my invitation and I could see his hands relaxing. He turned fully to me, shook his head as if to clear his mind, and said, “I better leave before somebody gets hurt.” He turned and left and I followed him to the door and said he could come back anytime he wanted.

When I came back in the office, Marge was still “sitting small,” kind of huddled. I told her what I had been thinking as this all unfolded. I said that when the door bell rang, I immediately did some video, audio and feelio about an imagined possibility. As I walked across the floor to answer the door I did about 6 or 7 on the fear or apprehension scale. When I opened the door and actually saw what I had been doing fear about, I went to 9 or 10. I saw that he was obviously very angry.

In spite of my urge to slam the door, I opened the outer door, answered, “Yes,” and pointed to the office. When he yanked the storm door open and thundered by me, I followed him. This is the conversation I had with my self as I walked across the living room. Somebody is likely to be badly hurt or dead in the next couple of minutes—and it might be me. My question to myself was, do I want to spend the last minute or two of my life doing fear? My answer to myself was no and I dropped down the scale to about 2 or 3 which made it possible for me to invite him to join us in an almost ordinary voice. Marge and I talked for quite awhile, sort of debriefing, and she made another appointment.

As the time of her next meeting approached, I did some curiosity (as opposed to I was curious) about what I would hear, if she showed up. She was on time and her countenance seemed changed. She related her experience (what she had made up) the rest of that day. She said that she would get on the fear burner momentarily from time to time but that she would interrupt quickly by getting curious about how she would react when he came home, not on what he would do. Doing curiosity is a much better feelio than doing fear. She indicated that she had alternated back and forth many times so she had practiced interrupting many times.

When he came home later he had been drinking and immediately began a rant about her going to counseling. He worked himself up to the point where he grabbed her by the upper arms and lifted her off the floor preparing to shake her. She said that she didn’t do fear and was almost nonchalant when she asked, “Bob, do we have to do this?” She continued, “He seemed a little confused like he had in your office, and he put me down. I was surprised and yet I was not surprised.”

I shared the tennis game analogy with Marge and how the game had to change if one person changed—clearly she had shown up without her racket—she didn’t change him but he had to adjust to a new game.

We met a few more times and she reported that Bob worked himself up at times but stopped short of picking her up. She said she was feeling better and was thinking about looking for a job, even though her husband had forbidden her to work outside the home. After a few meetings she said that although things were better she still wanted a better marriage so she told Bob that either he came to counseling or she was going to get a divorce. His reaction was very negative. He stated that he was not crazy and if she thought she was going to get a divorce, that he would kill her first. Her response was that if that was what he had to do, he would do it, just as if she were still alive she would get a divorce.

It is difficult to imagine a more reluctant client. They did come in together but he pulled a chair into a corner as far away as possible and remained withdrawn. He was ill at ease and said very little. Marge and I talked mostly and I made sure that I did not point to him as the “bad guy” hoping he would get involved. Marge said he was a good provider and loved his two sons but wanted more of a positive relationship with him. It turned out that one time was enough for him and he did not return. She found a job and arranged for her girl friend and neighbor to look after the boys after they got out of school until she got home. There was no further need for us to get together so we left it at she could return at any time. In my view she had changed herself from a frightened woman into a “can do” lady who was gentle within and yet decisive, somebody who knew how to take care of her self, in my terminology, more effectively selfish.

Several years later she wanted me to talk with the oldest boy so I had a chance to catch up with what had happened in the interval since I had seen her. About a year or two after we had talked she got a divorce. She stayed in the house and her ex came by to see the boys or take them with him. He also dropped off money and told her this was for the boys, not for her. She said that he was pretty cooperative overall and that she liked living alone. She had dated some but was not interested in marriage. In terms of work, she had gone into sales and was pleased to share that she was in the top 5% for a national company, complete with bonuses and recognition.

What a transformation or trance formation! Almost any thing is possible when the person is at the wheel while impossible from the back seat! I want to point out that I did not help her, she helped her self. How could I have helped her if I could not teach her, if I could not motivate her, if I could not convince her, and if I could not even influence her???? Her change was due to an expanded awareness that she was left in charge of her self—only she had not “known” that before. She did not gain control—she simply used her control to make an I turn. I was impotent to help her, I could only invite her to use the control she was stuck with, differently. She went from having emotions to doing emotions! I had inadvertently provided a role model for her in my interacting with her husband, she could “see” what I had been talking about.

