Example 1-Dealing With Procrastination

This comes from an ebook on procrastination that is
available on the author's website. Many people want real
life examples of this very difficult psychological state.
Here's one. But first, you might read the other articles
in this directory on this subject by this author. This
will give you, the reader, a better understanding of what's
below.
Frank D. is an executive famous for his brilliance and
equally famous for turning in projects at the last possible
moment. Waiting drives his colleagues nuts, but they put
up with him because of the high quality of his work. How
do we deal with this form of procrastination?
Remember, procrastination is a form of ambivalence, so
right away ask what is under the surface that is working
against the conscious wish-presumably to complete projects
on time. Here are some possibilities (theories). Frank
may resent being a subordinate to a boss with less mental
capabilities. Frank may need the challenge to stimulate
his high quality work. This is often the case in
individuals with ADHD. (They often work best "under fire"
and complete things best in "crisis mode.") Frank may have
a wrecked home life and to put energy into a work project may
tap already dwindling personal resources. Frank may have a
bet going with co-workers that he can complete another project
before finishing this one. There are lots of possible
dynamics that might explain Frank's procrastination.
The ambivalence is the conflict between what is outwardly
demanded of Frank and what is inwardly more important.
In this case, Frank's boss has one thing in mind, finishing
the project with some level of quality, and Frank has conflicts,
needing to do something else, wanting some other experience to
happen first, etc. From a psychological point of view, Frank's
needs and drives to maintain balance probably control his behavior.
He has conflicts, and to manage them, Frank must suppress, deny,
circumnavigate or even repress those things that vie for his
attention. Probably these "things" are pretty strong, so Frank
must work at keeping them at bay. This sets up the division
between what Frank is aware of and what he is not. The conflict,
being uncomfortable, causes Frank to avoid doing the project,
because the thought of actually working, elicits awareness of the
underlying conflict, which is uncomfortable. Therefore, Frank
avoids thinking about work and goes off to do something pleasurable,
thereby, reinforcing his avoidance (escape from pain is a reward).
Likely, Frank is using suppression.
To deal with this form of procrastination, Frank will have
to acknowledge the conflict, which means facing his underlying
thoughts, feelings and wishes. Someone will have to point out
to Frank, or perhaps in the heat of the approaching deadline,
Frank will have to point out to himself that he feels a certain
way, or has all these potential conflicts brewing. In my office,
it is the psychologist that usually has to do this the first few
times with a client, because usually they have learned to bury
parts of themselves and have reinforced that dynamic (avoidance
that temporarily relieves pain) over and over, so that now the
habit is automatic. They don't realize that procrastination has
cemented itself into their psyches and functions without their
being aware. As described above, suppression has become
repression. So, I point out the possible underlying conflicting
ambivalence based on their feelings and previous experiences,
needs and wants.
In Frank's case, it was the first dynamic that "gummed up"
the works. He is brilliant and his boss is "sort of" a smart guy.
So, Frank had some resentment doing his boss' bidding because,
in Frank's mind, it should be Frank calling the shots, not the boss.
Further, if Frank waited until the last minute, the boss would get
worried, which made Frank very happy. This is when procrastination
and passive-aggressiveness wed. Further, if Frank waited until the
eleventh hour, and then produced a brilliant project, it would
heighten Frank's intellectual aura, thus reinforcing his brilliance
in the eyes of his co-workers, and in the eyes of Frank's boss' boss,
thus increasing the likelihood of a promotion (over his boss).
This is when ego needs wed procrastination.
Making all this conscious was not the biggest challenge in
Frank's case. Getting Frank to act on these new introjects was
even more difficult. While Frank was capable of great insight
(with minor prodding on my part), he was not willing to give up
his power, even though it was indirectly gained through
psychologically devious means. The trick was to get Frank to
admit he had more anger built up than he realized, and that not
dealing directly with the anger fueled avoidance, ambivalence,
conflict; i.e., procrastination.
So, Frank had to learn to be assertive and to put into words,
his feelings and ideas, and to do so directly. In this case,
Frank had to confront his boss about his ideas and projects and
general plans about running the project. Frank also had to accept
that the boss had more power in the organization and that Frank ran
the risk of losing his job in the by negatively flexing his ego
needs. Frank had to look at his tendency to passively aggress,
which it turns out, he learned from his family-of-origin (Dad did
this to Mom when Dad didn't get what he wanted or felt disrespected).
Frank, in truth, did have brilliant ideas, but did not have
organizational experience, hence was, in truth, incapable or really
"running the show." While he was a good "idea man," Frank was not
adept at managing people and would have floundered had he ventured
forth and formed his own company. Frank had to confront some
reality and abandon the infantile fantasies he otherwise entertained.
Once Frank worked out these intra-relationships aspects, he
settled down and was more cooperative (less passive-aggressive),
more organized (needed to stir up trouble less to prove his ability
deal with adversity) and more people friendly, respecting his
co-worker's needs as they completed projects "together" (no longer
needing to be the "stand out" in the company).
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page192.html

