Other people have free will, and often think and act in ways that aren't to your liking. All of your insistence that they must fall in line with your desires and wishes will not produce this result. The opposite is more often true. Your attempts to coerce and manipulate people with angry demands most often will alienate and polarize them and make them much less likely to want to please you. This is because other 144
FEELING GOOD
people don't like being controlled or dominated any more than you do. Your anger will simply limit the creative possibilities for problem solving.
The perception of unfairness or injustice is the ultimate cause of most, if not all, anger. In fact, we could define anger as the emotion which corresponds in a one-to-one manner to your belief that you are being treated unfairly.
Now we come to a truth you may see either as a bitter pill or an enlightening revelation. There is no such thing as a universally accepted concept of fairness and justice. There is an undeniable relativity of fairness, just as Einstein showed the relativity of time and space. Einstein postulated—and it has since been experimentally validated—there is no "absolute time" that is standard throughout the universe. Time can appear to "speed up" and "slow down," and is relative to the frame of reference of the observer. Similarly, "absolute fairness" does not exist. "Fairness" is relative to the observer, and what is fair to one person can appear quite unfair to another. Even social rules and moral strictures which are accepted within one culture can vary substantially in another.
You can protest that this is not the case and insist that your own personal moral system is universal, but it just ain't so!
Here's proof: When a lion devours a sheep, is this unfair?
From the point of view of the sheep, it is unfair; he's being viciously and intentionally murdered with no provocation.
From the point of view of the lion, it is fair. He's hungry, and this is the daily bread he feels entitled to. Who is "
right"? There is no ultimate or universal answer to this question because there's no "absolute fairness" floating around to resolve the issue. In fact, fairness is simply a perceptual interpretation, an abstraction, a self-created concept. How about when you eat a hamburger? Is this "unfair"? To you, it's not.
From the point of view of the cow, it certainly is (or was)!
Who's "right"? There is no ultimate "true" answer.
In spite of the fact that "absolute fairness" does not exist, personal and social moral codes are important and useful. I am not recommending anarchy. I am saying that moral statements and judgments about fairness are stipulations, not objective facts. Social moral systems, such as the Ten Commandments, are essentially sets of rules that groups decide to abide by. One basis for such systems is the en-
145
David D. Burns, M.D.
lightened self-interest of each member of the group. If you fail to act in a manner that takes into account the feelings and interests of others you are likely to end up less happy because sooner or later they will retaliate when they notice you are taking advantage of them.
A system which defines "fairness" varies in its generality depending on how many people accept it. When a rule of behavior is unique to one person, other people may see it as ec-centric. An example of this would be my patient who washes her hands ritualistically over fifty times a day to "set things right" and to avoid extreme feelings of guilt and anxiety.
When a rule is nearly universally accepted it becomes part of a general moral code and may become a part of the body of law. The prohibition against murder is an example.
Nevertheless, no amount of general acceptance can make such systems "absolute" or "ultimately valid" for everyone under all circumstances.
Much everyday anger results when we confuse our own personal wants with general moral codes. When you get mad at someone and you claim that they are acting "unfairly,"
more often than not what is really going on is that they are acting "fairly" relative to a set of standards and a frame of reference that differs from yours. Your assumption that they are "being unfair" implies that your way of looking at things is universally accepted. For this to be the case, everyone would have to be the same. But we aren't. We all think differently. When you overlook this and blame the other person for being "unfair" you are unnecessarily polarizing the interaction because the other person will feel insulted and defensive.
Then the two of you will argue fruitlessly about who is "
right." The whole dispute is based on the illusion of "absolute fairness."
Because of your relativity of fairness, there is a logical fallacy that is inherent in your anger. Although you feel convinced the other guy is acting unfairly, you must realize he is only acting unfairly relative to your value system. But he is operating from his value system, not yours. More often than not, his objectionable action will seem quite fair and reasonable to him. Therefore, from his point of view—which is his only possible basis for action—what he does is "fair." Do you want people to act fairly? Then you should want him to act 146
FEELING GOOD
as he does even though you dislike what he does, since he is acting fairly within his system! You can work to try to convince him to change his attitudes and ultimately modify his standards and his actions, and in the meantime you can take steps to make certain you won't suffer as a result of what he does. But when you tell yourself, "He's acting unfairly," you are fooling yourself and you are chasing a mirage!
Does this mean that all anger is inappropriate and that the concepts of "fairness" and "morality" are useless because they are relative? Some popular writers do give this impression. Dr. Wayne Dyer writes:
We are conditioned to look for justice in life and when it doesn't appear, we tend to feel anger, anxiety or frustration. Actually, it would be equally productive to search for the fountain of youth, or some such myth.
Justice does not exist. It never has, and it never will.