A post script, I would not want to have many encounters like that one! I might add that our first five minutes together could also have some bearing on her experimenting with some of the bs I shared. As I was waiting for her I heard a loud crash in front of my house. She was driving a big old station wagon and had smashed into the back of my car with her car bumper going over my bumper and damaging the trunk lid. Although no damage to her vehicle, my car had considerable damage. Of course, I came out immediately and saw what had happened. She said I hope that’s not your car and I responded that it was. She was very apologetic and nervous saying her foot had slipped off the brake and unto the gas pedal. Since I knew that my doing upset wouldn’t fix my car, I suggested that as long as she was here, let’s go inside and talk about why you came to see me. So in spite of an unfortunate beginning we had a useful session, in part because I didn’t do the “normal” upset and served as a model of comfort. Again I want to say that I would have liked a more usual beginning without the crash, however, I understand and accept, “It is what it is.”

You had to read a long time to get to this implementation and you have provided or created or made up all that you experienced as you read what I made up. You provided the meaning, reactions, questions, judgments, perceptions, ahas, doubts, etc., of these words. I did not make you have any reactions. You see this BS you are reading is inert, it is not alive, it doesn’t do anything, it doesn’t mean anything. It just is. You make the words “come alive” for you. Do you think for a minute that everybody who has read this far, has made up or constructed their experience identical to yours? I don’t think so. There is much too much uniqueness for that to occur. I could label this epistle an invitation to you to BE CAUSE! Be cause, you are! Your choice—cause or pawn. If what you make up doesn’t serve your interest in taking care of your self toward feeling good, make up something different that will.

Perhaps I can use an analogy that is familiar to each of us. Your phone rings and you make a decision: to answer or not, your choice. If you chose to answer you decide how many times you let it ring first. You can answer with a variety of greetings and a variety of tonalities. If you decided not to answer, you may decide to wonder it you missed an important call, or not give it another thought. With a cell phone you can check the number and decide whether to answer or return the call. Decisions, decisions, decisions. What I want to point out is the ringing of the phone is simply a stimulus in the environment, not a cause of your behavior. Simply an invitation to act or not act, your choice. The world is full of invitations, however, the cultural norm is to consider them causes.

Peanuts

ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT MY EAR

The first step in building a house, car, bridge, or tunnel is to make a sketch of what you want. Next refine that to a blueprint or model made to scale which will be used to actually guide the construction of what you want. If the blueprint is incorrect, this will be reflected in the end product. This is similar to baking and cooking, the recipe is the guide to the end product and we need to follow the sequence, time, and temperature in order to obtain the end product. In our behavior, i.e., creating our experience, we are operating on the basis of our assumptions, a little like blueprints and models. If you are enjoying your life that would suggest that the assumptions you have been using are serving you well. If you are doing unhappiness, bitterness, worry, anger, resentment, etc., that would suggest that your assumptions are bearing bitter fruit, and maybe time for a change.

I would like to share a perfect example that will illustrate what I am getting at. In my early 60’s I had fluid in my ear. My internist first assumed it was an infection so he prescribed some antibiotics which had no effect, except perhaps to decimate some of my useful flora. Faced with that non-result, he said I likely had serum otitis. He explained that the lower end of the eustachian tube connecting my ear drum to my throat had a valve that was not functioning correctly. The result was a partial vacuum that gradually filled with serum from the blood and pressed against the ear drum reducing its ability to resonate, thus reducing my ability to hear. His recommendation was to refer me to an ENT physician and get a tube installed.

Off to the ENT doc that resulted in the following: first a shot in the ear which was momentarily very painful, next a scalpel cut in the ear drum; suctioning the serum out; inserting a small tube. My next question was is this a permanent solution? He indicated that in 6 to 10 months the tube would be forced out and the eustachian tube would refill and I would need to go through the same procedure. I asked if surgery would repair the valve and he said that he would not recommend it since there was a low probability of success. I also inquired if he had any patients that had recovered from this process and he said none. Over the next several years I had about a dozen similar procedures and fully expected to continue this routine as long as I lived.

Then there was serendipity. I changed my insurance to an HMO and needed to go to another EMT specialist when my eustachian tube had filled again. He did the same procedures and said that he would see me in a few months when my tube fell out and I ended up with serum otitis again. On my next visit he said that he wanted me to try something and asked me to take a sip of water and as I swallowed to hold my upper nose and try to clear as if I had just debarked from an airplane. Lo and behold, it worked! The fluid in my eustachian tube drained immediately! He went on to say that if I cleared in that manner once or twice a day, I would never need another tube.