Curing Procrastination

Curing Procrastination
While it is not a clinical syndrome; that is, a diagnosis found in a mental health manual, procrastination is still pernicious, psychologically. It can create mild symptoms or some that are chronic, even paralyzing. Regardless, procrastination is something that can be cured.
Procrastination is really a form of ambivalence. This is not widely recognized. Ambivalence is when part of you wants something and part of your doesn’t want that something. It doesn’t have to be two things that directly conflict. One of the "somethings" can be related to the other, just not the same, requiring a choice that is, at least partially, mutually exclusive. Ambivalence can be in awareness, partially in awareness or totally out of awareness. This doesn’t matter, because the subjective experience of it is uneasiness. It actually creates anxiety, but it is of the kind that is not usually associated with anxiety disorders, proper.
Procrastination happens when these conflicts occur in our lives and we don’t want to deal with them. For example, I’m supposed to clean my room but I want to go out to play. I’ll think about the former but want to do the later. The choices are about two things that are relatively mutually exclusive and sooner or later, I have to negotiate the choices. I have to pick one. Either one I pick will have consequences, and I know one of them will have unpleasant consequences.
I usually pick the more pleasant, self-serving behavior, which automatically means I’m putting off choosing the “other.” This appears to be procrastinating, because I’m not doing something, but in reality I’m avoiding a conflict. I am ambivalent, experiencing some level of anxiety and trying to get around the whole thing.
Like I said before, the things we procrastinate about can be big or little, in or out of awareness, and be short or longer term. Those are just the particulars, but the dynamic is the same in each case. We usually choose the more self-serving behavior in the service of either avoiding the conflict; that is, making it disappear from our awareness, or to just avoid the less pleasant of the two choices.
This latter dynamic is often a function of our impulsiveness. As can be seen, this quality has many manifestations, some of which are adaptive, like when we procrastinate in order to glean more information before acting on something. Some dynamics are maladaptive, like when we put off finishing a project for the boss, knowing the impact on our job security.
In order to solve procrastination, we have to penetrate the ambivalence. We have to “pull up” into awareness, the full import of our choices. But for most of us, to do that means we also have to do a little soul searching. You see, ambivalence doesn’t just occur in a vacuum. There are reasons we avoid certain things, other than they may or may not be more difficult to do than something else. Sometimes it’s about not wanting to express a feeling, such as anger. If someone asks you to do something and you feel slighted, it is unlikely you will comply with their request. So, you don’t, on the surface, which is about not dealing with your internal state, expressing yourself and later resolving ambivalence. The superficial behavior then looks like procrastinating, when in fact, its just about avoiding conflict (which is probably at the heart of ambivalence in most cases).
Questions can be directed to author, who is a clinical psychologist.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page192.html

