Top three reasons why people have an anxiety disorder
Unfortunately, one in ten people suffer from too much anxiety.
Another two in ten suffer from occasional anxiety that is less of a
problem, but still not fun.
In my twenty-year (+) career as an outpatient psychologist,
I run across eight conditions or ailments every day. Anxiety is
one of them. Anxiety permeates our daily lives in greater or lesser
degrees and touches every situation and relationship. It can be
mildly annoying or crippling.
The more minor but still noteworthy versions of anxiety are what
I call the Worrisome Personality, then the recognized but still
relatively minor clinical categories--Generalized Anxiety Disorder,
and Adjustment Disorders with Anxiety. These are significant
conditions that we psychologists see daily, but they are weaker in
subjective experience relative to the next four. The clinical and
notably stronger versions of anxiety (Panic Attacks, Phobias,
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder) are
the most serious and can be debilitating.
What causes anxiety? The psychological explanation is that one
feels at a loss of control over something. It could be an event or
situation or it could not be obvious at all what sets it off.
In the latter case, the fear of losing control is over something
internal to the sufferer. This is usually about losing control over
one's feelings, but memories and associated thoughts are a close second.
Figuring out what these feelings and/or thoughts are is the reason
psychologists remain in business. Recognizing the cues that set off
anxiety episodes and backtracking is the subject of my ebook on this
subject.
There are many reasons people become anxious. The most common
ones probably will not come as much of a surprise. The first reason
is that we learned to deal with stress in the manner characteristic of
having an anxiety attack. We learn it, probably from parents or early
caregivers. Parents who are high suppressors teach us to bury our
feelings and thoughts. This is the psychological breeding ground for
anxiety. It spawns dynamics that later produce anxiety symptoms.
How many and how severe are the symptoms depends upon the training in
one's early environment and the personality learning the lessons.
I have seen very robust individuals withstand severe stress and later
show very little signs of anxiety (perhaps depression,
but not much anxiety). On the other hand, I have seen very weak
individuals experience minimal early anxiety training, yet later in
life have horrific anxiety symptoms.
The second reason is that there has been some severe enough
negative event in our past that we do not want to remember, yet
traumatized us enough to suppress or repress. This could be an
accident, being trapped in an elevator or other venue, loss of a
relative or a history of child abuse (emotional, physical or sexual).
Adult traumas produce anxiety disorders. The same things that happen
to children might have the same impact on an adult. Being victims
of a crime (rape, burglary) or a near-death experience from an accident
can all produce panic and/or phobias later.
The third reason is because of substance or alcohol abuse, either
in our parents or currently. Drugs produce huge anxiety symptoms,
especially the "speeds" ("X" or "E" as it is called now, amphetamines,
Black Beauties, Cocaine, Crystal Meth ...). One might not think
alcohol can elicit an anxiety reaction, but it can. It has to do
with that feeling of relaxing, which for some people is a cue that
they are about to lose control. Losing control is very negative and
can trigger tension. Alcohol in one's early family life engenders
lots of anxiety. Kids learn very early to be on guard when one or
more of their parents is an alcoholic or substance abuser. This keeps
them on alert, which has survival value. The earlier one can
ascertain in what state an arriving parent is in, the better the chance
of figuring out how to cope with that parent. That anticipation does
not go away just because kids grow up and move away.
Dr. Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Why are you anxious?
Why are you anxious?
I've been a psychologist in private practice for over
twenty years. Every day I see anxious people. In fact,
anxiety is one of eight conditions that almost every patient has.
Anxiety is everywhere and interferes with almost everything.
The most common experience of anxiety is when something
"pops up" that is threatening. In dynamic terms, that
"something" is not a "something" we can control. It might be
having to take a drivers test at the DMV. It might be going
to the doctor for a condition we do not understand. It might
be big, like an IRS audit.
Or, that "something" might be the emergence of thoughts,
feelings and/or memories that we want to suppress
(consciously bury). There might be a cue or trigger that
elicits anxiety in response to the emergence of such thoughts
and/or feelings, but for most people, that cue or trigger is
not usually in awareness. For most people, anxiety just
"happens."
Anxiety has several causes. In my practice, there are
three general areas that produce it. The first reason is
that we learned to deal with stress in the manner
characteristic of having an anxiety attack. We learn it,
probably from parents or early caregivers. Parents who are
high suppressors teach us to bury our feelings and thoughts.
They do so by example. We pick it up by observing them deal
with stress, and then later when we have stress, we start to
react in the same ways. This is the psychological breeding
ground for anxiety. It spawns dynamics that later produce
anxiety symptoms, plus potentially other conditions
(depression, marital failures, lack of assertiveness).
