This is the second in a two-part series of articles on ambivalence and guilt. Please read the first article before reading this one. Written by a psychologist.
The Dictionary of Psychology defines an “Approach-Avoidance” situation, as …
“A conflict resulting from being both drawn and repelled by the same goal. This type of conflict is particularly difficult to resolve in that with distance the goal appears more desirable than fearful, whereas with proximity its aversive qualities tend to dominate, causing withdrawal, which, of course leads to an increase in the goal’s perceived positive features relative to the negative ones.”
For example, what happens when we are offered a job with a raise in salary but there are drawbacks, like having to work more hours or to move to another city? It gets more complicated.
The “Double Approach-Avoidance” situation is defined as a:
“…variation on the simple Approach-Avoidance conflict, in which each of two goals has both positive and negative aspects.”
An example (conflict) is when a person is on a diet. After the meal the waiter presents a delicious, calorie-rich chocolate cake on one plate, and a plain, unadorned carrot on another plate. The choice is to enjoy the cake (+) but suffer the consequences later (-), or eat the plain carrot (-), but enjoy the benefits later (+). Each has a plus and a minus, hence the double approach-avoidance.
These are the simplest classifications of ambivalence. There are thousands of potential approach-avoidant, approach-approach, and double approach-avoidant situations. Here’s one I recently heard in the office.
You are the parent of an adult child who is beyond old enough to take care of herself. Yet, she berates you when you fail to pay her rent and other expenses. You feel good about taking care of her but you feel bad about encouraging her dependence. She rewards you with approval when you support her but calls you a quitter and accuses you of abandoning her when you threaten to focus more on your needs. What kind of ambivalence is this? Approach-Avoidant? Approach-Approach? Double Approach-Approach? Double Approach-Avoidant? (Hint--choose the last one…)
In sum, ambivalence is a technical way of describing indecision, which is really central to the three conditions of procrastination, guilt and forgiveness. Indecision creates anxiety, which results from having to choose between usually conflicting alternatives. Indecision and conflicts can be conscious or unconscious. A conscious conflict means you are aware of both sides of the “argument”--good vs. good, bad vs. bad, or both good vs. bad, usually for more than one choice. A partially conscious conflict is when you are not aware of at least one side of things, but still feel some form of indecision, hence anxiety about the choice(s). An unconscious conflict is when there is indecision and you feel anxious but don’t have a clue why. Guilt works with ambivalence combining conflict with a sense of right and wrong in relation to THE standard.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page20.html
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Ambivalence and Guilt--Part I
This is the first of a two-part series on ambivalence and guilt. Written by a psychologist.
We all suffer from internal conflicts every day; some big, some little. Some conflicts are between ideas, concepts and values, while others are only between feelings. Some are conscious, some unconscious. In all cases, the irresolution of the conflict sponsors indecisiveness. The subjective experience is, “It doesn’t feel good.” It creates a sense of uneasiness. In my trade, it is said, we “compensate” or “defend” against this anxiety; that is, and we try to “deal” with it. Our training and experience determines the style (form and function) of the behaviors that express the conflict, as well as the psychological defenses we employ. These states of affair or subjective experiences of these conflicts are what I call “The Ambivalences.” Ambivalence is very common. It is a subclinical phenomenon; meaning, not a mental illness. I speak of three primary manifestations—procrastination, guilt and forgiveness. We all experience them.
So, I went to Google and typed in, “Ambi.” I found the following:
“…A prefix occurring in loanwords from Latin, meaning “both” (ambiguous) and “around”(ambient); used in the formation of compound words.”
And what is valence?
“…The psychological value of an object, event, person, goal, region, etc. in the life space of an individual…negative and positive for the valence of things avoided and sought after, respectively.”
The term “valence” is actually not very good, because it comes from chemistry, which is a hard science; whereas, psychology is not. In chemistry, valence is said to reflect the tendency, strength and/or capability to bond, as in two elements, chemical or molecules. In psychology, valence reflects the attraction or repulsion of feelings and ideas, which determine behavior. Such attractions and repulsions can be weak or strong, conscious or unconscious.
Put “ambi” and “valence” together to get “ambivalence.” One definition is the following:
“The coexistence within an individual of positive and negative feelings toward the same person, object, or action, simultaneously drawing him or her in opposite directions.”
A more detailed psychology definition of ambivalence includes the following:
“A tendency to ‘flip-flop’ one’s feelings or attitudes about a person, object or idea…. A state in which one is pulled in two mutually exclusive directions or towards two opposite goals. This meaning …shows up most clearly in the research on behavioral reactions to various forms of conflict.”
Ambivalence is when we want or do not want two things at once. As with all ambivalences, guilt can pop up when there are conflicts over values, ideas or feelings. However, guilt usually involves something more personal about us, what we did that was wrong vs. what we “should” or “should not” have done. We are aware of some aspects of these; that is, we may have a conscious experience of the conflicts. Or, the conflicts may be between what we are aware of and what is out of awareness. Many a thought has come and gone, yet still resides in our unconscious minds. Here, we find values, preferences, hidden motivations, likes and dislikes. As Freud said, here exists a whole pantheon of buried impulses; some good, some not. This mess in the back of our minds makes us both want something and at the same time not want something.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page20.html
We all suffer from internal conflicts every day; some big, some little. Some conflicts are between ideas, concepts and values, while others are only between feelings. Some are conscious, some unconscious. In all cases, the irresolution of the conflict sponsors indecisiveness. The subjective experience is, “It doesn’t feel good.” It creates a sense of uneasiness. In my trade, it is said, we “compensate” or “defend” against this anxiety; that is, and we try to “deal” with it. Our training and experience determines the style (form and function) of the behaviors that express the conflict, as well as the psychological defenses we employ. These states of affair or subjective experiences of these conflicts are what I call “The Ambivalences.” Ambivalence is very common. It is a subclinical phenomenon; meaning, not a mental illness. I speak of three primary manifestations—procrastination, guilt and forgiveness. We all experience them.
So, I went to Google and typed in, “Ambi.” I found the following:
“…A prefix occurring in loanwords from Latin, meaning “both” (ambiguous) and “around”(ambient); used in the formation of compound words.”
And what is valence?
“…The psychological value of an object, event, person, goal, region, etc. in the life space of an individual…negative and positive for the valence of things avoided and sought after, respectively.”
The term “valence” is actually not very good, because it comes from chemistry, which is a hard science; whereas, psychology is not. In chemistry, valence is said to reflect the tendency, strength and/or capability to bond, as in two elements, chemical or molecules. In psychology, valence reflects the attraction or repulsion of feelings and ideas, which determine behavior. Such attractions and repulsions can be weak or strong, conscious or unconscious.
Put “ambi” and “valence” together to get “ambivalence.” One definition is the following:
“The coexistence within an individual of positive and negative feelings toward the same person, object, or action, simultaneously drawing him or her in opposite directions.”
A more detailed psychology definition of ambivalence includes the following:
“A tendency to ‘flip-flop’ one’s feelings or attitudes about a person, object or idea…. A state in which one is pulled in two mutually exclusive directions or towards two opposite goals. This meaning …shows up most clearly in the research on behavioral reactions to various forms of conflict.”
Ambivalence is when we want or do not want two things at once. As with all ambivalences, guilt can pop up when there are conflicts over values, ideas or feelings. However, guilt usually involves something more personal about us, what we did that was wrong vs. what we “should” or “should not” have done. We are aware of some aspects of these; that is, we may have a conscious experience of the conflicts. Or, the conflicts may be between what we are aware of and what is out of awareness. Many a thought has come and gone, yet still resides in our unconscious minds. Here, we find values, preferences, hidden motivations, likes and dislikes. As Freud said, here exists a whole pantheon of buried impulses; some good, some not. This mess in the back of our minds makes us both want something and at the same time not want something.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page20.html
Example 2-Dealing With Procrastination
Jim is a teenager who puts off cleaning his room until the
last possible second. He does the same for homework, preferring
to do it at eleven 'o clock at night, just before bedtime. What
might be going on with Jim?
What is the ambivalence? In this case, Jim was in "full on"
protest mode, just because of his age. Teens like to thwart authority.
Why? Because they are trying to usurp their own, and will do so from
any available source. Since parents are the closest objects in their
living environment, they get the majority of the usurping, in this case
in the form of un-cooperation. Jim was asserting his independence.
But, this also looks like defiance, which is not what Jim's parents
well tolerate. So, Jim has to drive his insubordination underground,
into the back of his mind, where it will not consciously bother him.
Having achieved this, probably by repeatedly deciding this over time,
Jim now automatically delays cleaning his room when asked, thus giving
vent to his protest needs without creating much conflict on the surface.
Nice balance, but not sufficient for parents, who sooner or later notice
the room is still not clean.
Jim is also mad at his younger sister, who cleans her room regularly,
if nothing more than to make Jim look bad. Jim does not want to conform
to his sister's behavior, because it makes him look like the loser. The
sister wins the power struggle because she cleaned her room first, gets
lots of recognition and older brother, Jim, now has copied her, which makes him look less "right."
The competition continues with homework. Sister does hers earlier
in the evening and gets better grades. Jim puts his off to avoid doing
what sister does, thus differentiating himself, simultaneously expressing
his resentment at "miss goodie two shoes." In his own mind, Jim minimizes the fact that she does better in school and gets more recognition from parents.
Further, Jim is in a social group of other boys who, likewise, put
things off, including cleaning their rooms and doing homework earlier.
To fit in with the group, Jim must protest parental demands even if it means enduring criticism at home. In this case the negative feedback from parents is an admission ticket into the group. It is the Red Badge of Courage that shows worthwhileness. Here, again, is the ego need.
All of these dynamics are also somewhat buried under the surface of
consciousness, as with Frank (previous article, Example 1--Dealing With procrastination). To resolve the ambivalence, I had to get Jim to face his underlying needs, wants, drives and wishes. I had to make conscious his wish to make powerless his parents and sister and teachers. I had to do a little "excavating" with a few key questions. "How do you FEEL about your parents, sister and teachers? What do you WANT from your family and teachers and friends? What do you RESENT about these people?
Having done that, the next step was to help Jim express himself assertively. He was to tell his parents his needs and then engage in a little bargaining. For example, he wanted to clean his room, just not on their schedule. So, Jim approached his parents and proposed a different schedule that still maintained a clean room. Likewise, Jim preferred to study at school in the morning at study hall, which just happened to be a free period at the beginning of the school day. Previously, he had been sleeping in this class, because of staying up too late. He agreed to go to sleep earlier, study at school and not study at home at night. Instead, he wanted to play video games online with his friends in the evening. His parents agreed only if his room stayed clean and his grades improved. Since Jim was now in more control of his own destiny (autonomy needs) and since Jim was making better grades (more successfully competing with his sister, only on HIS terms) and since he was more accepted by his social group (greater sense of his SOCIAL self), everybody won. Jim accomplished these things by making conscious his underlying dynamics, and then assertively expressing them with a little creative bargaining. Procrastination be gone!
--Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page192.html
last possible second. He does the same for homework, preferring
to do it at eleven 'o clock at night, just before bedtime. What
might be going on with Jim?
What is the ambivalence? In this case, Jim was in "full on"
protest mode, just because of his age. Teens like to thwart authority.
Why? Because they are trying to usurp their own, and will do so from
any available source. Since parents are the closest objects in their
living environment, they get the majority of the usurping, in this case
in the form of un-cooperation. Jim was asserting his independence.
But, this also looks like defiance, which is not what Jim's parents
well tolerate. So, Jim has to drive his insubordination underground,
into the back of his mind, where it will not consciously bother him.
Having achieved this, probably by repeatedly deciding this over time,
Jim now automatically delays cleaning his room when asked, thus giving
vent to his protest needs without creating much conflict on the surface.
Nice balance, but not sufficient for parents, who sooner or later notice
the room is still not clean.
Jim is also mad at his younger sister, who cleans her room regularly,
if nothing more than to make Jim look bad. Jim does not want to conform
to his sister's behavior, because it makes him look like the loser. The
sister wins the power struggle because she cleaned her room first, gets
lots of recognition and older brother, Jim, now has copied her, which makes him look less "right."
The competition continues with homework. Sister does hers earlier
in the evening and gets better grades. Jim puts his off to avoid doing
what sister does, thus differentiating himself, simultaneously expressing
his resentment at "miss goodie two shoes." In his own mind, Jim minimizes the fact that she does better in school and gets more recognition from parents.
Further, Jim is in a social group of other boys who, likewise, put
things off, including cleaning their rooms and doing homework earlier.
To fit in with the group, Jim must protest parental demands even if it means enduring criticism at home. In this case the negative feedback from parents is an admission ticket into the group. It is the Red Badge of Courage that shows worthwhileness. Here, again, is the ego need.
All of these dynamics are also somewhat buried under the surface of
consciousness, as with Frank (previous article, Example 1--Dealing With procrastination). To resolve the ambivalence, I had to get Jim to face his underlying needs, wants, drives and wishes. I had to make conscious his wish to make powerless his parents and sister and teachers. I had to do a little "excavating" with a few key questions. "How do you FEEL about your parents, sister and teachers? What do you WANT from your family and teachers and friends? What do you RESENT about these people?
Having done that, the next step was to help Jim express himself assertively. He was to tell his parents his needs and then engage in a little bargaining. For example, he wanted to clean his room, just not on their schedule. So, Jim approached his parents and proposed a different schedule that still maintained a clean room. Likewise, Jim preferred to study at school in the morning at study hall, which just happened to be a free period at the beginning of the school day. Previously, he had been sleeping in this class, because of staying up too late. He agreed to go to sleep earlier, study at school and not study at home at night. Instead, he wanted to play video games online with his friends in the evening. His parents agreed only if his room stayed clean and his grades improved. Since Jim was now in more control of his own destiny (autonomy needs) and since Jim was making better grades (more successfully competing with his sister, only on HIS terms) and since he was more accepted by his social group (greater sense of his SOCIAL self), everybody won. Jim accomplished these things by making conscious his underlying dynamics, and then assertively expressing them with a little creative bargaining. Procrastination be gone!
--Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page192.html
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
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
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
Friday, August 19, 2011
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
