![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 14 of 14. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by 64bowtie on October 23, 2004, at 3:39:48
y'alls.....
Success as an adult is predicated solely on effective strategies developed to manage the innate "I-don't-ever-wanna-feel-bad" urge. It took me totally by surprise that such an important life saving trait could be our life-long biggest downfall, when not properly understood, and managed sensibly and carefully.
What happens first upon a successful birth? The doctor spanks the infant to instigate the breathing process. The dissatisfied baby starts screaming, requiring breathing in order to continue. This dissatisfaction reaction is a wonderful attribute designed to keep us alive for the first five years by nudging our parents to respond to our infant protests.
Adults likewise, react to impending disaster by flinching automatically out of harms way. Why? The innate "I-don't-ever-wanna-feel-bad" urge kicks in magically. E.G., when I drop something heavy, I flinch my closest foot out of harms way to ensure that I don't crush a toe or scrape an ankle. Pain-done-learned-me! Also, when I am cutting or welding steel, I now check the piece for heat a couple of inches above it before reaching out to pick it up; toooo many burned hands or fingers taught me to check
first.My Mom taught me to use pot-holders to take pans out of the oven when I was little. It wasn't that I was stupid or unwise, I was un-knowing. As a child, I wasn't thinking, "painful burns". I was thinking I had a chance to help and be important to my Mom. Ooooooops! Timing? Perhaps, but always use a pot-holder!
So much for the good use of the urge. Why and how does this good trait turn our lives into such chaos? Chronic drunkenness comes to mind first! Road rage, spousal-child-elder abuse, theft, lying, murders of passion, divorce, grumbling and complaining, smoking, drug miss-use and abuse, are just a few ways this or that individual react destructively because of an innate need to "never-wanna-feel-bad".
No matter how much feel-goods individuals spackle over their feel-bads, the urge to avoid the feel-bads keeps producing pain, fear, anger, misery and suffering. Individuals never get the peace, freedom and happiness they expect and crave.
I believe I have sifted through the rubbish of many lives and discovered this subtle and confusing trait hardwired into our very beings. Its immutable nature can either save us or plague all our lives. How we approach the management of this process will in fact determine our success(s) and failures in our lives.
I have been aware of this enigma trait of mankind for only about three years now. I was first alerted to its significance while studying impulses and compulses and how or when they may ruin our lives. My mentor, David Peck had built his model for over-coming drug and alcohol addictions by moving clients toward effective strategies for managing impulsive behavior. Compulsive behavior required guidance and objective visual imagery to effectively mediate, and in a therapy environment.
After his passing, I have taken up the gauntlet and have carried back the study to a point of origin; the dissatisfaction avoidance urge, supported by neuroscience, is our protector and our enslaver. We become obligated to the feel-goods in the miss-guided notion we are not really dissatisfied, ever. Then, we undergo "crash and burn" devastating failure. Certainly a wake-up call!
What's the way out? I am beginning to piece together a coherent strategy for living a full, happy, free, and peaceful life. At least today I can nudge almost anyone or everyone, encouraging them to suspend their beliefs until they know the ones that are their own beliefs. Next, of their own beliefs, which ones are useful and viable.
This is the first baby step of a new life. Since beliefs are a substitute for re-thinking things over and over, the person starts being aware of so much more going on around them by being less dependent on beliefs for answers. As we become more and more aware, our ability to perceive increases casually replacing our need to intuit and guess at what might work. This is just a beginning. There is plenty of time to add more strategies from everyone as we all become more aware.
Rod
Posted by Dinah on October 23, 2004, at 7:13:18
In reply to (((Dinah))),Larry,Gardenergirl,AuntiMel, posted by 64bowtie on October 23, 2004, at 3:39:48
I'm always glad to hear that someone has found a path that is helpful to them. I'm glad you found a way out of your pain.
Posted by gardenergirl on October 23, 2004, at 19:48:50
In reply to Re: (((Dinah))),Larry,Gardenergirl,AuntiMel » 64bowtie, posted by Dinah on October 23, 2004, at 7:13:18
Nice to hear from you, Rod. Hope you are doing well.
gg
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 24, 2004, at 8:02:37
In reply to (((Dinah))),Larry,Gardenergirl,AuntiMel, posted by 64bowtie on October 23, 2004, at 3:39:48
> Since beliefs are a substitute for re-thinking things over and over, the person starts being aware of so much more going on around them by being less dependent on beliefs for answers.