How many and how severe are the symptoms depends upon the
training in one's early environment and the personality
learning the lessons. I have seen very constitutionally
strong individuals withstand severe stress and later show
very little signs of anxiety (perhaps depression, but not
much anxiety). On the other hand, I have seen very weak
individuals experience minimal early anxiety, yet later in
life have horrific anxiety symptoms. Humans are complex.
The second common cause of anxiety is that there has
been some severe enough bad experience or negative event in
our past that we do not want to remember, yet it traumatized
us enough so that we had to suppress or repress it.
This could be an accident, being trapped in a cave or other
venue, loss of a relative or a history of child abuse
(emotional, physical or sexual). It could have happened
once or many times. Adult traumas also produce anxiety
disorders. The same things that happen to children might
have the same impact on an adult. Being victims of a crime
(rape, burglary) or a near-death experience from an accident
can all produce panic and/or phobias later.
The third reason is because of substance or alcohol abuse,
either in our parents or currently in our partners, or even
in ourselves. Drugs produce huge anxiety symptoms,
especially the "speeds" ("X" or "E" as it is called now,
amphetamines, Black Beauties, Cocaine, Crystal Meth ...).
And, one might not think alcohol can elicit an anxiety reaction,
but it can. It has to do with that feeling of relaxing, which
for some people is a cue that they are about to lose control.
Losing control is very negative and can trigger tension.
Drink a beer to relax and have a panic attack. Go figure.
Alcohol in one's early family life engenders lots of anxiety.
Kids learn very early to be on guard when one of their parents
are alcoholic. This keeps them on alert, which has survival
value. The earlier one can ascertain in what state an arriving
parent is in, the better the chance of figuring out how to cope
with that parent. That anticipation does not go away just
because kids grow up and move away.
Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com
http://www.drgriggs.org
I've been a psychologist in private practice for over
twenty years. Every day I see anxious people. In fact,
anxiety is one of eight conditions that almost every patient has.
Anxiety is everywhere and interferes with almost everything.
The most common experience of anxiety is when something
"pops up" that is threatening. In dynamic terms, that
"something" is not a "something" we can control. It might be
having to take a drivers test at the DMV. It might be going
to the doctor for a condition we do not understand. It might
be big, like an IRS audit.
Or, that "something" might be the emergence of thoughts,
feelings and/or memories that we want to suppress
(consciously bury). There might be a cue or trigger that
elicits anxiety in response to the emergence of such thoughts
and/or feelings, but for most people, that cue or trigger is
not usually in awareness. For most people, anxiety just
"happens."
Anxiety has several causes. In my practice, there are
three general areas that produce it. The first reason is
that we learned to deal with stress in the manner
characteristic of having an anxiety attack. We learn it,
probably from parents or early caregivers. Parents who are
high suppressors teach us to bury our feelings and thoughts.
They do so by example. We pick it up by observing them deal
with stress, and then later when we have stress, we start to
react in the same ways. This is the psychological breeding
ground for anxiety. It spawns dynamics that later produce
anxiety symptoms, plus potentially other conditions
(depression, marital failures, lack of assertiveness).
How many and how severe are the symptoms depends upon the
training in one's early environment and the personality
learning the lessons. I have seen very constitutionally
strong individuals withstand severe stress and later show
very little signs of anxiety (perhaps depression, but not
much anxiety). On the other hand, I have seen very weak
individuals experience minimal early anxiety, yet later in
life have horrific anxiety symptoms. Humans are complex.
The second common cause of anxiety is that there has
been some severe enough bad experience or negative event in
our past that we do not want to remember, yet it traumatized
us enough so that we had to suppress or repress it.
This could be an accident, being trapped in a cave or other
venue, loss of a relative or a history of child abuse
(emotional, physical or sexual). It could have happened
once or many times. Adult traumas also produce anxiety
disorders. The same things that happen to children might
have the same impact on an adult. Being victims of a crime
(rape, burglary) or a near-death experience from an accident
can all produce panic and/or phobias later.
The third reason is because of substance or alcohol abuse,
either in our parents or currently in our partners, or even
in ourselves. Drugs produce huge anxiety symptoms,
especially the "speeds" ("X" or "E" as it is called now,
amphetamines, Black Beauties, Cocaine, Crystal Meth ...).
And, one might not think alcohol can elicit an anxiety reaction,
but it can. It has to do with that feeling of relaxing, which
for some people is a cue that they are about to lose control.
Losing control is very negative and can trigger tension.
Drink a beer to relax and have a panic attack. Go figure.
Alcohol in one's early family life engenders lots of anxiety.
Kids learn very early to be on guard when one of their parents
are alcoholic. This keeps them on alert, which has survival
value. The earlier one can ascertain in what state an arriving
parent is in, the better the chance of figuring out how to cope
with that parent. That anticipation does not go away just
because kids grow up and move away.
Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com
http://www.drgriggs.org
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Raise Self-Esteem
Raise Self-Esteem
Low self esteem? How should we think about this?? High self esteem?
How are they different? Self-image is a assortment of messages we have
taken in about ourselves over long periods of time. If the messages are
predominantly sunny ones, the average self-image we have, or more
specifically, our sense of esteem for ourselves, is good.
We have a good self-image. If the messages are predominantly bad ones,
the average self-image we have, or more specifically, our sense of
esteem we have for ourselves, is bad.
Self-esteem emerges out of the millions and millions of individual "
introjects" (inputs we "inculcate;" that is, take in, own, as real about
ourselves, etc. over the entire span of our lives.) It starts accumulating from
day one and does not cease evolving, for better or worse. If you consider the
dynamics of this process, believe it or not, both low and high self-esteems are
formed in the exact same way. Only the content of our minds vary, which has a
crummy effect on our moods.
In the beginning, individual dealings (thoughts, experiences, messages
taken in) have a massive impact on our self-esteems. That's because we are
vulnerable, like most children are, and also because there are less other
images in our skulls with which to average the new, incoming message. So,
one or two new messages has a greater impact on the average experience we
have about ourselves.
At the other end of life, we have millions of messages already in place,
bouncing around inside our heads, most of them neatly catalogued in the back
of our awareness. This creates a more robust, less modifiable databank.
In other words, it's harder to change self-image in older people just by putting in
new ideas, because there are already too many old ones in place.
I've developed a technique that uses some specific "mental" cognitions
to change our feelings. It turns out it's not our thoughts that change self
esteem. It's our feelings. And, feelings can be manipulated by consciously bringing
up certain strategic thoughts, thus changing the feeling (because feelings follow t
houghts in adults).
You control the thoughts and you're your feelings change. Thus, you
strategically apply the feelings, using the new feeling that comes in a
specific way. It's a combination of two surprisingly effective techniques
that work--far better than the usual superficial techniques offered in the
pop-psychology literature. It is not significant if your self-esteem has been
crummy for a little while or your whole life. You're not going to try to change
the whole ball of wax, just one thought at a time. I tell you how. It's actually
a little backwards from what you might expect. You have to start small and work
up, not think big and try to generate a trickle-down effect. The latter is what
we find in the pop-psych literature. That fails.
It also doesn't matter if your self-esteem is very, very bad or just a
little impaired. The same technique works equally well for both conditions.
But you have to understand the philosophy and techniques behind this breakthrough
idea, and for that, you have to read more of what I've written.
Hello, I've been an outpatient psychologist for over twenty years. I'
ve come across eight psychological conditions that I see every day. Self-esteem is
one of them, and it's one that permeates all the other seven. Improve self-esteem and
the others improve, too. Below are some links to take you to my webpages, where more
details are provided.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com
Low self esteem? How should we think about this?? High self esteem?
How are they different? Self-image is a assortment of messages we have
taken in about ourselves over long periods of time. If the messages are
predominantly sunny ones, the average self-image we have, or more
specifically, our sense of esteem for ourselves, is good.
We have a good self-image. If the messages are predominantly bad ones,
the average self-image we have, or more specifically, our sense of
esteem we have for ourselves, is bad.
Self-esteem emerges out of the millions and millions of individual "
introjects" (inputs we "inculcate;" that is, take in, own, as real about
ourselves, etc. over the entire span of our lives.) It starts accumulating from
day one and does not cease evolving, for better or worse. If you consider the
dynamics of this process, believe it or not, both low and high self-esteems are
formed in the exact same way. Only the content of our minds vary, which has a
crummy effect on our moods.
In the beginning, individual dealings (thoughts, experiences, messages
taken in) have a massive impact on our self-esteems. That's because we are
vulnerable, like most children are, and also because there are less other
images in our skulls with which to average the new, incoming message. So,
one or two new messages has a greater impact on the average experience we
have about ourselves.
At the other end of life, we have millions of messages already in place,
bouncing around inside our heads, most of them neatly catalogued in the back
of our awareness. This creates a more robust, less modifiable databank.
In other words, it's harder to change self-image in older people just by putting in
new ideas, because there are already too many old ones in place.
I've developed a technique that uses some specific "mental" cognitions
to change our feelings. It turns out it's not our thoughts that change self
esteem. It's our feelings. And, feelings can be manipulated by consciously bringing
up certain strategic thoughts, thus changing the feeling (because feelings follow t
houghts in adults).
