The Feeling Good Handbook
Page 15
DAVID: I'm terribly sorry I seem incompetent to you. It must be quite disturbing to you. You seem to find it difficult to trust me, and you are genuinely skeptical about whether we can work together effectively. You're absolutely right—we can't work together successfully unless we have a sense of mutual respect and teamwork.
By this time (or sooner) the angry critic will usually lose steam. Because I do not fight back but instead find a way to agree with my opponent, the person quickly seems to run out of ammunition, having been successfully disarmed. You might think of this as winning by avoiding battle. As the critic begins to calm down, he or she will be in a better mood to communicate.
Once I have demonstrated these first two steps to a patient in my office, I usually propose we reverse roles to give the patient the chance to master the method. Let's do this. I will criticize and attack you, and you will practice the empathy and make up your own answers. Then see how closely they are accurate or nonsensical. To make the following dialogue a more useful exercise, cover up the responses called "You" and make up your own answers. Then see how closely they correspond with what I have written. Remember to ask questions using the empathy method and find valid ways to agree with me using the disarming technique.
DAVID (playing the role of angry critic): You're not here to get better. You're just looking for sympathy.
YOU (playing the role of the one under attack): What gives you the impression I'm just looking for sympathy?
DAVID: You don't do anything to help yourself between sessions. All you want to do is come here and complain.
YOU: It's true that I haven't been doing some of the writ-126
FEELING GOOD
ten homework you suggested. Do you feel I shouldn't complain during sessions?
DAVID: You can do whatever you want. Just admit you don't give a damn.
You: You mean you think I don't want to get better, or what?
DAVID: You're no good! You're just a piece of garbage!
YOU: I've been feeling that way for years! Do you have some ideas about what I can do to feel differently?
DAVID: I give up. You win.
YOU: You're right. I did win!
I strongly suggest you practice this with a! friend. The role-playing format will help you master the necessary skills needed when a real situation arises. If there is no one you feel comfortable with who could role-play with you effectively, a good alternative would be to write out imaginary dialogues between you and a hostile critic, similar to the ones you've been reading. After each harangue write down how you might answer using the empathy and disarming technique. It may seem difficult at first, but I think you'll catch on quite readily. It's really quite easy once you get the gist of it. You will notice you have a profound, almost irresistible tendency to defend yourself when you are unjustly accused.
This is a MAJOR mistake! If you give in to this tendency, you will find that the intensity of your opponent's attack increases! You will paradoxically be adding bullets to that person's arsenal every time you defend yourself. For example, you be the critic again, and this time I'll defend myself against your absurd accusations. You'll see how quickly our interaction will escalate to full-scale warfare.
you (in the role of critic again) : Dr. Burns, you don't care about your patients.
DAVID (responding in a defensive manner) : That's untrue and unfair. You don't know what you're talking about!
My patients respect all the hard work I put in.
you: Well, here's one who doesn't! Good-bye! (You exit, having decided to fire me. My defensiveness leads to a total loss.)
127
David D. Burns, M.D.
In contrast, if I respond with empathy and disarm your hostility, more often than not you will feel I am listening to you and respecting you. As a result you lose your ardor to do battle and quiet down. This paves the way for step three—
feedback and negotiation.
You may find initially that in spite of your determination to apply these techniques, when a real situation arises in which you are criticized, you will be caught up by your emotions and your old behavior patterns. You may find yourself sulking, arguing, defending yourself vehemently, etc. This is understandable. You're not expected to learn it all overnight, and you don't have to win every battle. It is important, however, to analyze your mistakes afterward so that you can review how you might have handled the situation differently along the lines suggested. It can be immensely helpful to find a friend to role-play the difficult situation with you afterward so that you can practice a variety of responses until you have mastered an approach you are comfortable with.
Step Three—Feedback and Negotiation. Once you have listened to your critic, using the empathy method, and disarmed him by finding some way to agree with him, you will then be in a position to explain your position and emotions tactfully but assertively, and to negotiate any real differences.
Let's assume that the critic is just plain wrong. How can you express this in a nondestructive manner? This is simple: You can express your point of view objectively with an acknowledgment you might be wrong. Make the conflict one based on fact rather than personality or pride. Avoid direct-ing destructive labels at your critic. Remember, his error does not make him stupid, worthless, or inferior.
For example, a patient recently claimed that I sent a bill for a session for which she had already paid. She assaulted me with "Why don't you get your bookkeeping straight!"
Knowing she was in error, I responded, "My records may indeed be wrong. I seem to recall that you forgot your check-book that day, but I might be confused on this point. I hope you'll allow for the possibility that you or I will make errors at times. Then we can be more relaxed with each other. Why not see if you have a canceled check? That way we can find out the truth and make appropriate adjustments."