Teenagers and Grades

Teenagers and Grades
I've been a child psychologist for 27 years. I've written hundreds of
articles on changing children's behavior and this one focuses on the role
of school grades, which in turn reflect parental expectations, usually
in the guise of household rules. The "Parent Rules" are the basic conditions that "need" to be met for something else to happen. In a previous article, I wrote about the cell phone, and ended with a discussion of whether or not to give one to your teenager, with respect to whether or not your teen met certain academic expectations. This is a common experience.
Parents fixate on grades, this "condition" more than any other.
What is the minimum GPA (grade point average) a teen must have to earn
a _______________ (cell phone, car, money, night out with boy/girlfriend--fill in the blank). Most parents like the GPA to be a 3.0 or higher; meaning, on a four-point scale, a "B" average or better is the required minimum (with no "D's" or "F's"). Teenagers are crafty and occasionally flunk one class, yet still end up with a 3.0 GPA. Of course they have to have mostly "A's" in the rest of their classes to do this. In some parents' minds, a GPA of 3.0 magically opens the door to cell phones, even if the rooms are still messy and their teen violates curfews. What happens if the GPA is high but the teen's other behaviors are rotten?
In many houses, the cell phone actually rewards recklessness or rude
behaviors in other areas. Why? Because teens frequently think once they have the cell phone, they do not need to do much else. Parents often unwittingly reinforce this through inattention, or hyper-attention only to select behaviors-again, grades. So, "if the grades are great," the cell phone is allowed.
However, most parents like their teenagers to conform to other
expectations; to at least speak to them in a civil manner, to clean their
rooms at least once a week and to observe curfew, especially on a "school
night." This is about preference and judgment. As the parent, you have
to decide what you can live with, and what behaviors, specifically or
overall, that when allowed (meaning, tolerated if the behaviors are bad)
or reinforced (if the behaviors are good), will likely produce the best
human being. You might want to make your own list of what is OK and not
OK and craft some sort of household Magna Carta-a policy statement of basic rights, but also of privileges and by way of implication, expectations you, the parents minimally expect..
As with all children, there will be transgressions. The next short
article covers curfew.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page18.html

Changing Teenager's Behavior-A Word About Curfews--Part I

Changing Teenager's Behavior-A Word About Curfews
What happens when your teenager is defiant, not remorseful,
not conciliatory and/or not cooperative? Remember the previous
examples from previous articles, when your teen came home a
half-hour late on Friday night, but the next day was somewhat
better behaved? What if your teen came home two hours late,
slept most of the next day, and "blew you off" when confronted?
This is when you rename your child "Darth Teen."
The establishment of curfew is a very common example of
household conflict. As teenagers get older their curfews change,
getting later and later, until at some point, it disappears.
This is the natural evolution of the "time boundary." In most
homes, not counting "school nights," curfew is set for ten or
eleven at night for early teens, twelve'ish or so for later teens,
and "whenever" when the teen technically becomes an adult-usually
at age eighteen. Now, most parents reading this just said to
themselves, "Whoa! These numbers are way off." The interesting
thing I encounter is that half the parents who just had that
reaction are more conservative relative to the above times, but
half the parents are more liberal. In other words, half the
parent population wants their teens home earlier and half the
parents allow their offspring to wander in (sometimes much) later.
The battle over curfew is usually intense, powered by surging
hormones, newly arrived and very intense social needs, the drive
for independence, and of course, moods, which is the underlying
thread in this discussion. The biggest and first emotion that
usually surfaces is anger. (For more information on this subject,
see Anger Management, Types I and II.) The short
definition of poor anger management has to do with thwarted
expectations powered by out-of-whack attachments. What?
This is when we expect things to be a certain way, and then
reality presents something else. Anger is the natural response
to obstacles. At first we experience frustration, and then as
things fail to change, we "amp up" and usually get mad. Anger
powers our assault on the thing(s) in our way. We become
energized via anger and deal with the resistance. Our investment
in succeeding, or the need to have our expectations met is what
I'm calling attachment. This is when we are really, really set on
having things go our way. Higher attachment fuels greater anger
when expectations are not met. Attachment is to expectation what
gasoline is to fire.
In teen-speak, anger comes when "unreasonable" parents block
their hormone-driven, intense need or drive to do whatever they want,
in this case stay out "all night." They are really flexing their
independence muscle because they are bigger people now, and
"therefore" can manage their own affairs. When parents challenge
this assumption, natural conflict follows, but the emotional backlash
is big, usually strongly punctuated by anger. Teens think parents
disrespect their newfound status, invalidating them when they are
obviously now "grown up," generally denying their rights to make
their own decisions. Teens are right in theory but wrong in extent.
Teenagers understand that they have greater abilities, but their
emotions and undeveloped thinking push them into thinking they know
a lot more, can manage themselves better, when usually this is
questionable or wrong. Because they are not as mature as they
think, their emotional reactions to the structure you provide is
over-produced. In common parent parlance, your teen throws a fit.