You control the thoughts and you're your feelings change. Thus, you
strategically apply the feelings, using the new feeling that comes in a
specific way. It's a combination of two surprisingly effective techniques
that work--far better than the usual superficial techniques offered in the
pop-psychology literature. It is not significant if your self-esteem has been
crummy for a little while or your whole life. You're not going to try to change
the whole ball of wax, just one thought at a time. I tell you how. It's actually
a little backwards from what you might expect. You have to start small and work
up, not think big and try to generate a trickle-down effect. The latter is what
we find in the pop-psych literature. That fails.
It also doesn't matter if your self-esteem is very, very bad or just a
little impaired. The same technique works equally well for both conditions.
But you have to understand the philosophy and techniques behind this breakthrough
idea, and for that, you have to read more of what I've written.
Hello, I've been an outpatient psychologist for over twenty years. I'
ve come across eight psychological conditions that I see every day. Self-esteem is
one of them, and it's one that permeates all the other seven. Improve self-esteem and
the others improve, too. Below are some links to take you to my webpages, where more
details are provided.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com
ASSERTIVENESS-THE WHEREs AND WHOs OF...
ASSERTIVENESS-THE WHEREs AND WHOs OF...
In my outpatient psychology practice, I hear so many questions
about being assertive. What is it? How does it work? When is
it needed or effective? Can you use it at work? What about with
intimates?
Assertiveness is a skill that transcends environments and
relationships, but with a twist. If we are truly assertive, it does
not matter so much where we are and with whom we communicate.
In theory, it should work anywhere with anyone.
In actual practice, assertiveness is not quite so clean and easy.
Assertiveness works best with intimates even though there is the most
potential fallout from being honest. In theory, intimate
communication works least well with acquaintances.
The quality of the relationship determines whether sharing deeper,
feeling-related experiences with others works or not. Sometimes
it is easier to do so with strangers because they will not be
around long. Because intimates are around longer, sometimes it is
easier to not share. The effectiveness (and consequences) of being
assertive increases the more we share our feelings. This puts as at
risk with intimates because now "they know" how we really feel.
But it also puts us at risk with acquaintances because we might breach
a boundary; that is, say too much that is personal to someone who is
not really a friend.
Usually with acquaintances, assertive communication comes out
more cognitively; that is, intellectually, devoid of too many feelings.
In these types of communications, assertiveness pretty much sticks to
the issues to be discussed, not our visceral reactions or even just our
emotions. With a boss, for example, we can ask for a raise or
complain about the workload, but the communication will be
transactional; that is, centered on a narrow task, expectation or work
experience. If the boss is our friend, which can happen,
assertiveness is easier from the feelings point of view, but then
again more complicated because now this person (who has more power)
also is privy to our feelings, not just our work performance.
The antidote to these dilemmas is to first ask ourselves what is
the level of interpersonal depth of the relationship in question.
How close am I to the boss, really? If the answer is questionable,
assertive communication will tend to be transactional. Stick to the
more intellectual communication. Stay focused on the situation or
event, describe it in literal terms and leave feelings to be
inferred by the listener. Relationships that are more personal do
not need as much filtering (or even censoring) and feelings can be
described using actual feeling words. In more general terms, with
friends there is less of a need to "pre-structure" the communication.
We just "go for it" because with friends we have that tacit permission.
This sounds easy, but what if your listener changes? What if
they are psychologically unstable and change from minute-to-minute?
What if we share feelings that are more intimate with a co-worker who
is more of a friend, and then that person gets promoted? What if they
get promoted to be our boss? What if we share with a girlfriend who
later breaks up with us and dates our best friend? This is the stuff
of psychology practices, which can get quite complicated.
The best we can do is determine who we are talking to in the
moment and make the best decision based upon what we have right in
front of us. Should circumstances change, we then can and probably
will need to be assertive with this person in the new situation.
At that time, we have to make different decisions, but the quality
and depth of each decision, then, now or in the future is the same.
Dr. Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com
In my outpatient psychology practice, I hear so many questions
about being assertive. What is it? How does it work? When is
it needed or effective? Can you use it at work? What about with
intimates?
Assertiveness is a skill that transcends environments and
relationships, but with a twist. If we are truly assertive, it does
not matter so much where we are and with whom we communicate.
In theory, it should work anywhere with anyone.
In actual practice, assertiveness is not quite so clean and easy.
Assertiveness works best with intimates even though there is the most
potential fallout from being honest. In theory, intimate
communication works least well with acquaintances.
The quality of the relationship determines whether sharing deeper,
feeling-related experiences with others works or not. Sometimes
it is easier to do so with strangers because they will not be
around long. Because intimates are around longer, sometimes it is
easier to not share. The effectiveness (and consequences) of being
assertive increases the more we share our feelings. This puts as at
risk with intimates because now "they know" how we really feel.
But it also puts us at risk with acquaintances because we might breach
a boundary; that is, say too much that is personal to someone who is
not really a friend.
