Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy

by Burns, David D.

  When you write people off this way, you catalog in your mind’s eye every single thing about them you don’t like (the mental filter) and ignore or discount their good points (disqualifying the positive). This is how you set up a false target for your anger. In reality, every human being is a complex mix of positive, negative, and neutral attributes.

  Labeling is a distorted thinking process that causes you to feel inappropriately indignant and morally superior. It’s destructive to build your self-image this way: Your labeling will inevitably give way to your need to blame the other person. Your thirst for retaliation intensifies the conflict and brings out similar attitudes and feelings in the person you’re mad at. Labeling inevitably functions as a self-fulfilling prophecy. You polarize the other person and bring about a state of interpersonal warfare.

  What’s the battle really all about? Often you’re involved in a defense of your self-esteem. The other person may have threatened you by insulting or criticizing you, or by not loving or liking you, or by not agreeing with your ideas. Consequently, you may perceive yourself in a duel of honor to the death. The problem with this is that the other person is not a totally worthless shit, no matter how much you insist! And, furthermore, you cannot enhance your own esteem by denigrating someone else even if it does feel good temporarily. Ultimately only your own negative, distorted thoughts can take away your self-respect, as pointed out in Chapter 4. There is one and only one person in this world who has the power to threaten your self-esteem—and that is you. Your sense of worth can go down only if you put yourself down. The real solution is to put an end to your absurd inner harangue.

  Another distortion characteristic of anger-generating thoughts is mind reading—you invent motives that explains to your satisfaction why the other person did what he or she did. These hypotheses are frequently erroneous because they will not describe the actual thoughts and perceptions that motivated the other person. Due to your indignation, it may not occur to you to check out what you are saying to yourself.

  Common explanations you might offer for the other person’s objectionable behavior would be “He has a mean streak”; “She’s unfair”; “He’s just like that”; “She’s stupid”; “They’re bad kids”; and so forth. The problem with these so-called explanations is that they are just additional labels that don’t really provide any valid information. In fact, they are downright misleading.

  Here’s an example: Joan got hot under the collar when her husband told her he’d prefer to watch the Sunday football game on TV rather than go with her to a concert. She felt miffed because she told herself, “He doesn’t love me! He always has to get his own way! It’s unfair!”

  The problem with Joan’s interpretation is that it is not valid. He does love her, he doesn’t always get his way, and he isn’t intentionally being “unfair.” On this particular Sunday the Dallas Cowboys are locking spurs with the Pittsburgh Steelers, and he really wants to see that game! There’s no way he’s going to want to get dressed and go to a concert.

  When Joan thinks about her husband’s motivations in such an illogical fashion, she creates two problems for the price of one. She has to put up with the self-created illusion that she’s unloved in addition to missing out on his company at the concert.

  The third form of distortion that leads to anger is magnification. If you exaggerate the importance of the negative event, the intensity and duration of your emotional reaction may get blown up out of all proportion. For example, if you are waiting for a late bus and you have an important appointment, you might tell yourself, “I can’t take this!” Isn’t that a slight exaggeration? Since you are taking it, you can take it, so why tell yourself you can’t? The inconvenience of waiting for the bus is bad enough without creating additional discomfort and self-pity in this way. Do you really want to fume like that?

  Inappropriate should and shouldn’t statements represent the fourth type of distortion that feeds your anger. When you find that some people’s actions are not to your liking, you tell yourself they “shouldn’t” have done what they did, or they “should have” done something they failed to do. For example, suppose you register at a hotel and discover they lost the record of your reservation, and now there are no rooms available. You furiously insist, “This shouldn’t have happened! Those stupid goddam clerks!”

  Does the actual deprivation cause your anger? No. The deprivation can only create a sense of loss, disappointment, or inconvenience. Before you can feel anger, you must necessarily make the interpretation you are entitled to get what you want in this situation. Consequently, you see the goof-up on your reservation as an injustice. This perception leads to your feeling angry.

  So what’s wrong with that? When you say the clerks shouldn’t have made a mistake, you are creating unnecessary frustration for yourself. It’s unfortunate your reservation was lost, but it’s highly unlikely anyone intended to treat you unjustly, or that the clerks are especially stupid. But they did make an error. When you insist on perfection from others, you will simply make yourself miserable and become immobilized. Here’s the rub: Your anger probably won’t cause a room to appear magically, and the inconvenience of going to another hotel will be far less than the misery you inflict on yourself by brooding for hours or days about the lost reservation.

  Irrational should statements rest on your assumption that you are entitled to instant gratification at all times. So on those occasions when you don’t get what you want, you go into panic or rage because of your attitude that unless you get X, you will either die or be tragically deprived of joy forever (X can represent love, affection, status, respect, promptness, perfection, niceness, etc.). This insistence that your wants be gratified at all times is the basis for much self-defeating anger. People who are anger-prone often formulate their desires in moralistic terms such as this: If I’m nice to someone, they should be appreciative.

  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 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 enlightened 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 eccentric. 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 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 ....**

  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 channel 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 effects 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 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 the 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 ti
me 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 irritability in Figure 7–2.

  She also made a list of the positive consequences that might result from eliminating her anger: (I) 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 with myself; (6) I will be viewed as a positive, nonjudgmental, 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.

  * * *

  Figure 7–2. The Anger Cost-Benefit Analysis.

  * * *

  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. Ask 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.