In this case my nonpolarizing response allowed her to save 128
FEELING GOOD
face and avoided a confrontation in which her self-respect was at risk. Although it turned out she was wrong, she later expressed relief that I acknowledged I do make mistakes.
This helped her feel better about me, as she was afraid I would be as perfectionistic and demanding with her as she was with herself.
Sometimes you and the critic will differ not on a matter of fact but of taste. Once again, you will be a winner if you present your point of view with diplomacy. For example, I have found that no matter how I dress, some patients respond favorably and some negatively. I feel most comfortable in a suit and tie, or in a sports coat and tie. Suppose a patient criticizes me because my clothes are too formal and this is ir-itating because it makes me appear to be part of the "Es-tablishment." After eliciting further specific information about other things this person might dislike about me, I could then respond, "I can certainly agree with you that suits are a bit formal. You would be more comfortable with me if I dressed more casually. I'm sure you'll understand that after dressing in a variety of ways, I have found that a nice suit or sports coat is most acceptable to the majority of the people I work with, and that's why I've decided to stick with this style of dressing. I'm hopeful you won't let this interfere with our continued work together."
You have a number of options when you negotiate with the critic. If he or she continues to harangue you, making the same point again and again, you can simply repeat your assertive response politely but firmly over and over until the person tires out. For example, if my critic continued to insist I stop wearing suits, I might continue to say each time, "I understand your point entirely, and there is some truth to it.
Nevertheless, I've decided to stick with more formal attire at this time."
Sometimes the solution will be in between. In this case negotiation and compromise are indicated. You may have to settle for part of what you want. But if you have conscien-tiously applied the empathy and disarming techniques first, you will probably get more of what you want.
In many cases you will be just plain wr
ong, and the critic will be right. In such a situation your critic's respect for you will probably increase by an orbital jump if you assertively 129
David D. Burns, M.D.
agree with the criticism, thank the person for providing you with the information, and apologize for any hurt you might have caused. It sounds like old-fashioned common sense (and it is), but it can be amazingly effective.
By now you may be saying, "But don't I have a right to defend myself when someone criticizes me? Why should I always have to empathize with the other person? After all, he may be the ninny, not I. Isn't it human just to get angry and blow your stack? Why should I always have to smooth things out?"
Well, there is considerable truth in what you say. You do have the right to defend yourself vigorously from criticism and to get angry at anyone you choose whenever you like.
And you are right on target when you point out that it is often your critic, and not you, whose thinking is fouled up.
And there is more than a grain of truth behind the slogan "
Better mad than sad." After all, if you're going to conclude that someone is "no damn good," why not let it be the other fellow? And furthermore, sometimes it does feel so much better to be mad at the other person.
Many psychotherapists would agree with you on this point.
Freud felt that depression was "anger turned inward." In other words he believed depressed individuals direct their rage against themselves. In keeping with this view, many therapists urge their patients to get in touch with their anger and to express it more frequently to others. They might even say that some of the methods described in this section amount to a repressive cop-out.
This is a false issue. The crucial point is not whether or not you express your feelings, but the manner in which you do it. If your message is "I'm angry because you're criticizing me and you're no damn good," you will poison your relationship with that person. If you defend yourself from negative feedback in a defensive and vengeful way, you will reduce the prospect for productive interaction in the future. Thus, while your angry outburst momentarily feels good, you may defeat yourself in the long run by burning your bridges. You have polarized the situation prematurely and unnecessarily, and eliminated your chance to learn what the critic was trying to convey. And what is worse, you may experience a de-130
FEELING GOOD
pressive backlash and punish yourself inordinately for your burst of temper.
Antiheckler Technique. A specialized application of the techniques discussed in this chapter might be particularly helpful for those of you who are involved in lecturing or teaching. I developed the "antiheckler technique" when I began lecturing to university and professional groups on current depression research. Although my lectures are usually well received, I occasionally find there is a single heckler in the audience. The heckler's comments usually have several characteristics: (1) They are intensely critical, but seem inaccurate or irrelevant to the material presented; (2) they often come from a person who is not well accepted or regarded among his or her local peers; and (3) they are expressed in a haranguing, abusive style.
I therefore had to develop an antiheckler technique which I could use to silence such a person in an inoffensive manner so that the rest of the audience could have an equal opportunity to ask questions. I find that the following method is highly effective: (1) I immediately thank the person for his or her comments; (2) acknowledge that the points brought up are indeed important; and (3) I emphasize that there is a need for more knowledge about the points raised, and I encourage my critic to pursue meaningful research and investigation of the topic. Finally, I invite the heckler to share his or her views with me further after the close of the session.
Although no verbal technique is guaranteed to bring a particular result, I have rarely failed to achieve a favorable effect when using this upbeat approach. In fact, these heckling individuals have frequently approached me after the lecture to compliment and thank me for my kind comments. It is sometimes the heckler who turns out to be most demonstrative and appreciative of my lecture!
