Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy

by Burns, David D.

  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 checkbook 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 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 iritating because it makes me appear to be part of the ‘‘Establishment.” 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 conscientiously applied the empathy and disarming techniques first, you will probably get more of what you want.

  In many cases you will be just plain wrong, 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 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 depressive 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 146). 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.

  * * *

  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.

  * * *

  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 your 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, characte
rized 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 offense. 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 have 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 non-judgmental 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 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.

  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 rating 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 though many potentially important details are omitted (such as what kind of day you were having, who was involved in the situation, etc.).

  Traditionally psychotherapists (and the general public) have conceptualized two primary ways to deal with anger: (a) anger turned “inward”; or (b) anger turned “outward.” The former solution is felt to be the “sick” one—you internalize your aggression and absorb resentment like a sponge. Ultimately it corrodes you and leads to, guilt and depression. Early psychoanalysts such as Freud felt that internalized anger was the cause of depression. Unfortunately, there is no convincing evidence in support of this notion.

  The second solution is said to be the “healthy” one—you express your anger, and as you ventilate your feelings, you presumably feel better. The problem with this simplistic approach is that it doesn’t work very well. If you go around ventilating all your anger, people will soon regard you as loony. And at the same time you aren’t learning how to deal with people in society without getting angry.

  The cognitive solution transcends both of these. You have a third option: Stop creating your anger. You don’t have to choose between holding it in or letting it out because it won’t exist.

  In this chapter I provide guidelines to help you assess the pros and cons of experiencing anger in a variety of situations so you can decide when anger is and isn’t in your best self-interest. If you choose, you can develop control over your feelings; you will gradually cease to be plagued by excessive irritability and frustration that sour your life for no good reason.

  Just Who Is Making You Angry?

  “People!

  Shit!

  I’m fed up with them!

  I need a vacation from people.”

  The woman who recorded this thought at 2:00 A.M. couldn’t sleep. How could the dogs and noisy neighbors in her apartment building be so thoughtless? Like her, I’ll bet you’re convinced it’s other people’s stupid, self-centered actions that make you angry.

  It’s natural to believe that external events upset you. When you’re mad at someone, you automatically make them the cause of all your bad feelings. You say, “You’re annoying me! You’re getting on my nerves.” When you think like this, you’re actually fooling yourself because other people really cannot make you angry. Yes—you heard me right. A pushy teenager might crowd in front of you in line at the movie theater. A con artist might sell you a fake ancient coin at an antique shop. A “friend” might screw you out of your share of a profitable business deal. Your boyfriend might always show up late for dates in spite of his knowing how important promptness is to you. No matter how outrageous or unfair others might appear to you, they do not, never did, and never will upset you. The bitter truth is that you’re the one who’s creating every last ounce of the outrage you experience.

  Does that sound like heresy or stupidity to you? If you think I’m contradicting the obvious, you may feel like burning this book or throwing it down in disgust. If so, I dare you to read on, because—

  Anger, like all emotions, is created by your cognitions. The relationship between your thoughts and your anger is shown in Figure 7–1. As you will note, before you can feel irritated by any event you must first become aware of what is occurring and come to your own interpretation of it. Your feelings result from the meaning you give to the event, not from the event itself.

  * * *

  Figure 7–1. It is not negative events but your perceptions and thoughts about these events that create your emotional response.

  * * *

  For example, suppose that after a hectic day you put your two-year-old child to sleep in his crib for the night. You close his bedroom door and sit down to relax and watch television. Twenty minutes later he suddenly opens the door to his room and walks out giggling. You might react to this in a variety of ways, depending on the meaning you attach to it. If you feel irritated, you’re probably thinking, “Damn it! He’s always a bother. Why can’t he stay in bed and behave like he should? He never gives me a minute’s rest!” On the other hand, you could be delighted to see him pop out of his room because you’re thinking, “Great! He just crawled out of his crib on his own for the first time. He’s growing up and getting more independent.” The event is the same in both cases. Your emotional reaction is determined entirely by the way you are thinking about the situation.

  I’ll bet I know what you’re thinking now: “That example with the baby is not applicable. When I get angry there’s a justifiable provocation. There’s plenty of genuine unfairness and cruelty in this world. There’s no valid way I can think about all the crap I have to put up with each day without getting uptight. Do you want to perform a lobotomy and turn me into an unfeeling zombie? NO THANKS!”

  You are certainly right that plenty of genuinely negative events do go on every day, but your feelings about them are still created by the interpretations you place on th
em. Take a careful look at these interpretations because anger can be a two-edged sword. The consequences of an impulsive outburst will frequently defeat you in the long run. Even if you are being genuinely wronged, it may not be to your advantage to feel angry about it. The pain and suffering you inflict on yourself by feeling outraged may far exceed the impact of the original insult. As a woman who runs a restaurant put it, “Sure—I have the right to fly off the handle. The other day I realized the chefs forgot to order ham again even though I had specifically reminded them, so I exploded and threw a cauldron of hot soup across the kitchen floor in disgust. Two minutes later I knew I’d acted like the biggest asshole in the world, but I didn’t want to admit it, so I had to spend all my energy for the next forty-eight hours trying to convince myself I had the right to make a jackass of myself in front of twenty employees! It wasn’t worth it!”

  In many cases your anger is created by subtle cognitive distortions. As with depression, many of your perceptions are twisted, one-sided, or just plain wrong. As you learn to replace these distorted thoughts with others that are more realistic and functional, you will feel less irritable and gain greater self-control.

  What kinds of distortion occur most often when you are angry? One of the greatest offenders is labeling. When you describe the person you’re mad at as “a jerk” or “a bum” or “a piece of shit,” you see him in a totally negative way. You could call this extreme form of overgeneralization “globalizing” or “monsterizing.” Someone may in fact have betrayed your trust, and it is absolutely right to resent what that person did. In contrast, when you label someone, you create the impression that he or she has a bad essence. You are directing your anger toward what that person “is.”