Usually with acquaintances, assertive communication comes out
more cognitively; that is, intellectually, devoid of too many feelings.
In these types of communications, assertiveness pretty much sticks to
the issues to be discussed, not our visceral reactions or even just our
emotions. With a boss, for example, we can ask for a raise or
complain about the workload, but the communication will be
transactional; that is, centered on a narrow task, expectation or work
experience. If the boss is our friend, which can happen,
assertiveness is easier from the feelings point of view, but then
again more complicated because now this person (who has more power)
also is privy to our feelings, not just our work performance.
The antidote to these dilemmas is to first ask ourselves what is
the level of interpersonal depth of the relationship in question.
How close am I to the boss, really? If the answer is questionable,
assertive communication will tend to be transactional. Stick to the
more intellectual communication. Stay focused on the situation or
event, describe it in literal terms and leave feelings to be
inferred by the listener. Relationships that are more personal do
not need as much filtering (or even censoring) and feelings can be
described using actual feeling words. In more general terms, with
friends there is less of a need to "pre-structure" the communication.
We just "go for it" because with friends we have that tacit permission.
This sounds easy, but what if your listener changes? What if
they are psychologically unstable and change from minute-to-minute?
What if we share feelings that are more intimate with a co-worker who
is more of a friend, and then that person gets promoted? What if they
get promoted to be our boss? What if we share with a girlfriend who
later breaks up with us and dates our best friend? This is the stuff
of psychology practices, which can get quite complicated.
The best we can do is determine who we are talking to in the
moment and make the best decision based upon what we have right in
front of us. Should circumstances change, we then can and probably
will need to be assertive with this person in the new situation.
At that time, we have to make different decisions, but the quality
and depth of each decision, then, now or in the future is the same.
Dr. Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com
ASSERTIVENESS-AND DIFFERENT RELATIONSHIPS
ASSERTIVENESS-AND DIFFERENT RELATIONSHIPS
In my outpatient psychology practice, I hear so many questions
about being assertive. What is it? How does it work? When is it
needed or effective? Can you use it at work? What about with
intimates? In school? With anyone?
Assertiveness is about sharing some aspect of our experience
with others. My favorite metaphor is playing cards. We lay down
our cards, face up for our opponent to see. We are sharing what is
in our hand. By way of analogy, we communicate what is on our minds,
or express our feelings, presumably using words. Ideally, we do
so in a matter-of-fact manner, without much fanfare or drama.
It is a transaction and we execute it with increasing adroitness,
proportional to our training and practice.
Assertiveness is a skill that should transcend environments and
relationships. If we are truly assertive, it should not matter so
much where we are and with whom we communicate. In theory, it should
work anywhere with anyone.
In actual practice, assertiveness is not quite so clean and easy.
Assertiveness works best with intimates even though there is the most
potential fallout from being honest. In theory, intimate
communication works least well with acquaintances even though there is
less likelihood of a negative response from people we do not know well
or with whom we are involved with less.
This is because in true assertiveness, the effectiveness
(and consequences) increases the more we share our feelings.
This puts us at risk with intimates because now "they know" how we
really feel. But it also puts us at risk with acquaintances because
we might breach a boundary; that is, say too much that is personal to
someone who is not really a friend.
For the acquaintances, assertiveness comes out more cognitively;
that is, intellectually, devoid of too many feelings. In these
types of communications, assertiveness pretty much sticks to the
issues to be discussed, not our visceral reactions. With a boss,
for example, we can ask for a raise or complain about the workload,
but the communication will be transactional; that is, centered on a
narrow task, expectation or work experience. If the boss is our
friend, which can happen, assertiveness is easier from the feelings
point of view, but then becomes more complicated because now this
person in power also is privy to our feelings, not just our work
performance.
The antidote to these dilemmas is to first ask ourselves what
is the level of interpersonal depth of the relationship in question.
In the above example, we might ask, "How close am I to the boss,
really?" If the answer is questionable, assertiveness will tend
to be transactional. Stick to the more intellectual communication.
Stay focused on the situation or event and describe it in literal
terms, leaving feelings to be inferred by the listener.
More personal relationships have less censoring of personal
information and feelings, which can more easily be described using
actual feeling words. Friends also require less "pre-structuring"
(see below) of the communication. We just "go for it" because
with friends we have tacit permission.
However, with friends, many of us worry that because they are
friends, they will now keep this deeper communication longer.
If the communication happens to be less than ideal
(negative thoughts and feelings), it may haunt us in more personal
ways, and maybe for a long time.
A simple way to overcome these worries is to create some
communication before the communication (pre-structuring).
Try simply asking a person if he or she wants the polite or the
honest response to some issue. Or, phrase it another way.