Summary. The various cognitive and verbal principles for coping with criticism are summarized in the accompanying diagram (see Figure 6-2, page 132). As a general rule, when someone insults you, you will immediately go down one of three pathways—the sad route, the mad route, or the glad route. Whichever option you choose will be a total experience, and will involve your thinking, your feelings, your behavior, and even the way your body functions.
131
Iboss says, "You've been doing sloppy I
work and goofing off lately."
"1'm No Good" Response
"You're No Good" Response
Self-Esteem Response
Thought:
Thought:
Thought:
"I'm always goofing
"That stupid SOB is
"Here's a chance to
up. I'm worthless."
on my back again!"
learn something."
Behavior:
Behavior:
Feeling:
Behavior:
Isolation,
Obscenities and
You inquire,
Angry,
ti
frustrated
moping,
accusations are
"What ways have
N
giving up.
hurled.
I been goofing
, off?"
OUTCOME: You lie in bed, avoid
OUTCOME: You are fired on the
OUTCOME: The problem is defined,
work, and put yourself down. You sink
spot. You fume for days, constantly
and a solution is proposed. You
deeper into the quicksand of depres-
telling yourself the world is no damn
experience self-esteem and mood
sion. You are put on probation at work.
good. You learned nothing and
elevation. Your boss is satisfied with
poisoned your relationship with your
how you handled his complaint.
boss.
Figure 6-2. The three ways that you might react to criticism. Depending on how you think about the situation, you will feel sad, mad, or glad. Your behavior and the outcome will also be greatly influenced by your mental set FEELING GOOD
Most people with a tendency to depression choose the sad route. You automatically conclude the critic is right. Without any systematic investigation, you jump to the conclusion that you were in the wrong and made a mistake. You then magnify the importance of the criticism with a series of thinking errors. You might overgeneralize and wrongly conclude that you whole life consists of nothing but a string of errors. Or you might label yourself a "total goof-up." And because of your perfectionistic expectation that you are supposed to be flawless, you will probably feel convinced that your (
presumed) error indicates you are worthless. As a result of these mental errors, you will experience depression and a loss of self-esteem. Your verbal responses will be ineffectual and passive, characterized by avoidance and withdrawal.
In contrast, you may choose the mad route. You will defend yourself from the horrors of being imperfect by trying to convince the critic that he or she is a monster. You will stubbornly refuse to admit any error because according to your perfectionistic standards, this would be tantamount to admitting you are a worthless worm. So you hurl accusations back on the assumption that the best defense is a good of-fense. Your heart beats rapidly, and hormones pour into your bloodstream as you prepare for battle. Every muscle tightens and your jaws are clenched. You may feel a temporary exhilaration as you tell your critic off in self-righteous indignation.
You'll show him what a no-good piece of crap he is! Unfortunately, he doesn't agree, and in the long run your outburst is self-defeating because you've poisoned the relationship.
The third option requires that you either hav
e self-esteem or at least act as if you did. It is based on the premise that you are a worthwhile human being and have no need to be perfect. When you are criticized, your initial response is investigative. Does the criticism contain a grain of truth? Just what did you do that was objectionable? Did you in fact goof up?Having defined the problem by asking a series of nonjudg-mental questions, you are in a position to propose a solution.
If a compromise is indicated, you can negotiate. If you were clearly in the wrong, you can admit it. If the critic was mistaken, you can point this out in a tactful manner. But 133
David D. Burns, M.D.
whether your behavior was right or wrong, you will know that you are right as a human being, because you have finally perceived that your self-esteem was never at issue in the first place.
134
CHAPTER 7
Feeling Angry? What's Your IQ
What's your IQ? I'm not interested in knowing how smart you are because your intelligence has little, if anything, to do with your capacity for happiness. What I want to know is what your Irritability Quotient is. This refers to the amount of anger and annoyance you tend to absorb and harbor in your daily life. If you have a particularly high IQ, it puts you at a great disadvantage because you overreact to frustrations and disappointments by creating feelings of resentment that blacken your disposition and make your life a joyless hassle.
Here's how to measure your IQ. Read the list of twenty-five potentially upsetting situations described below. In the space provided after each incident, estimate the degree it would ordinarily anger or provoke you, using this simple rat-.
ing scale:
0—You would feel very little or no annoyance.
1—You would feel a little irritated.
2—You would feel moderately upset.
3—You would feel quite angry.
4—You would feel very angry.
Mark your answer after each question as in this example: You are driving to pick up a friend at the airport, and you are forced to wait for a long freight train.
2
The individual who answered this question estimated his reaction as a two because he would feel moderately irritated, but this would quickly pass as soon as the train was gone. As you describe how you would ordinarily react to each of the following provocations, make your best general estimate even 135