The world is simply not put together that way. Robins eat worms. That's not fair to the worms. . . . You have only to look at nature to realize there is no justice in the world. Tornadoes, floods, tidal waves, droughts are all unfair.*
This position represents the opposite extreme, and is an example of all-or-nothing thinking. It's like saying—throw your watches and clocks away because Einstein showed that absolute time does not exist. The concepts of time and fairness are socially useful even though they do not exist in an absolute sense.
In addition to this contention that the concept of fairness is an illusion, Dr. Dyer seems to suggest that anger is useless: You may accept anger as a part of your life, but do you realize it serves no utilitarian purpose? . . . You do not have to possess it, and it serves no purpose that has anything to do with being a happy, fulfilled person. . . .
The irony of anger is that it never works in changing others.. • •t
* Dr. Wayne W. Dyer, Your Erroneous Zones (New York: Avon Books, 1977), p. 173.
t Ibid., pp. 218-220.
147
David D. Burns, M.D.
Again, his arguments seem to be based on cognitive distortion. To say anger serves no purpose is just more all-or-nothing thinking, and to say it never works is an overgeneralization. Actually, anger can be adaptive and productive in certain situations. So the real question is not "Should I or should I not feel anger?" but rather "Where will I draw the line?"
The following two guidelines will help you to determine when your anger is productive and when it is not. These two criteria can help you synthesize what you are learning and to evolve a meaningful personal philosophy about anger: 1. Is my anger directed toward someone who has knowingly, intentionally, and unnecessarily acted in a hurtful manner?
2. Is my anger useful? Does it help me achieve a desired goal or does it simply defeat me?
Example: you are playing basketball, and a fellow on the other team elbows you in the stomach intentionally so as to upset you and get you off your game. You may be able to cha
nnel your anger productively so you will play harder and win. So far your anger is adaptive.* Once the game is over, you may no longer want that anger. Now it's maladaptive.*
Suppose your three-year-old son runs mindlessly into the street and risks his life. In this case he is not intentionally inflicting harm. Nevertheless, the angry mode in which you express yourself may be adaptive. The emotional arousal in your voice conveys a message of alarm and importance that might not come across if you were to deal with him in a calm, totally objective manner. In both these examples, you chose to be angry, and the magnitude and expression of the emotion were under your control. The adaptive and positive effetcs of your anger differentiate it from hostility, which is impulsive and uncontrolled and leads to aggression.
Suppose you are enraged about some senseless violence you read about in the paper. Here the act seems clearly hurtful and immoral. Nevertheless, your anger may not be adaptive if—as is usually the case—there is nothing you plan to do
* Adaptive means useful and self-enhancing; maladaptive means useless and self-destructive.
148
FEELING GOOD
about it. If, in contrast, you choose to help the victims or begin a campaign to fight crime in some way, your anger might again be adaptive.
Keeping these two criteria in mind, let me give you a series of methods you can use to reduce your anger in those situations where it is not in your best interest.
Develop the Desire. Anger can be the most difficult emotion to modify, because when you get mad you will be like a furious bulldog, and persuading you to stop sinking your teeth into the other person's leg can be extremely tough. You won't really want to rid yourself of those feelings because you will be consumed by the desire for revenge. After all, because anger is caused by what you perceive to be unfair, it is a moral emotion, and you will be extremely hesitant to let go of that righteous feeling. You will have the nearly irresistible urge to defend and justify your anger with religious zeal. Overcoming this will require an act of great willpower. So why bother?
The first step: Use the double-column technique to make a list of the advantages and disadvantages of feeling angry and acting in a retaliatory manner. Consider both the short- and long-term consequences of your anger. Then review the list and ask yourself which are greater, the costs or the benefits?
This will help you determine if your resentment is really in your best self-interest. Since most of us ultimately want what's best for us, this can pave the way for a more peaceful and productive attitude.
Here's how it works. Sue is a thirty-one-year-old woman with two daughters from a previous marriage. Her husband, John, is a hard-working lawyer with one teenage daughter from his prior marriage. Because John's time is very limited, Sue often feels deprived and resentful. She told me she felt he wasn't giving her a fair shake in the marriage because he was not giving her enough of his time and attention. She listed the advantages and disadvantages of her irritablity in Figure 7-2.
She also made a list of the positive consequences that might result from eliminating her anger: (1) People will like me better. They will want to be near me; (2) I will be more predictable; (3) I will be in better control of my emotions; (4) I will be more relaxed; (5) I will be more comfortable 149
Figure 7-2. The Anger Cost-Benefit Analysis.
Advantages of My Anger
Disadvantages of My Anger
1. It feels good.
1. I will be souring my relationship
with John even more.
2. John will understand that I
2. He will want to reject me.
strongly disapprove of him.
3. I have the right to blow my stack 3. I will often feel guilty and down on myself aftcr I blow my stack.
if I want to.
He will probably retaliate against
4. He'll know I'm not a doormat. 4. me and get angry right back, since he doesn't like being taken advantage of either.
3. I'll show him I won't stand for
5. My anger inhibits both of us
being taken advantage of.
from correcting the problem that
caused the anger in the first
place. It prevents resolution and
sidetracks us from dealing with
the issues.