Beliefs aren't the only interpretations we impose on experience. Attitudes, memories, social mores, expectations, emotional state...
> As we become more and more aware, our ability to perceive increases casually replacing our need to intuit and guess at what might work. This is just a beginning. There is plenty of time to add more strategies from everyone as we all become more aware.
>
> RodI'm with you on the conclusion, that self-observation can become an automatic process, permitting real choice to occur. I call the state of "self-observation in real time" pseudo-objectivity. The delimiter pseudo is because we must, perforce, remain subjective about self.
In any case, and not to pull a pin out of my pocket to burst any balloons floating by, certain chronic illnesses impose heavy limitations on the outcomes of such enlightened thinking, e.g. chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia, post traumatic stress disorder, depression itself. In such cases, the avoidance of hurt or pain can be all consuming. Not from less than optimal thinking processes, but from necessity. As an individual with all three of my examplar disorders, I can assure you that my beliefs do not weigh me down. On the contrary, I must continually reorganize my old beliefs to prevent myself from rendering myself bedridden from failing to accomodate my limitations.
Lar
Posted by 64bowtie on October 24, 2004, at 11:46:25
In reply to Re: (((Dinah))),Larry,Gardenergirl,AuntiMel » 64bowtie, posted by Larry Hoover on October 24, 2004, at 8:02:37
<< > Since beliefs are a substitute for re-thinking things over and over, the person starts being aware of so much more going on around them by being less dependent on beliefs for answers.
><<< Thanks for giving me slack with my mistake! The above thought is messy since the conclusion does not relate to the premise.
A belief is only a tool. I sorta pointed that out. What I left out is that, as you said in your response, old beliefs must be gleened for those that belong to us ourselves. Otherwise we get all twisted up, involved in paralyzing internal-conflictedness.
See how even a useful thought can be muddled by habit? I have a habit of talking in a sort of "short-hand" to my close friends. I sometimes come accross muddled when I feel my own internal pressures to get it right.
Otherwise, I see the potential for internal conflictedness everyday in public as parents wrastle their kids left and right, turning the kids into:
1. Potential mass murderers who revolt against the parents.
2. Potential little-robots, incapable of original thought.
3. Potential mid-aged OCD patients, still living with the parents that contibuted to the confusion which mostly sarted them into their state of OCD in the first place.Phobia means fear disorder (Greek). Before it becomes a fear disorder, thinking must be scrambled, making it also a thinking disorder; a cogniphobia; a fear of even thinking about wrath imposed by not doing the compulsive act. No one will choose OCD without instigation. Instigation begins at the "what-you-gotta-be-thinking-right-now" level. The wrath arrives and can be expected when evidence shows that we aren't thinking what we were expected to be thinking; an obligatory thinking injunction relived over and over and over and over.......
Beliefs do make our lives easier. Suspending (not erasing) all our beliefs allows us the elegance to take time sorting through beliefs for 1. ownership, and 2. usefulness, of any and all beliefs. In order to correct the toughts above, during this time of suspension, we become aware of much more going on around us.
This is a good "empowering" thing. Since our power is our ability to make a difference, our outcomes can now begin to match our (appropriate) dreams, once we really perceive whats going on around us. This is part of the goal of "Outcome Thinking", championed by my mentor David Peck.
I caution that ownership of beliefs is critical. Otherwise we are always subject to the will and capriciousness of the owner of the belief. When the belief conflicts with reality, whats-right-there-in-front-of-us, we then have cause to internalize the conflict or suffer the wrath of the belief's owner, even if only imagined.
So much for freedom. So much for liberty. So much for one-ness with ourselves.
As an adult, I choose not to succumb to such entrapment. I come to the table "enough". And, I am now "enough" to do the job of ferreting out what's best for me.
I am not unique. We all can find "enough", if we work at it, and get help in knowing what to look for.
Rod
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 24, 2004, at 12:31:22
In reply to Re: » Larry », posted by 64bowtie on October 24, 2004, at 11:46:25
> << > Since beliefs are a substitute for re-thinking things over and over, the person starts being aware of so much more going on around them by being less dependent on beliefs for answers.