-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page18.html

Changing Teenager's Behavior-A Word About Curfews--Part II

Changing Teenager's Behavior-A Word About Curfews
I've been a child psychologist for 27 years. Here's a short summary of some of the things parents consider when it comes to curfew; that variable time of night or day when kids should be home from the parent's perspective, and when they actually arrive, and the implications of both. This is the third in a series of article on Changing Teenager's Behavior. The First article covered Cell Phones. The Second covered Grades.
Parents are more prone to fudge when consequences are less; for example when their teen comes home a half-hour after curfew on a Friday night. Parents rationalize their teen can sleep later Saturday morning, ignoring the underlying defiance. On Saturday morning, the teenager will probably sleep in, but on that day, s/he may be just a little bit friendlier or more helpful or better behaved around the parents. This subtly celebrates the fact the teenager "got away" with something (the "dark side" of individuation), but also tells the parents the teen is aware of the slip up (if it really was "accidental") and is paying penance. The parents use the temporary but appreciated "sudden" conformity to behavioral and other expectations as justification to ignore the previous night's violation of curfew, thus avoiding the unpleasantness of confronting the teen and at the same time reinforcing looking the other way. This little game both parties play is a step-by-step manifestation--the minutiae of "The Dance." ("The Dance" is a concept that is discussed in great detail in an ebook entitled: How To Change Teenager's Behavior, which is linked to the
author's website, below.) While it isn't primarily pathological, it does illustrate the levels of interaction and some of the games parents and teenagers play in working out privilege. The bottom line for most parents is subjective.
At some point parents say to themselves, "My teenager is mostly OK, therefore, s/he gets ______________." In the first article in this series, that referred to cell phones. In the second article, that could have referred to any behavior as long as the school grades are high enough, which is also subjective. This kind of thinking depends in part upon the totals of the tally sheet of expected good teenager behaviors compared with the "other" ones. So, in this respect, parental expectation, temperaments, and adult circumstances play an important part in deciding what is OK, or not, and what rewards will follow what contingency of behaviors. Sometimes, parents are compromised too much and they tolerate less, but sometimes that investment paid off the night before, so one or another egregious teen behavior is more likely to be ignored.
In general, in trying to determine whether a behavior is normal or should be of concern, you can ask the following questions. How different is the behavior or attitude when compared with other children in his or her age group or his or her normal personality? How frequently does it occur? Does it interfere with others or with your child's ability to cope with his or her environment or to get along with people (not only his or her parents, but teachers, coaches, friends, neighbors, and others whom s/he deals with on a daily basis)? Don't hesitate to ask other
parents about what their teenager does. Don't hesitate to read. Don't hesitate to wait until you have your wits about you before you decide whether some behavior is OK, or not. Don't be pressured by your teen's insistence, impulsivity or impatience. If in doubt, consult with a behavioral health professional.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page18.html