I mentioned that my previous ENT had talked about a valve and things would never change. His response was that there was no valve, it was simply a matter of the throat end of my eustachian tube had partially collapsed and my daily clearing would take care of it. I thought of hugging him because of the delight I was doing when I envisioned the future without the time, pain, and cost of unending procedures. A different set of assumptions with immediate positive benefits. I have not needed EMT visits for the last dozen years!! A change that was quick, easy, simple, enjoyable, and very beneficial!! All due to a change of thinking about assumptions.

SO WHAT?

I am suggesting that our interpretive framework, decoder, mind set, or map of reality is based on the assumption that we are the doee, not the doer in our emotional behavior. As I wrote before, this is a left over from our childhood when we were operated by the giants in our environment— and we had no choice. Now as adults, we are stuck with choice, no choice about that. And we use our choice robotically to play the part of the victim, as in somebody else made me mad or glad, not that we choose our experience.

This unaware choosing of our behavior is not the result of stupidity, but rather an automatic choice like folding our hands or putting the same leg into the slacks first the same way that we did when we were children.

Operating from the mind set implicit in the sentence–due to circumstances beyond my control, I have been left in charge of me—we can change our mind (thoughts) quickly and easily.

Revisiting some of the examples of implementation, we can “see” the beneficial result of a very different assumption—that of ownership! Bill, Jr. had thought that his father made him angry by telling him what to do. In the middle of that thought, he chose a different thought, that his father was not in control of his thinking and emotions. Bingo, the result was operating himself from the driver’s seat instead of the back seat with his father driving. When the problem was “out there,” (his father), then the solution was out there as well and he would have had to wait until his father changed. Realizing his responsibility (response ability) for his choice to do upset, he could easily and quickly change his emotions.

Ruth thought that she had to “overcome” her nail biting when all she had to do was nothing. Burt thought he had to gain control of his temper when all he had to do is interrupt his buildup with the thought of the priest or Marcia cartoon. Ralph had typically thought that something like a soda spilled in his car made him furious and the thought of using his freedom differently resulted in a tectonic shift in his behavior and feelings. Ellen thought she had no control over her reactions to any hint of abandonment and when she thought about her shoe she brought herself into the adult now. Sue thought her daughter’s request for water was an imposition until she used her freedom in a more positive manner and thought about smiling. Joe thought that he couldn’t stop smoking unless his wife stopped also. When he explored lighting up with a five dollar bill, he ventured face to face with the thought that he was in control and was stuck with choice. Sally thought she had no control over her worry since her mother was her model. When she thought about off loading the job of worrying to her friend she thought of smiling since it seemed so ridiculous. Thus she replaced worry thoughts with smiling thoughts.

So what do you think? What are your thoughts about this BS you have been reading? Remember that I suggested that we did not have thoughts as infants, that we gradually created a mind, a mind of our own that we own.

Also, I suggested that our thoughts are a combination of video, audio, and feelio. Further, that we only sample the external world and then construct an internal “reality” that we assume matches the outside world.

If the external world “drove” the internal world, every person would have the same picture and we know that there is too much variety for that.

One of the eastern gurus made up an interesting analogy. He asked people to go back to their youth and imagine lying on their back in the summer time, watching big, white, fluffy clouds. As we look we can imagine that some of the clouds look like an animal or a profile of a person. Think about the attitude or how we regard the ever changing show. We seem to be interested observers or curious witnesses. However, we are not invested in keeping the image or getting rid of something that looks like the head of a wolf. We know and accept that the canvas will keep shifting. Then he asks the question—what if thoughts were clouds in the sky of our mind? Constantly shifting and changing and we are not focused on trying to control, but rather doing curiosity as we observe.

There is a huge difference in the following two positions: Thoughts and emotions are running my life or I am in charge of my thoughts and I can change my thoughts and feelings quickly and easily, like changing the TV channel. Ann was focused on her husband’s infidelity and stated that she couldn’t stop thinking about it. Of course, she was right. Result, no change. Ellen had an early traumatic experience color her adult relationships. She could not get rid of her history, however, she could neutralize that memory in the now by thinking of her present day shoes. George and his wife utilized thinking about some of this BS in a way that they could go on, not because they would forget and be casual. There was still the tragedy of the daughter’s death, however, they were not going to make a further tragedy out of their lives. Nell did an amazing job of reducing the impact of her rape on her well being. She used her awareness of being in control of her thoughts and feelings to minimize what could have been years of suffering and a social and sexual withdrawal.