> >
>
> <<< Thanks for giving me slack with my mistake! The above thought is messy since the conclusion does not relate to the premise.
>
> A belief is only a tool. I sorta pointed that out. What I left out is that, as you said in your response, old beliefs must be gleened for those that belong to us ourselves. Otherwise we get all twisted up, involved in paralyzing internal-conflictedness.Happy to help with the muddled part.
One way I model things is to consider the flow of feelings that arise from some event. Most people operate under the assumption that the event triggers a feeling. Symbolically, that might be represented as E --> F. However, that is not correct. Events are interpreted before the feeling is generated. Symbolically, that becomes E + I --> F.
Becoming conscious of the addition of interpretation to an event is what I mean when I say I seek pseudo-objectivity over self. I want to see and assess what it is that I add to an event, that which colours it, on the way towards a feeling.
Interpretations are many different things, and I mean a very broad category. Memory, experience, teachings, dogma, mom's voice, dad's, expectations, dreams, unresolved emotional trauma, beliefs, social pressure, and on and on.
Seeing those influences in real time permits real choice.
Sometimes, without realizing it, events trigger habitual response, like a tape being played in the brain. The fact is, all tapes can be modified. They can be deleted, partially deleted, or re-recorded altogether. History is not destiny.
When I look at that symbolic representation, E + I --> F, I always focus on the I in the middle. I am/is where the change is possible.
Lar
Posted by gardenergirl on October 24, 2004, at 14:10:31
In reply to Re: » 64bowtie, posted by Larry Hoover on October 24, 2004, at 12:31:22
Hi Larry,
I like how you modelled that, using intepretation rather than thinking. I think the thinking that CBT uses is what always loses me, as I think there is much to how we react to events than thoughts.Mind if I steal your model? :)
gg
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 24, 2004, at 18:38:02
In reply to Re: model » Larry Hoover, posted by gardenergirl on October 24, 2004, at 14:10:31
> Hi Larry,
> I like how you modelled that, using intepretation rather than thinking. I think the thinking that CBT uses is what always loses me, as I think there is much to how we react to events than thoughts.
>
> Mind if I steal your model? :)
>
> ggI would be thrilled if you did.
Lar
Posted by 64bowtie on October 25, 2004, at 1:49:37
In reply to Re: model » gardenergirl, posted by Larry Hoover on October 24, 2004, at 18:38:02
Another approach:
1. An event happens
2. We perceive the event
3. We pass our perception past our belief filter
4. We accept the perception as "old or new"
5. We attach a feeling to the perceptionNote: Attaching a feeling to the perception is an elegant process allowing us to quickly recall the perception based on the feeling attached to the memory.
The neuroscience folk I read have the critical parts of this process all laid out but can't seem to connect meaning or utility to them.
I shared all this a year ago when I first arrived at Babble under my "forbidden" handle. I hope I've done a better job of explaining all my points this time.
Thanx for your response. I can use your info. I hope you can use mine.
Rod
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 25, 2004, at 11:13:37
In reply to Re: model » Larry Hoover, posted by gardenergirl on October 24, 2004, at 14:10:31
> Hi Larry,
> I like how you modelled that, using intepretation rather than thinking. I think the thinking that CBT uses is what always loses me, as I think there is much to how we react to events than thoughts.
>
> Mind if I steal your model? :)
>
> ggUpon further reflection, I realize that the basic form of my model is in fact a borrowed one. I have no idea just how, or to what extent, I have modified it.
There is another technique I find useful, also taught to me, but one which I do not find in the literature. If I am not mistaken about what it is called, it's a narrative dialogue.
At the outset, I'd like to say that this is not about hearing voices, or multiple personalities, it's about recognizing the various sources of the internal dialogues that we all have.
The idea is to picture yourself as the chairperson at a meeting. At the table are a variety of spokespersons, of all sorts. In my case, there is the voice of depression (a very distorted voice it is). There's the voice of addiction (temptation without adverse effects....as if). There's my mom (sort of, but the things she said as I grew up still echo). My dad. The voice of social norms. The inner critic. (Why can't I just learn from mistakes, without reliving the pain and embarassment?) The voice of pure logic. The intuitive voice. The voice of my spirit. (This one never raises its voice above a whisper, so it must be quiet at the table, for it to be heard.) And so on. You may have a very different ensemble.
