She began by responding to his rare calls in an upbeat, positive, complimentary manner. She flattered and encouraged him. She avoided any criticism, argument, demands, or hostility, and found a way to agree with everything he said, using the disarming technique described in Chapter 7. Initially she terminated all these calls after five to ten minutes to ensure the likelihood the conversations would not deteriorate into an argument or become boring to him. This guaranteed that her feedback would be pleasant to him, and that his response to it would not be suppressed or eliminated.
After she did this a few times, she noticed her husband began to call more and more frequently because the calls were positive, rewarding experiences for him. She noted this increased rate of telephoning on her graph paper just as a scientist observes and documents the actions of an experimental rat. As his phone calls increased, she began to feel encouraged, and some of her irritation and resentment melted away.
One day he appeared at the house and according to her plan, she announced, “I’m so happy you dropped by because I just happen to have a fresh, fancy imported Cuban cigar in the freezer for you. It’s the expensive type you really like.” She actually had a whole box of them waiting so she was able to repeat this each time he visited—regardless of why or when he came. She noticed the frequency of his visits substantially increased.
In a similar manner, she continued to “shape” his behavior using rewards rather than coercion. She realized how successful she had been when her husband decided to leave his girl friend and asked if he could move back in with her.
Am I saying that is the only way to relate and to influence people? No—that would be absurd. It’s just a pleasant spice, not the whole banquet or even the main course. But it’s a frequently overlooked delicacy that few appetites can resist. There’s no guarantee it will work—some situations may be irreversible, and you can’t always get what you want.
At any rate, try the upbeat reward system. You may be pleasantly surprised at the remarkable effectiveness of your secret strategy. In addition to motivating the people you care about to want to be around you, it will improve your mood because you learn to notice and focus on the positive things that others do rather than dwell on their negatives.
“Should” Reduction. Because many of the thoughts which generate your anger involve moralistic “should” statements, it will help you to master some “should” removal methods. One way is to make a list, using the double-column method, of all the reasons why you believe the other person “shouldn’t” have acted as he did. Then challenge these reasons until you can see why they are unrealistic and don’t actually make good sense.
Example: Suppose the carpenter on your new house did a sloppy job on the kitchen cabinets. The doors are poorly aligned and don’t close properly. You feel irate because you see this as “unfair.” After all, you paid full union wages, so you feel entitled to excellent workmanship from a top craftsman. You fume as you tell yourself, “The lazy bastard should take some pride in his work. What’s the world coming to?” You list the reasons and rebuttals detailed in Figure 7–6.
* * *
Figure 7–6.
* * *
The rationale for eliminating your “should” statement is simple: It’s not true that you are entitled to get what you want just because you want it. You’ll have to negotiate. Call the carpenter, complain, and insist the job be corrected. But don’t double your trouble by making yourself excessively hot and bothered. The carpenter probably wasn’t trying to hurt you, and your anger might simply polarize him and put him on the defensive. After all, half of all the carpenters (and psychiatrists, secretaries, writers, and dentists, etc.) throughout human history have been below average. Do you believe that? It’s true by definition because “average” is defined as the halfway point! It’s ludicrous to fume and complain that this particular carpenter’s average talent is “unfair,” or that he “should” be other than he is.
Negotiating Strategies. At this point you may be bristling because you are thinking, “Well! That’s a fine kettle of fish! Dr. Bums seems to be telling me I can find happiness by believing that lazy, incompetent carpenters should do mediocre work. After all, it’s their nature, the good doctor claims! What weak-spined hogwash! I’m not going to be stripped of my human dignity and let people walk all over me and get away with second-rate crappy work I’m paying a fortune for.”
Cool down! Nobody’s asking you to let the carpenter pull the wool over your eyes. If you want to exert your influence in an effective way instead of moping angrily and creating inner turmoil, a calm, firm, assertive approach will usually be the most successful. Moralistic “shoulding,” in contrast, will simply aggravate you and polarize him, and cause him to feel defensive and to counterattack. Remember—fighting is a form of intimacy. Do you really want to be so intimate with this carpenter? Wouldn’t you prefer to get what you want instead?
As you stop consuming your energy in anger, you can focus your efforts on getting what you want. The following negotiating principles can work effectively in such a situation:
1. Instead of telling him off, compliment him on what he did right. It’s an undeniable fact of human nature that few people can resist flattery even if it’s blatantly insincere. However, since you can find something good about him or his work, you can make your compliment honest. Then mention the problem with the cupboard doors tactfully, and calmly explain why you want him to come back and correct the alignment.