FIRST AND SECOND

Sometimes students and clients will “accuse” me of saying that the environment (E) doesn’t matter, that the mind is all. I have never implied that the world outside our skin is of no consequence, although you may have inferred that. In a classroom I will go to the board and write, The E is very important, even underlining very. During our infancy and toddler hood, the E is crucial to our survival. In addition, since we have not yet developed our mind, we are not doing much in the way of thinking or thoughts. As we go about the business of constructing our mind we develop a sort of “map of reality” that is our internal representation of what is going on inside and out. We create the mind sets that I pointed out in the second paragraph in the comments about the homeless man finding a considerable amount of money and you probably took a position of fool or hero with very little information. In a sense we form the blueprints or a model for our adult life. And I would like to remind you of the importance of presets, models or blueprints as illustrated in my discussion of my ear.

I am proposing that one of the fundamental building blocks of our early mental development is that we are at the effect of the environment, especially the giants called parents or caretakers and later other people. We are not in charge of ourselves. Others make us mad or they make us glad. In a way this is similar to my dealing with fluid in my eustachian tube, I needed outside help or intervention when the assumption was a faulty valve. I was not in charge! What a wonderful outcome when a different model or preset resulted in my being able to clear without help, sort of a flip to my being in charge of me which led to a quick and easy change.

As an adult, if you have been left in charge of you, you would be choosing what you thought and what you felt about the E. Imagine the benefits. If you chose upset, you could change your mind immediately and easily without having to wait for others to change first—like Bill suddenly testing the idea that his father was not making him mad, only inviting him to feel like a child being lectured. Ralph dissolved the rage he had initially chosen and replaced it with appreciation and relief that he was not at the effect of a spilled soda in his pristine car. He continued his positive approach during the clean up process when he normally would be cursing and throwing things.

Now back to the statement that the E is very important. I would return to the board and place a number 2 in front of that statement. Next I would put a number 1 above it and write the following sentence. Your thoughts about the E are more important, because what you are experiencing is your thoughts about the E, not the E. If the E were in charge everybody would experience the same thought and feeling instead of the variety among people that we see. Consider this an invitation to spend a few days playing around with these ideas. Use your imagination to pretend that you are in charge of your feelings, that you are doing the choosing, in contrast with the typical norm (or pretense) that others make you feel one way or the other. Remember the ”self” sentencing, if you say you can’t imagine, you will be right. However, if you test drive this very different model, you might end up doing delight.

The words imagination and pretense probably sound pretty whimsical to you if you have absorbed the dominant cultural norms of our puritanically derived heritage and operate your self pretending that other people “make” you feel what you feel. Most people likely would be like Burt who was “trying hard” to control his temper (when other people set him off) instead of simply interrupting. As I mentioned before you can’t get out of a hole by digging it deeper. Also, you can’t get out of seriousness by doing more seriousness.

My suggestion is to put down the shovel, lighten up and play with the following idea. First do something to remind your self that you are in charge and that you can change what you do robotically. For example, if you are wearing a watch or bracelet, switch it to the other wrist for a period of four or five days. This is a simple switch that you can do even if you have been placing it on your left wrist daily for many years. You are likely to find it awkward, but not “hard,” which is always a good sign of change similar to when you are learning a new dance step. You may do startle (not be startled, as if you are not in charge) when you look at the left wrist automatically for the time and “find” the watch missing, another good sign that you are getting familiar with your roboticism.

At this point you may be saying that you don’t wear a watch and I suggest you either borrow one or retrieve one you formerly wore. If you want to substitute some other daily activity that will give you a chance to experience your automaticity, awkwardness, and ease of change, that is great. Remember to “play” with this, don’t do seriousness.

During these few days of exploration, pretend the following, that you have chosen impatience when you are put on hold in a telephone call. When you start to do upset about another driver, pretend that you chose that reaction. When a clerk or a waiter is inattentive or snippy, pretend that you chose your reaction in contrast to your usual way of pretending that the other person pissed you off. If a coworker is abrupt in her/his dealings with you, pretend that you chose your hurt or anger, not the coworker. Also, on the positive side, if a coworker says something humorous and you laugh, pretend that you chose to laugh, that he/she did not make you laugh.