Changing Teenager's Behavior--The Cell Phone

Changing Teenager's Behavior--The Cell Phone
We parents know that most teenagers are wired to their
electronic devices--computers, Play Stations, X Boxes, or
cell phones. Talking on cell phones is ubiquitous.
Texting each other during school hours is endemic and has
replaced passing notes between classes. It used to be
that only doctors had pagers and cell phones. Now, pagers
are obsolete and everyone has a cell phone, and that is not
much of an exaggeration, at least in developed nations.
From the teenager's perspective, no one who is anyone doesn't
have one.
Of course, your teenage wants a cell phone, and according
to his or her perspective, will suffer much social stigma
should s/he be "deprived" of one. Your task, as the parent,
is not to hold your teenager back; rather, to give him or her
the tools to succeed, again, recognizing that the limits of
having tools are set by need, circumstances and your teenager's
maturity.
The immediate questions I hear from parents, are "At what
age should a kid have a cell phone?" (I often also hear the
question, "Should s/he have one at all?") "How much should we spend?"
"How long can s/he talk on it per day?" "What constitutes abuse?"
"What other conditions have to be met in order to get one?"
"What happens if we say 'No?'")
The short answer to the above questions is, "when you teen is
ready." The longer answer involves discussing the details.
Some kids need a cell phone earlier, if for example, they are
latchkey kids and need to be more or less immediately or
predictably available by phone to a working parent. If this
teen is responsible enough to manage going straight home after
school and calling Mom or Dad at work to let them know s/he has
safely arrived, then probably this teenager can be trusted with
a cell phone. Or, put another way, if necessity mandates the
teen have some communication device, the parent and teenager will
have to work out all the contingencies to make functional
meeting that need. The reality of being safe pressures both
parent and teen to accommodate other circumstances, like being
home alone with a cell phone when other teenagers are also out
of school and likely chatting away (instead of doing homework).
At the other extreme are the teens who do not need cell
phones for any other reason than to fit in with peers.
"Everyone" has one and "everyone" talks all the time, and
"everyone" texts, etc. "Therefore" I need a cell phone, or
so goes the argument. Teenager's social and peer needs peak
during these critical development years, and modern technology
has given them a way to socially network that has never been
extant before. Both the pressures to interact this way and
the consequences of not are now much more extreme, especially
amongst teens. (One psychologist dryly commented that the more
communication devices teenagers posses, the less they
communicate with their parents.) Not surprisingly, the
ramifications for inclusion or exclusion from social gatherings
also have increased, and cell phone interaction is at the hub of
this interactive wheel. I'm not saying the cell phone is THE
thing necessary to be popular, but it seems that without one, it
is much harder to compete with those who are "in." (The age-old
have vs. have-nots argument has invaded the realm of cell phones.)
This cell phone need is typical of teenagers who have a lot going
for them, either monetarily from parents, or from natural looks
or personality or brains. These teens do well and use the cell
phone to commemorate their triumphs, big or small, immediate or
delayed, social, academic or personal. If this teen succeeds at
getting good grades, avoids the usual pitfalls of being a teen
(alcohol, drug use, or excessive sexuality), then parents usually
grant use of a cell phone, justifying it with acknowledgment of
his or her successes. Parents say their teen is doing very well,
"therefore" a cell phone is allowed. As long as successes keep
piling up--good grades, clean rooms, good driving records
(for older teenagers), the more likely the teenager can keep his
or her cell phone.
Most teenagers fall in the middle between these two
extremes. Most teens do not have stellar grades and seldom
clean their rooms. Most teenagers talk back to their parents,
pick on their younger siblings and often do not cooperate.
What about these teens? Here's when judgment and deal making
interface. Remember, at this age, teens are sort of adult-like
but sometimes more child-like, alternating between the two poles.
Sometimes teens cooperate; sometimes they are obstreperous.
Sometimes parents will back up and the teen will advance in
maturity and privilege. Sometimes the teen will regress and
the parents will retrench, resulting in loss of privilege, status
with peers, etc. I call this "The Dance."
Parents want teenagers to "shape up" and know that rewards
shape behavior. Remember, at this age parents can't give kids
stars on a chart or easily send them to their room. But, teenagers
have needs that adults can meet, like cell phones, being taxied
to and from events, getting money, being allowed to stay out longer
at social functions. These are the "things" parents use to bargain
for better behavior. Not surprisingly, when teenager's needs are
highest, they are most responsive to bribes and other parental
"manipulation." (A very concrete approach to controlling teen
"talk time" is to have them pay for their own cell phone bill, A
ND work for that money. This does not obviate conforming to other
household expectations.)
This is part of a series of articles on teens and specific
issues. Read the other articles on teens and curfew, teens and
grades or just read the ebook on teens for the whole presentation.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page18.html