2. Disarm him if he argues by finding a way to agree with him regardless of how absurd his statements are. This will shut him up and take the wind out of his sails. Then immediately—
3. Clarify your point of view again calmly and firmly.
Repeat the above three techniques over and over in varying combinations until the carpenter finally gives in or an acceptable compromise is reached. Use ultimatums and intimidating threats only as a last resort, and make sure you are ready and willing to follow through when you do. As a general principle, use diplomacy in expressing your dissatisfaction with his work. Avoid labeling him in an insulting way or implying he is bad, evil, malignant, etc. If you decide to tell him about your negative feelings, do so objectively without magnification or an excess of inflammatory language. For example, “I resent shoddy work when I feel you have the ability to do a good professional job” is far preferable to “You mother——! Your——work is an outrage.”
In the following dialogue I will identify each of these techniques.
YOU:
I was pleased with how some of the work came out, and I’m hopeful I’ll be able to tell other people I was happy with the whole job. The paneling was especially well done. I’m a little concerned about the kitchen cabinets, however. (Compliment)
CARPENTER:
What seems to be the trouble?
YOU:
The doors aren’t lined up, and many of the handles are on crooked.
CARPENTER:
Well, that’s about the best I can do on those kinds of cabinets. They’re mass-produced, and they just aren’t made the best.
YOU:
Well, that’s true. They aren’t as well made as a more expensive type might be. (Disarming technique) Nevertheless, they aren’t acceptable this way, and I’d appreciate it if you’d do something to make them more presentable. (Clarification; tact)
CARPENTER:
You’ll have to talk to the manufacturer or the builder. There’s nothing I can do about it.
YOU:
I can understand your frustration (Disarming technique), but it’s your responsibility to complete these cabinets to our satisfaction. They’re simply not acceptable. They look shoddy, and they don’t close properly I know it’s an inconvenience, but my position is that the job can’t be considered complete and the bill won’t be paid until you’ve corrected it. (Ultimatum) I can see from your other work that you have the skill to make them look right in spite of the extra time it will take. That way we’ll be completely satisfied w
ith your work, and we can give you a good recommendation. (Compliment)
Try these negotiating techniques when you are at loggerheads with someone. I think you’ll find they work more effectively than blowing your stack, and you’ll feel better because you’ll usually end up getting more of what you want.
Accurate Empathy. Empathy is the ultimate anger antidote. It’s the highest form of magic described in this book, and its spectacular effects are firmly entrenched in reality. No trick mirrors are needed.
Let’s define the word. By empathy, I do not mean the capacity to feel the same way someone else feels. This is sympathy. Sympathy is highly touted but is, in my opinion, somewhat overrated. By empathy, I do not mean acting in a tender, understanding manner. This is support. Support is also highly valued and overrated.
So what is empathy? Empathy is the ability to comprehend with accuracy the precise thoughts and motivations of other people in such a way that they would say, “Yes, that is exactly where I’m coming from!” When you have this extraordinary knowledge, you will understand and accept without anger why others act as they do even though their actions might not be to your liking.
Remember, it is actually your thoughts that create your anger and not the other person’s behavior. The amazing thing is that the moment you grasp why the other person is acting that way, this knowledge tends to put the lie to your anger-producing thoughts.
You might ask, If it’s so easy to eliminate anger through empathy, why do people get so damn mad at each other every day? The answer is that empathy is difficult to acquire. As humans we are trapped in our own perceptions, and we react automatically to the meanings we attach to what people do. Getting inside the other person’s skull requires hard work, and most people don’t even know how to do this. Do you? You will learn how in the next few pages.
Let’s start with an example. A businessman recently sought help because of his frequent episodes of angry out-bursts and abusive behavior. When his family or employees didn’t do what he wanted, he’d bite their heads off. He usually succeeded in intimidating people, and he enjoyed dominating and humiliating them. But he sensed that his impulsive explosions ultimately caused problems for him because of his reputation as a sadistic hothead.
He described a dinner party he attended where the waiter forgot to fill his wineglass. He felt a surge of rage due to his thought, “The waiter thinks I’m unimportant. Who the hell does he think he is anyway? I’d like to wring the mother——’s neck.”
I used the empathy method to demonstrate to him how illogical and unrealistic his angry thoughts were. I suggested that we do some role-playing. He was to play the waiter, and I would act the part of a friend. He was to try to answer my questions as truthfully as possible. The following dialogue evolved:
DAVID
(playing the role of the waiter’s friend): I noticed that you didn’t fill the wineglass of that businessman there.
PATIENT
(playing the role of waiter): Oh, I see that I didn’t fill his glass.
DAVID:
Why didn’t you fill his glass? Do you think he is an unimportant person?
PATIENT
(after a pause): Well, no, it wasn’t that. I actually don’t know much about him.
DAVID:
But didn’t you decide that he was an unimportant person and refuse to give him any wine because of that?
PATIENT
(laughing): No, that isn’t why I didn’t give him any wine.
DAVID:
Then why didn’t you give him wine?
PATIENT
(after thinking): Well, I was daydreaming about my date for tonight. Furthermore, I was looking at that pretty girl across the table. I was distracted by her low-cut dress, and I just overlooked his wineglass.