If you do this little bit of oddball behavior, you may feel a little silly at times (pretend that you chose to feel silly), maybe a little worried (you chose that, too) that you are not facing the “real reality” that is the norm. What you may “discover” or make up is that you are creating a lighter version of your own life, realizing the benefits of utilizing your internal sovereignty in a delightful way. Delightful because by pretending or assuming that you are the operator, you can minimize any time on the burner and maximize your time on the velour. In video, audio and feelio terms, when you feel the heat or hear and feel the rumble strip, you can simply and easily smile and steer into smooth.

I want to state again that others are sovereign as well, so you cannot make them laugh or mad, they will choose, so you don’t need to worry about that. In addition, you cannot convince anybody else, nor can you teach, motivate, or influence them, it will always be their choice, not yours. In this BS version, the chain of command is one, you are at the wheel of your vehicle. Worrying about other people’s choice to blame you for their upset is a burner you don’t need to spend much time on. It will be a relief to skip doing guilt about others’ attribution of your being the cause of their distress, since they chose it. This does not mean that you will be indifferent to others. Since you are more effectively selfish, you will be more gracious and a better listener, as well as treating them with respect. It would seem that when we are not treating out selves well, that is the time when we are more likely to be short with others.

Although you already know what I am going to remind you of, I would wager that you have not thought about what follows for a long time. What I want to point out is that after becoming an adult, you have chosen every single step you have taken as you move around. You have been in charge of the bites of food you have taken in. You have decided how many times to chew your food once you have placed it in your mouth. You have chosen what clothing you have purchased, and you are wearing what you chose earlier today right down to the shoes on your feet. When you drive you make thousands of decisions, choosing to lighten or press on the accelerator, give the steering wheel a little adjustment, etc., mostly in automatic pilot mode outside of your awareness. You have chosen what you say, not only to other people but to your self also, as in thinking and self reflection. Lots and lots of choosing. When I reflect back on my smoking behavior, I chose every cigarette that I lit up while pretending I couldn’t stop. I’m glad I changed my mind and kept the change.

Why did I go through this list of everyday activities that we take for granted? I wanted to point out the contrast between what we started with (a helpless and totally dependent infant) and the adult who has developed and mastered all these behaviors. How can we logically think that our emotional behavior is exempt from that ownership?? As I stated earlier I think this is a leftover from our early years of dependency and lack of role models regarding emotional ownership. Operating our selves from the position that others are responsible for our emotions is simply a norm that leads to victimology. Speaking of norms, the new norm (majority) regarding weight is obesity. I was a member from time to time until I changed my mind, now I am in the minority. I hope you change your mind about emotional ownership through pretending you are in charge—if you happen to be in the majority of playing life from the position of being an emotional pawn.

DOING THE BEST

I am going to add another presupposition beyond the one that each person is operating one unit, themselves, and that is: everybody is doing them selves the best that they know how. They may not be doing them selves delightfully but that is only because they are unaware of better ways of conducting themselves. Everybody has the potential, however, they may be operating as if the Puritans had the template for how to live life and they are living in that illusion. It is a two way street, you cannot change them and they cannot teach, convince, motivate or influence you. Living in this alternative illusion naturally results in respecting others as well as respecting self.

I will also add that if this silly BS is too far out for you, you are free to stop reading and put the watch back on the familiar wrist and go about your life thinking that you are at the effect of others and conditions of the E. I have written all this in an invitational mood and you get to make up what ever you want. When you get an invitation to a function, “it” does not cause you to attend or even respond. You will chose your response as well as deciding if you will RSVP, or not. Plenty of people do not respond to a court summons (invitation) for a traffic violation. The buzzing, blooming world outside our skin is a series of invitations that invites us to choose our reactions, a stark contrast to our newly born status when the E had no meaning to us, yet vital to our survival.

Earlier I underlined imply and infer, suggesting they can be quite different. When I hear somebody say, “I know what you are implying,” I suggest that is inaccurate because that person can only know what they are inferring (making up). Imply and infer can be very similar, although unlikely to be a mirror image, and they can be miles apart. In the political world, the focus is on the “spin” put on somebody’s comments seemingly with no awareness that the “spin” the listener or reader brings to bear is acknowledged and is even more important. This is a little like the accent is usually attributed to the speaker with little awareness that the listener has an accent in their listening.

Another aspect of this common illusion is our impotence with regard to our children. We are very potent physically when it comes to providing food, shelter and clothing for our children. However, we cannot get in their mind, that is private space. They will select, infer, or make up what they choose. I mention this because a lot of parents are turning themselves into pretzels trying to do something impossible. “Helicopter parents” are not preparing their children for adult life. I read about books and pundits who tout methods to build self esteem in children. One can be a role model, and one can treat their children with respect but they cannot teach, convince, or influence the child’s self esteem, much to the chagrin of Freud and his followers who have spent hours listening to their patients blaming their parents for all their current troubles.