As chairperson, though, you have some control over which voice "has the floor". Some control, and this improves with practise. I now recognize that depression does not speak for the real me. The inner critic is really a hurtful sort. Etc. It helps me to separate out the voices which are helping me to adapt, to cope, from those that keep me mired in the mud, or down in the hole.
I've found this approach to be very useful. I try to shout down the inner critic within my own head, but occasionally I vocalize, perhaps out of frustration. I do recall an incident at a shopping mall, near Christmas (so it was packed packed packed), and I vocalized "Shut up!" really loud, speaking to my inner critic. Well, I was walking alone at the time.....it was like Moses parting the Red Sea. Heh.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 25, 2004, at 11:14:44
In reply to Another look... » Larry Hoover, posted by 64bowtie on October 25, 2004, at 1:49:37
> Another approach:
>
> 1. An event happens
> 2. We perceive the event
> 3. We pass our perception past our belief filter
> 4. We accept the perception as "old or new"
> 5. We attach a feeling to the perception
>
> Note: Attaching a feeling to the perception is an elegant process allowing us to quickly recall the perception based on the feeling attached to the memory.
>
> The neuroscience folk I read have the critical parts of this process all laid out but can't seem to connect meaning or utility to them.
>
> I shared all this a year ago when I first arrived at Babble under my "forbidden" handle. I hope I've done a better job of explaining all my points this time.
>
> Thanx for your response. I can use your info. I hope you can use mine.
>
> RodOf course. Discourse sharpens your own comprehension of your own thoughts, as well as exposing you to new ones.
Lar
Posted by gardenergirl on October 25, 2004, at 15:05:18
In reply to Re: model » gardenergirl, posted by Larry Hoover on October 25, 2004, at 11:13:37
Hi Lar,
Thanks for further info. I happen to like models of internal roles or parts. Recently I read model called Internal Systems Therapy that was developed for women with bulimia, but is also now being applied to depression. I think the author is someone named Stuart, but I don't have my notes handy.The model talks of a "leader" similar to your "chairman" who is called the Self. This leader has lost control of the group, which includes an "exile" or the emotional part, the "manager" (I think that's what this part is called) which is the internalized critic, and the "firefighter" which is the source of the problem behavior, as in putting out potential "emotional fires" via bingeing and purging. The process in this model involves dialogs betweent the various parts, usually in dyads. Once everyone gets on the same page, it is up to the leader/Self to regain credibility and trust of the others in order to resume the leadership role.
I used this idea with one client using a Gestalt type two chair dialog. It was very powerful. My current supervisor prefers written work or role play (hate role play!), but I really prefer the two chair for the feel it in your gut experiential piece. Still negotiating that in supervision. :)
Regards,
gg
Posted by Dinah on October 25, 2004, at 16:38:22
In reply to Re: model » Larry Hoover, posted by gardenergirl on October 25, 2004, at 15:05:18
Why does your supervisor have a problem with it? Just for the record, I don't like role play OR two chair. :) I'm a lousy actor and am too self conscious to do any of that. Come to think of it, writing exercises never worked for that type of thing either...
But I just wondered why it made a difference to her?
Posted by gardenergirl on October 25, 2004, at 16:54:02
In reply to Re: model » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on October 25, 2004, at 16:38:22
Good question. I can't figure it out, other than perhaps his CBT background. It's all talk and homework. Perhaps he is concerned about splitting of the ego? I just didn't get a good sense of it during the initial conversation, and my explanation of why I liked it so much was not clear to him either. He became concerned when I told him how much I valued my own gut and how I need stuff to resonate with me emotionally as well as intellecutally. I think he thought I was saying that everything I do in therapy comes from my gut and I don't have conscious knowledge of what I do when. Yikes! I think we need to talk more about it.
Two chair is a very self-conscious intervention. It takes some time for the person to settle into it, and I've learned it also takes some patience on the T's part to not "rescue" the client. When I told my sup. that last year all the clients who gave me feedback commented on how powerful this technique was to them even though they all hated it, he made some comment like "well, your 'magical' technique might be good, but..." and I forget the rest, cause I got stuck on his use of the word "magical".
Still working out the supervisory relationship! :)
gg
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.