This role-playing episode created great relief for the patient because by placing himself in the waiter’s shoes he was able to see how unrealistic his interpretation had been. His cognitive distortion was jumping to conclusions (mind reading). He automatically concluded the waiter was being unfair, which made him feel he had to retaliate to maintain his self-pride. Once he acquired some empathy, he was able to see that his righteous indignation was caused entirely and exclusively by his own distorted thoughts and not the waiter’s actions. It is often extremely difficult for angry-prone individuals to accept this at first because they have a nearly irresistible urge to blame others and to retaliate. How about you? Does the idea that many of your angry thoughts are invalid seem abhorrent and unacceptable?
The empathy technique can also be quite useful when the other person’s actions appear more obviously and intentionally hurtful. A twenty-eight-year-old woman named Melissa sought counseling around the time she was separating from her husband, Howard. Five years earlier Melissa discovered that Howard was having an affair with Ann, an attractive secretary who worked in his building. This revelation was a heavy blow to Melissa, but to make matters even worse, Howard was hesitant to make a clean break with Ann, and so the affair dragged on for eight additional months. The humiliation and rage Melissa felt during this period was a major factor that led to her ultimate decision to leave him. Her thoughts ran along these lines: (1) He had no right to act like that. (2) He was self-centered. (3) It was unfair. (4) He was a bad, rotten person. (5) I must have failed.
In the course of a therapy session, I asked Melissa to play Howard’s role, and then I cross-examined her to see if she could explain precisely why he had had the affair with Ann and acted as he did. She reported that as the role-playing evolved, she suddenly saw where Howard had been coming from, and at that moment her anger toward him completely vanished. After the session she wrote a description of the dramatic disappearance of the anger she had harbored for years:
After Howard’s affair with Ann presumably ended, he insisted on continuing to see her and was still very much bound up with her. This was painful to me. It made me feel that Howard really didn’t respect me and considered himself more important than I was. I felt that if he really did love me he wouldn’t put me through this. How could he continue to see Ann when he knew how miserable it made me feel? I felt really angry at Howard and down on myself. When I tried the empathy approach and played the role of Howard, I saw the “whole.” I suddenly saw things differently. When I imagined I was Howard, I could see where he was coming from. Putting myself in his place, I saw the problem of loving Melissa my wife, as well as Ann my lover. It dawned on me that Howard was really trapped in a “can’t-win” system created by his thoughts and feelings. He loved me but was desperately attracted to Ann. As much as he wanted to he couldn’t stop seeing her. He felt very guilty and couldn’t stop himself. He felt he would lose if he left Ann, and he would lose if he left me. He was unwilling and unable to come to terms with either form of loss, and it was his indecisiveness rather than any inadequacy on my part which caused him to be slow in making up his mind.
The experience was a revelation for me. I really saw what had happened for the first time. I knew Howard had not done anything deliberately to hurt me, but had been incapable of doing anything other than what he did. I felt good being able to see and understand this.
I told Howard when I spoke to him next. We both felt a lot better about this. I also got a really good feeling from the experience with the empathy technique. It was very exciting. More real than what I had seen before.
The key to Melissa’s anger was her fear of losing self-esteem. Although Howard had indeed acted in a genuinely negative manner, it was the meaning she attached to the experience that caused her sense of grief and rage. She assumed that as a “good wife” she was entitled to a “good marriage.” This is the logic that got her into emotional trouble:
Premise: If I am a good and adequate wife, my husband is bound to love me and be faithful to me.
Observation: My husband is not acting in a loving, faithful way.
Conclusion: Therefore, either I am not a good and adequate wife, or else Howard is a bad, immoral person
because he is breaking my “rule.”
Thus, Melissa’s anger represented a feeble attempt to save the day because within her system of assumptions, this was actually the only alternative to suffering a loss of self-esteem. The only problems with her solution were (a) she wasn’t really convinced he was “no good”; (b) she didn’t really want to write him off since she loved him; and (c) her chronic sour anger didn’t feel good, it didn’t look good, and it drove him farther away.
Her premise that he would love her as long as she was good was a fairy tale she had never thought to question. The empathy method transformed her thinking in a highly beneficial way by allowing her to relinquish the grandiosity inherent in her premise. His misbehavior was caused by his distorted cognitions, not her inadequacy. Thus, he was responsible for the jam he was in, not she!
This sudden insight struck her like a lightning bolt. The moment she saw the world through his eyes, her anger vanished. She became a much smaller person in the sense that she no longer saw herself as responsible for the actions of her husband and the people around her. But at the same time she experienced a sudden increase in self-esteem.
In the next session I decided to put her new insight to the acid test. I confronted her with the negative thoughts that had originally upset her to see if she could answer them effectively:
DAVID:
Howard could have stopped seeing her sooner. He made a fool out of you.
Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy Page 17