Self esteem is my story about me and your story about you. The esteem you may hold in your view of me is other esteem and it does not “transfer” to my self esteem. If you have ever tried to convince somebody who is doing low self esteem, that they are worthy, you have had a chance to recognize your impotence. What you may find out is that the person you are trying to convince may attempt to convince you that you are wrong in your evaluation or that you don’t understand. Very interesting!

Pickles - 2

SPIDER WEB

If you have read this far, you may have developed some issues with the way I write. My style is similar to what is known as a narrative or stream of consciousness, or worse yet, poorly organized, not to mention redundant and repetitive. Of course, if I were you, I would have those same thoughts, however, if you were me, you would write in this style. By the way, I did not cause your judgment, you chose it. However, I would not argue with that perception. What I have attempted is similar to a spider web. All the various comments and stories and comics may seem like tangents, however, they are all connected with the central thesis—

Due to circumstances beyond my control,
I have been left in charge of me.

—one unit or vehicle with me at the wheel. I am suggesting that is the case for everybody who is reading this. It is not the case for infants, toddlers, and young children or people with severe mental problems, who by the way are not reading this. This BS is also not relevant to the people starving in the third world.

It is relevant to somebody like Stephen Hawking, the paraplegic who cannot speak except through a computer assist. He has gained renown for his writing in theoretical physics and he would probably agree that he is making up all his speculations. From my perspective, all the threads of the web are joined together. I have already confessed that I am making up what I have written and what I am implying. I invite you to join me in your inference. I also know that it is unlikely that I will ever know what you are making up about this BS.

Further, you will never know everything I am implying. This communication business is very sloppy. Various words and statements can have different meanings.

WHAT DOES EVERYBODY WANT?

I remember a statement that goes something like this: All I want is a kind word……and, of course, unlimited power! Sometimes you may have to supply the kind words to your self. As to unlimited power or choice to operate your self, you are stuck with that already, you have no choice about that. And the people that you are interacting with are in the same condition, yet we live in a world where many people are wasting their time and energy trying to teach, convince, or influence another so they, the person who is trying to do the convincing, can feel good (vindicated). In other words, their happiness seems to be contingent on others even though those others have no leverage for “making” that person happy, or unhappy. The best you can do is invite-—and this web is my invitation to you to use your internal sovereignty in a constructive way for you.

Bizzaro

I ran across a comment that I would like to share. If you think the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, maybe it would be a good time to fertilize and water your own plot. If you have used your self mastery to create an issue with alcohol and other drugs only you can cease and desist. There is no help that can do it for you. If you have put in too much or too little food and drink (obese or anorexic), it is up to you to remedy the situation by eating less or more. (I have been there, I gained and lost 30-40 pounds several times and also imbibed enough that I could pass for an alcoholic. Fortunately I awoke to my ownership many years ago and simply made those issues disappear by eating and drinking less.) There is nobody that can do that for you, you cannot outsource your behavior. If you are spending a lot of time on the burners —doing worry, guilt, anger, hurt, depression, etc., it is up to you to remove your hand. Nobody can do that for you, or even help you. I know this is not typical thinking, however, it is based on the notion that you are running your life. That is the center of the web and there are bumps in the road but no place for alibis.

I mentioned the dis-ease, anorexia, and I have had relatively little experience dealing with somebody who is doing that-(2), however, I think there are many, mostly women, that are involved although the percentage in the population is relatively small. What is striking is the dedication to being thin in spite of the visual information reflected in the mirror, almost like a form of blindness. They look in the mirror and see fat instead of skin and bones, some all the way to their death. In my interaction with the two women who were my clients, I was sure that they totally believed they were fat and that eating a few greens was the way to reduce and both did not create any value from our few meetings. They were immune to any input from me, partly because I was a male, and did not know what I was talking about when I talked about being in control. They were single minded in control, eat less, get rid of the fat. The reason I mention this topic is to point out that the mind trumps all else and I want to say something about a much larger segment of the population, the majority who are obese.