"Do you want the superficial or deep answer?" This nets a
surprisingly good response from a lot of people. It allows the
other person to cue us about the desired depth of communication.
That way, we are less likely to offend someone by being too
personal, nor to insult anyone if we keep things on the surface.
Dr. Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com
In my outpatient psychology practice, I hear so many questions
about being assertive. What is it? How does it work? When is it
needed or effective? Can you use it at work? What about with
intimates? In school? With anyone?
Assertiveness is about sharing some aspect of our experience
with others. My favorite metaphor is playing cards. We lay down
our cards, face up for our opponent to see. We are sharing what is
in our hand. By way of analogy, we communicate what is on our minds,
or express our feelings, presumably using words. Ideally, we do
so in a matter-of-fact manner, without much fanfare or drama.
It is a transaction and we execute it with increasing adroitness,
proportional to our training and practice.
Assertiveness is a skill that should transcend environments and
relationships. If we are truly assertive, it should not matter so
much where we are and with whom we communicate. In theory, it should
work anywhere with anyone.
In actual practice, assertiveness is not quite so clean and easy.
Assertiveness works best with intimates even though there is the most
potential fallout from being honest. In theory, intimate
communication works least well with acquaintances even though there is
less likelihood of a negative response from people we do not know well
or with whom we are involved with less.
This is because in true assertiveness, the effectiveness
(and consequences) increases the more we share our feelings.
This puts us at risk with intimates because now "they know" how we
really feel. But it also puts us at risk with acquaintances because
we might breach a boundary; that is, say too much that is personal to
someone who is not really a friend.
For the acquaintances, assertiveness comes out more cognitively;
that is, intellectually, devoid of too many feelings. In these
types of communications, assertiveness pretty much sticks to the
issues to be discussed, not our visceral reactions. With a boss,
for example, we can ask for a raise or complain about the workload,
but the communication will be transactional; that is, centered on a
narrow task, expectation or work experience. If the boss is our
friend, which can happen, assertiveness is easier from the feelings
point of view, but then becomes more complicated because now this
person in power also is privy to our feelings, not just our work
performance.
The antidote to these dilemmas is to first ask ourselves what
is the level of interpersonal depth of the relationship in question.
In the above example, we might ask, "How close am I to the boss,
really?" If the answer is questionable, assertiveness will tend
to be transactional. Stick to the more intellectual communication.
Stay focused on the situation or event and describe it in literal
terms, leaving feelings to be inferred by the listener.
More personal relationships have less censoring of personal
information and feelings, which can more easily be described using
actual feeling words. Friends also require less "pre-structuring"
(see below) of the communication. We just "go for it" because
with friends we have tacit permission.
However, with friends, many of us worry that because they are
friends, they will now keep this deeper communication longer.
If the communication happens to be less than ideal
(negative thoughts and feelings), it may haunt us in more personal
ways, and maybe for a long time.
A simple way to overcome these worries is to create some
communication before the communication (pre-structuring).
Try simply asking a person if he or she wants the polite or the
honest response to some issue. Or, phrase it another way.
"Do you want the superficial or deep answer?" This nets a
surprisingly good response from a lot of people. It allows the
other person to cue us about the desired depth of communication.
That way, we are less likely to offend someone by being too
personal, nor to insult anyone if we keep things on the surface.
Dr. Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com
Friday, February 5, 2010
Diagnosing Anxiety
Diagnosing Anxiety
Hello,
My name is Dr. Griggs. I am a clinical psychologist and have worked in private practice over twenty years. I've written a single subject ebook about how to diagnose and treat your own anxiety. I presume you want straight answers. My goal is to help you understand/learn about anxiety and to teach skills to manage it. In this monograph, I share my tweyty-two years of professional experience in this particular subject. My goal is to help you identify the symptoms and begin to deal with your symptoms, if that is what is appropriate, or to learn when to seek a professional. Many types of anxiety do not require professional help and, conversely, many do. I mainly discuss anxiety, so if you have “other” symptoms (depression, eating disorders, addictions, etc.) you can obtain other monographs on these subjects later. Since anxiety often is associated with and sometimes underlies these other conditions. I will mention these other areas briefly.
I have written this monograph because I see many anxious people in my practice who did not need to spend their money or time going to a therapist. There are many people like you who want or need information about their experiences, but cannot afford to see a therapist. There are people suffering from anxiety who need a therapist and might respond to a monograph like this because it is specific and confidential. Each of these groups of people might benefit from my experience and get some clinical direction, and possibly move towards solving some of their problems by themselves without lengthy treatment. This document educates and offers at least an initial approach to a widespread problem, and does so safely, sensibly and inexpensively. If you do not require treatment, this material will help you find that out, put your mind at ease and save you money. If you do need a therapist, this material will help you figure that out and point you in the right direction.
Everything presented here has been researched and used in my private practice for years. This approach to the subject of anxiety is the one I take when I work with clients. The process is well documented in established psychological journals and other professional psychological literature. That does not mean the psychological techniques necessarily will be easy. They are effective within the limits set forth in this monograph. I take you to the limits of what can be done in a self-help manual. It may be reassuring that anxiety is a very common experience and is not limited to the young or old, rich or poor, or to any race, religion or geographic area. This material is applicable to any adult who is experiencing some form of anxiety and who wants to know more or to do something about it. For more information on this Anxiety Monograph, or on me, or how to contact me, please visit my website at:
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page2.html
Dr. Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
Hello,
My name is Dr. Griggs. I am a clinical psychologist and have worked in private practice over twenty years. I've written a single subject ebook about how to diagnose and treat your own anxiety. I presume you want straight answers. My goal is to help you understand/learn about anxiety and to teach skills to manage it. In this monograph, I share my tweyty-two years of professional experience in this particular subject. My goal is to help you identify the symptoms and begin to deal with your symptoms, if that is what is appropriate, or to learn when to seek a professional. Many types of anxiety do not require professional help and, conversely, many do. I mainly discuss anxiety, so if you have “other” symptoms (depression, eating disorders, addictions, etc.) you can obtain other monographs on these subjects later. Since anxiety often is associated with and sometimes underlies these other conditions. I will mention these other areas briefly.
I have written this monograph because I see many anxious people in my practice who did not need to spend their money or time going to a therapist. There are many people like you who want or need information about their experiences, but cannot afford to see a therapist. There are people suffering from anxiety who need a therapist and might respond to a monograph like this because it is specific and confidential. Each of these groups of people might benefit from my experience and get some clinical direction, and possibly move towards solving some of their problems by themselves without lengthy treatment. This document educates and offers at least an initial approach to a widespread problem, and does so safely, sensibly and inexpensively. If you do not require treatment, this material will help you find that out, put your mind at ease and save you money. If you do need a therapist, this material will help you figure that out and point you in the right direction.
Everything presented here has been researched and used in my private practice for years. This approach to the subject of anxiety is the one I take when I work with clients. The process is well documented in established psychological journals and other professional psychological literature. That does not mean the psychological techniques necessarily will be easy. They are effective within the limits set forth in this monograph. I take you to the limits of what can be done in a self-help manual. It may be reassuring that anxiety is a very common experience and is not limited to the young or old, rich or poor, or to any race, religion or geographic area. This material is applicable to any adult who is experiencing some form of anxiety and who wants to know more or to do something about it. For more information on this Anxiety Monograph, or on me, or how to contact me, please visit my website at:
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page2.html
Dr. Griggs
http://www.drgriggs.org
ASSERTIVENESS IN THE WORKPLACE
ASSERTIVENESS IN THE WORKPLACE
Assertiveness is a simple skill that requires a lot of
practice to perfect. Basically, assertiveness requires us
to speak our minds, to do so in such a way that the meaning
of our communication is clear. Hopefully our expressed wish
is acknowledged, but this is not necessary for us to be
assertive. To achieve assertive communication, we have to
state what is in our minds; that is, our thoughts and feelings.
Advanced assertiveness (another article) is when we ask for
what we want regardless of whether the "recipient" understands
what we communicate, and regardless of whether or not we get
what we want.
This is the assertiveness "cover story," but it is
actually much broader and deeper, because we also have to
express our feelings in a way that usually is trained out
of us; that is, to tell others in some more direct way how
we feel, not just intellectually describe what we think.
Complete assertiveness requires both levels--intellectual and
emotional communication.
The workplace presents both a challenge and potentially
some relief when it comes to being assertive. On the one
hand, we work with others, usually often, so there is some
sense of familiarity. Yet, we do not live with them.
There is a certain built-in interpersonal distance.
(There are exceptions, like when we befriend a co-employee.
In that case there is a different dynamic that makes our
communication more personal. But I am talking about the
more general experience of acquaintances, which probably
better describes most of our work relationships.)
With acquaintances at work, the challenge is to ask for
what we want or at least state our opinion, more or less at
intellectual, pragmatic levels. We tend to leave out the
personal side, because our relationships
(above exception noted) are not that personal. From this
standpoint, assertiveness is easier because there are less
personal consequences. We can state "our case" and others
likely will not take our message so personally. This is
truer if the issue at hand is small. It is also more likely
to be true of communications among co-workers of equal status.
If there are other good elements; that is, more interpersonal
warmth, bonding and empathy, talking to the boss can be
assertively successful. But we need some slightly deeper
personal connection to the boss to make this work, to grease
the wheels of information exchange.