A Brief Study of Two Year Old Oppositional Behavior

A Brief Study of Two Year Old Oppositional Behavior
Two year olds need to separate from their parents and
they do that through defiance. Understanding this, the
approach to a two year old is to shape his need to be
independent, not to quash saying "No." His need is to be
independent, to prove himself AND to be thought of as having
good qualities. That seems counterintuitive, given he
behaved so badly. But that two year old has limited
resources with which to express himself and developmentally
speaking, he is actually behaving normally, in this case by
being oppositional. His real need is to be recognized and
to flex his power. Normally, he behaves "badly," netting
some amount of negative feedback, so he comes to feel badly
about himself, in part, even though he was behaving
"according to programming." This last point may be the
most important one, as feeling badly about oneself is
something that pervades most negative reinforcement scenarios.
These are deep and global feelings that start early in one's
psychological development. (It's so central that I'm wrote
an ebook on how to repair one's self-image, The Four Powers
of Self-Esteem, which is linked to the author's website, below).
In the case of the two year old, the idea is to acknowledge,
even support the need (for independence, control, separation),
despite its style of manifestation (defiance, oppositional,
stubborn, contrary behaviors).
How do you do that? I had just such a case recently.
Mom brought in her two year old, Johnny, who would not cooperate
with ANY request. Mom presented Johnny and started out the
session, saying, "fix him." I looked at Johnny who was about
three feet tall and weighed about thirty pounds. Here was this
little being totally in control of an adult ten times his age,
four times his weight and nearly twice his height. Johnny
folded his arms across his chest, lowered his head and fixed
his gaze on me, non-verbally stating, "Go ahead...just try...."
Here was a kid who was very invested in having things his way.
I started out saying to Johnny, "Boy, you must be very
intelligent." He stopped dead in his tracks. He had not
heard this before. I then said, "Well, you can say 'no' to
everything Mom says, so you must be very strong and know a lot.
Mom says sit on the couch and you stand on the couch.
That means you know what's going on and are really smart."
(I'm saying positive things about the child and using language
a two year old can understand. I'm talking about his
xperiences in concrete ways.) I also realized that because
this child was two years old, the "terrible twos" were in full
swing. The child was very negative (oppositional) from Mom's
point of view. From my point of view, the child was just
asserting his individuality, with considerable personal power.
So, I told the child, "I know you are intelligent enough to do
the opposite of what people want. But I wonder if you are
eally that intelligent?" He didn't understand. I inadvertently
went over his head with an abstraction ("opposite").
I re-phrased. "I'll bet you are not smart enough to not do what
I want. I'll bet you can't sit on my couch for a whole minute."
The child, of course, was now motivated to prove me wrong (terrible
twos, wanting to "be his own person," yet responding to praise about
his intelligence), so he instantly hopped onto my couch, with his
feet dangling over the edge, folded his hands in his lap, said
nothing and stared at me (defiantly, of course). His mother nearly
fainted. This took less than two minutes. I then said, "Hmmmmm,
maybe you are more intelligent than even I thought. I'll bet you
can't do what your Mom wants, right now." I then looked at Mom
without saying anything, indicating with my raised eyebrows
(cueing Mom) that she could ask her son to do something. So,
Mom asked her son to stand up, walk to the door, and touch the
doorknob, then return to the couch. Her son did, this time
smiling. He was showing off his intelligence. I said to Mom,
"Well, that proves it. This kid is really smart. He can do
verything you want and prove it (that is, how smart he is)."
Mom thought I was brilliant, but all I did was work into the
conversation a lot of "positives" in the right ratio (4:1) and
be mindful of the developmental stage and needs of her son.
I turned around the negative dynamic. Rather than her son needing
to prove he was powerful and to be an individual by resisting,
now he could get more praise by cooperating. I didn't see this
Mom or her son again.
I got a little lucky and just happened to hit the core needs
with one kind of approach. What really changed this child's
behavior was that I recognized his many good qualities. When he
got the recognition he needed, the child's resistance disappeared.
The rest was just shaping to get the child to express his or her
good qualities (and needs) in more productive ways. Previously,
the child could not express his needs, except through "negative"
behavior. He did not have the vocabulary he needed because he
was only two. I gave him a set of behaviors he could do that
helped him meet deep needs. Mom was sharp and quickly took up
the reigns. Now her son could express his needs to be smart,
independent, etc. by doing good things. There was less need to
behave badly and no more need for a child psychologist.
(I constantly work myself out of a job...) Now think about
this negative psychology approach with teenagers, because it
works with this age group, too, with only a few modifications.
-Dr.Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page4.html