What I am referring to is that the norm in this culture is a sort of “blindness” in regard to our ownership regarding weight. The individual knows that they are overweight and clearly experiences the difficulties that result: hard to find clothes, tie shoe laces, fit in an airplane seat, etc. Typically, there are considerable lamentations about their situations, short runs on a variety of short lived “diets” which “never work” followed by resignation and often more eating. This describes my approach for years after I left the military after the Korean War. My mother was obese during most of her life and my only sister was morbidly obese which led to a relatively early demise so I had an exposure to overeating and struggle with weight. I have convinced my self that this is not a matter of stupidity or lack of intelligence, rather an unawareness of our ownership plus the puritanical culture we have absorbed. My mother was operating from the model that can be summarized as: We are put on this earth to suffer to get ready for paradise in heaven.

People know how to gain weight by eating more, thus they know that to lose weight they have to eat less, a case of doing nothing or no thing about a portion of the food they usually eat. I’m not talking about fasting, just eating half or two thirds of what they usually eat (and doing nothing about the other half or third) over a period of time will result in weighing less. Somehow most will make that difficult (suffering builds character, nothing worth having comes easily) rather than labeling the change as awkward, moving toward a “gift” to them selves. I might add there are many who would say they like being fat, sometimes almost militant in their defense of their position, never mind the health statistics.

Self-Help Marketplace

I apologize for the poor quality of the comic so I will describe it. The picture shows the entrance to side by side auditoriums. The first entrance pictures people in line to hear the topic, “How to blame everybody else” for a fee of $100. I would add how to blame everybody else AND everything else like my upbringing, my lack of willpower, my big appetite and other alibis. There is no line at the other entrance where the title is “Accepting Personal Responsibility” and it is free with the presenter standing at the door waiting for anybody to come in. I would change that sign a little by erasing accepting and replace it with understanding you are stuck with personal responsibility! You cannot accept what you already have. I would also split the word responsibility to personal response ability. The majority do frustration about their inability to change others while thinking that other people are “pushing their buttons.” When I hear client’s using that phrase, I ask them to show me the buttons. Their response it that they are not real buttons so I guess it is all in their imagination. Where else?? In my view the only person that can touch those buttons is self.

I once heard the following statement: constructive criticism is not very appreciated from family, neighbors, acquaintances, friends, coworkers, and complete strangers. Much of the time it is resented and even is a preamble to an argument. In spite of that result many people persist in their attempt to correct others. My suggestion is take a break or a vacation and save your breath to cool your soup, especially when you review the great benefits of previous dust ups.

One more area to cover before I stop making up this BS, at least writing about it. It is something I read from a book by William Glasser. It is important to find the best partner you can find for marriage, however, it is even more important to be the best partner that you can be. Sounds a lot like taking care of your own plot—and other people cannot stop you from making it green. P.S. MORE B.S.

I would like to add that if doing worry, upset and angst paid off, I would be inviting people to do more suffering. As Calvin’s father said when he was telling Calvin about life, “Yes, life is tough, suffering builds character, nothing worth having comes easy.” Calvin’s response was ”ARGGHH!” You can see how this puritanical thinking frowns on ease of change and results in many of my clients and students saying you make it too simple or you make it sound so easy and life is not easy, so I can’t use what you are advocating. This reminds me of a quote I would like to share.

One of the paradoxes of life is that the more one is anxious to survive, the less survival is worth the trouble. On the other hand there is a considerable and normally unexpected survival value in the very absence of the anxiety to survive.

Calvin and Hobbes - big picture

A close runner up to that is,

Facts, however, do not speak for themselves, they depend on the voice of the ventriloquist that holds them.

Some affirmations you might find useful are:

I feel warm and loving toward myself…..

I am a unique and precious being, ever doing the best that my current awareness permits…..

I see myself bathed in the white light of energy, with love in my heart, health in my body, wisdom in my mind, laughter in my attitude, and serenity in my spirit.

If you have been ineffectively selfish, these comments may sound pretty fru fru and inapplicable to you. I suggest you test drive them for a little while and you may dissolve the awkwardness that you feel and be more friendly to your self.

**********

If you have read this far you have created many reactions, interpretations, thoughts, and judgments about these inert words. I would guess that you have presets that may have resulted in the following: redundant, poorly organized, wandering, overly simplified, too cutesy, repetitious, unrealistic, to mention a few. You can add others. I agree this epistle is not incisive, it approaches story telling and what I have been sharing is my opinion and I think you may benefit from reiteration. I want to remind you that if you were me, you would have written it in exactly the way I have done. And, if I were you I would have written exactly as you would have.