The workplace presents a challenge to being more
interpersonally intimate with co-workers who may not really
be so friendly. The same is true with bosses that have
different levels of power. (Interpersonal intimacy is the
aspect of communication that is more personal, private or
personally revealing of information normally reserved for
friends. This can be a little or a lot, depending upon the
extent of the burgeoning friendship. Power is defined by
how much a person can influence your experience. Obviously,
bosses usually have more of this, but co-workers with an
agenda; that is, when they have some underhanded motive(s),
can be just as powerful.)
Most people opt to not be so personal with fellow workers.
Most people choose to "keep it superficial." This limits the
amount of emotional depth that such a relationship evinces.
It also limits the effectiveness of assertiveness. Why?
Because true assertiveness requires the communication of
feelings to some degree or another. The more friendly and/or
personal the relationship, the greater the ease of expressing
feelings and consequently the greater likelihood of achieving
true assertiveness.
Does this mean that without empathy, warmth and (real or
potential) friendship that there can be no assertiveness? No.
In these cases, assertiveness just takes on a more intellectual,
transactional or superficial aspect. It can work, but it is
limited from a personal experience point of view. An example
is a grievance filed at work. In this circumstance, we
probably have lots of negative feelings. After all, we are
frustrated enough to file a formal complaint. The expression
of said complaint goes through channels, which is designed to
strip the complaint of its affective side. This is chiseled
down assertiveness, which is different from the kind we might
utilize with familiars.
Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com
http://www.drgriggs.org
Assertiveness is a simple skill that requires a lot of
practice to perfect. Basically, assertiveness requires us
to speak our minds, to do so in such a way that the meaning
of our communication is clear. Hopefully our expressed wish
is acknowledged, but this is not necessary for us to be
assertive. To achieve assertive communication, we have to
state what is in our minds; that is, our thoughts and feelings.
Advanced assertiveness (another article) is when we ask for
what we want regardless of whether the "recipient" understands
what we communicate, and regardless of whether or not we get
what we want.
This is the assertiveness "cover story," but it is
actually much broader and deeper, because we also have to
express our feelings in a way that usually is trained out
of us; that is, to tell others in some more direct way how
we feel, not just intellectually describe what we think.
Complete assertiveness requires both levels--intellectual and
emotional communication.
The workplace presents both a challenge and potentially
some relief when it comes to being assertive. On the one
hand, we work with others, usually often, so there is some
sense of familiarity. Yet, we do not live with them.
There is a certain built-in interpersonal distance.
(There are exceptions, like when we befriend a co-employee.
In that case there is a different dynamic that makes our
communication more personal. But I am talking about the
more general experience of acquaintances, which probably
better describes most of our work relationships.)
With acquaintances at work, the challenge is to ask for
what we want or at least state our opinion, more or less at
intellectual, pragmatic levels. We tend to leave out the
personal side, because our relationships
(above exception noted) are not that personal. From this
standpoint, assertiveness is easier because there are less
personal consequences. We can state "our case" and others
likely will not take our message so personally. This is
truer if the issue at hand is small. It is also more likely
to be true of communications among co-workers of equal status.
If there are other good elements; that is, more interpersonal
warmth, bonding and empathy, talking to the boss can be
assertively successful. But we need some slightly deeper
personal connection to the boss to make this work, to grease
the wheels of information exchange.
The workplace presents a challenge to being more
interpersonally intimate with co-workers who may not really
be so friendly. The same is true with bosses that have
different levels of power. (Interpersonal intimacy is the
aspect of communication that is more personal, private or
personally revealing of information normally reserved for
friends. This can be a little or a lot, depending upon the
extent of the burgeoning friendship. Power is defined by
how much a person can influence your experience. Obviously,
bosses usually have more of this, but co-workers with an
agenda; that is, when they have some underhanded motive(s),
can be just as powerful.)
Most people opt to not be so personal with fellow workers.
Most people choose to "keep it superficial." This limits the
amount of emotional depth that such a relationship evinces.
It also limits the effectiveness of assertiveness. Why?
Because true assertiveness requires the communication of
feelings to some degree or another. The more friendly and/or
personal the relationship, the greater the ease of expressing
feelings and consequently the greater likelihood of achieving
true assertiveness.
Does this mean that without empathy, warmth and (real or
potential) friendship that there can be no assertiveness? No.
In these cases, assertiveness just takes on a more intellectual,
transactional or superficial aspect. It can work, but it is
limited from a personal experience point of view. An example
is a grievance filed at work. In this circumstance, we
probably have lots of negative feelings. After all, we are
frustrated enough to file a formal complaint. The expression
of said complaint goes through channels, which is designed to
strip the complaint of its affective side. This is chiseled
down assertiveness, which is different from the kind we might
utilize with familiars.
Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com
http://www.drgriggs.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