4. Even though I don't get what I
want, I can at least have the sat-
6. One minute I'm up, one minute I'
m down. My irritability makes
isfaction of getting revenge. I can
John and the people around me
make him squirm and feel hurt
never know what to expect. I get
like I do. Then he'll have to shape
labeled as moody and cranky and
up.
spoiled and immature. They see
me as a childish brat.
7. I might make neurotics out of my
kids. As they grow up, they may
resent my explosions and see me
as someone to stay away from
rather than to go to for help.
8. John may leave me if he gets
enough of my nagging and bitch-
ing.
9. The unpleasant feelings I create
make me feel miserable. Life be-
comes a sour and bitter experience, and I miss out on the joy
and creativity I used to prize so
highly.
150
FEELING GOOD
with myself; (6) I will be viewed as a positive, nonjudgmen-tal, practical person; (7) I will behave more often as an adult than as a child who has to get what it wants; (8) I will influence people more effectively, and I'll get more of what I want through assertive, calm, rational negotiation than through tantrums and demands; and (9) my kids, husband, and parents will respect me more. As a result of this assessment, Sue told me she was convinced that the price of her anger substantially exceeded the benefits.
It is crucial that you perform this same type of analysis as a first step in coping with your anger. After you list the advantages and disadvantages of your anger, give yourself the same test. Mk yourself, if the upsetting situation that provokes me doesn't change immediately, would I be willing to cope with it instead of getting angry? If you can answer yes, then you are clearly motivated to change. You will probably succeed in gaining greater inner peace and self-esteem, and you will increase your effectiveness in life. This choice is up to you.
Cool Those Hot Thoughts. Once you've decided to cool down, an invaluable method that can help you is to write down the various "hot thoughts" that are going through your mind when you are upset. Then substitute less upsetting, more objective "cool thoughts," using the double-column method (Figure 7-3). Listen for those "hot thoughts" with your "third ear" so as to time in to the antagonistic statements that go through your head. Record this private dialogue without any censorship. I'm sure you'll notice all kinds of highly colorful language and vengeful fantasies—write them all down. Then substitute "cool thoughts" that are more objective and less inflammatory. This will help you feel less aroused and overwhelmed.
Sue used this technique to deal with the frustration she felt when John's daughter, Sandy, acted manipulative and wrapped John around her finger. Sue kept telling him to be more assertive with Sandy and less of a soft touch, but he often reacted negatively to her suggestions. He felt Sue was nagging and making demands to get her way. This made him want to spend even less time with her, which contributed to a vicious cycle.
Sue wrote down the "hot thoughts" that made her feel jeal-151
David D. Burns, M.D.
ous and guilty (see Figure 7-3). As she substituted "cool thoughts," she felt better, and this served as an antidote to her urge to try to control John. Although she still felt he was wrong in letting Sandy manipulate him, she decided he had the "right" to be "wrong." Consequently, Sue pushed Figure 7-3. Sue wrote down her "Hot Thoughts" when her husband acted like a soft to
uch in response to his teenage daughter's selfish manipulations. When she substituted less upsetting "Cool Thoughts," her jealousy and resentment diminished.
Hot Thoughts
Cool Thoughts
1. How dare he not listen to me!
1.
Easi
ly
He'
not
bl
gd
to
everything my way. Besides he is
listening, but he's being defensive
because I'm acting so pushy.
2. Sandy lies. She says she's work- 2. It's her nature to lie and to be ing, but she's not. Then she ex-lazy and to use people when it
pects John's help.
comes to work in school. She
hates work. That's her problem.
3. John doesn't have much free time 3. So what. I like being alone. I'm and if he spends it helping her,
capable of taking care of my
I will have to be alone and take
kids by myself. I'm not helpless.
care of my kids by myself.
I can do it. Maybe he'll want to
be with me more if I learn not to get angry all the time.
4. Sandy's taking time away from 4. That's true. But I'm a big girl. I m e .
c a n t o l e r a t e s o m e t i m e a l o n e . I wouldn't be so upset if he were
working with my kids.
5. John's a schmuck. Sandy uses 5. He's a big boy. If he wants to people.
help her he can. Stay out of it.
It's not my business.
6. I can't stand it!
6. Ican. It's only temporary. rve
stood worse.
7. I'm a baby brat. I deserve to feel 7. I'm entitled to be immature at guilty,
times. I'm not perfect and I don't
need to be. It's not necessary to
feel guilty. This won't help.
152
FEELING GOOD
John less, and he began to feel less pressured. Their relationship improved and ripened in a climate of mutual freedom and respect. Simply talking back to her "hot thoughts" was, of course, not the only ingredient that led to a successful second marriage for Sue and John. but it was a necessary and gigantic first step without which both of them could have easily ended up stalemated again!
The Feeling Good Handbook Page 17