I can present a “bare bones” version:

You have been left in charge of you. Therefore you make all the decisions involved in operating you, including what emotions you choose to experience.
You make most of these decisions outside of awareness (on autopilot) based on patterns from your early development.
You can change your thoughts and feelings quickly and easily.
It’s your choice!

How is that for brevity?

I think that a poetic approach, that is also brief, may be an excellent invitation as well as a summary of what I have been writing about. It was written about 150 years ago and I see it as relevant today when the focus is thinking about thought..

As a Man Thinketh by James Allen

Mind is the Master-power that molds and makes,
And Man is Mind, and evermore he takes
The tool of thought, and shaping what he wills,
Brings forth a thousand joys, a thousand ills:–
He thinks in secret, and it comes to pass:
Environment is but his looking-glass.

I’ll follow this up with poem of unknown origin.

Thoughts About Thinking

If you always think what you’ve always thought,
then you’ll always feel what you’ve always felt.

And if you always feel what you’ve always felt,
then you’ll always deal what you’ve always dealt.

And if you always do what you’ve always done,
then you’ll always get what you’ve always got.

Here is my addendum: If you don’t like what you’ve always gotten, go back to the beginning and use your mind for a change in your thinking. If you create something of value-—keep the change!

Sally Forth - 2

There are many more stories and implementations; however, I think the web has been adequately outlined and described. Please don’t take me seriously, I would recommend lightly instead. So, like Donald Shimoda said in Illusions, “I choose to leave you now to go your own way.”

And I would add from Calvin and Hobbs, using your freedom to include “more special effects and dance numbers.”

I just ran across an article that quotes a coach talking about the mental part of the game. He states, “The mind is the gatekeeper of the body. Right thinking is a skill. You can identify it. People miss the fact that confidence is just a thought. It’s not a thing. You don’t store it up. You don’t get it today and have it Saturday. It’s a thought. And every thought that you have (I would substitute do) is a choice. If you’ve got a thought that you don’t like, pick something else.” Well said!!

I recommended to Mr. and Mrs. Tall Short, couple who argued a lot, that as soon as they realized that they were at the beginning of an argument, the husband was to get on the floor and present his thoughts from that position with his wife standing next to him. This piece from Dear Abby was met with a smile from both of them.

Dear Abby

What is basic is the early interrupt, whether by position (even the thought of a different position) or by sharing a candy bar. The writer says “it works because we both love chocolate so much. I think it is just a case that they do something else (could be just about anything else) instead of going to the mat and screaming at each other.
Of course, one can go to the other extreme and stonewall as in this comic by Brian Crane in one of his un-comic Pickles comics…

Pickles - 3.png

Here is another from Dilbert.

If you have read all this BS, I would welcome feedback from you, both positive and negative. If you have used it to create value for your self, please write about your “I turn” so I can include it (if you give me permission) when I write some more. If you have created value for yourself from this, please forward it along to others who might be interested.

Sometimes you don’t need words.

Peanuts - 2

THOUGHTS from a PSYCHOLOGIST

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Homeless Dave

DO AND MAKE

MBA STUDENTS

TEACHING

CONVINCING

MOTIVATION

INFLUENCING

INVITING

FREEDOM

IMPLEMENTATION

Bill, Jr.

Ruth Nails

EASY CHANGE??

TIME FOR A LITTLE HUMOR

DRIVER OR BACK SEAT PASSENGER

THREE UMPIRES

MORE IMPLEMENTATION

Burt McTemper

AUTO PILOT

SENTENCING

ANOTHER IMPLEMENTATION

Ralph Holder

CHILDHOOD LEFTOVER

TIME ON THE FLOOR

Mr. and Mrs. Tall Short

PROCRASTINATING SMOKING

Ed Noquit

MORE MBA CLASS

TRAGEDY

Percy Pond

PERSONAL HISTORY

SHOE = NOW

Ellen P. Shoes

REVIEW

SELFISHNESS

TENNIS ANYONE?

MORE IMPLEMENTATION

Sue Waters

MORE ABOUT THOUGHTS

MORE IMPLEMENTATION

Nell Raped

NON-IMPLEMENTATION

Ann deTail

DISAPPEARING WORRY

Sally Worrier

BASIC FORMULA

MORE BACKGROUND

APPEARING AND DISAPPEARING

Joe Smoke

ANOTHER IMPLEMENTATION

Marge Fearful

ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT MY EAR

SO WHAT?

FIRST AND SECOND

DOING THE BEST

SPIDER WEB

WHAT DOES EVERYBODY WANT?

How is that for brevity?

Share this: