I found some more good quotes on guilt…
“Guilt is the reason they put the articles in Playboy.”--Dennis Miller
“Food, love, career, and mothers, the four major guilt groups.”-- Cathy Guisewite
“No work for love will flourish out of guilt, fear, or hollowness of heart, just as no valid plans for the future can be made by those who have no capacity for living now.”—Alan Watts
“The only things that I can tell you is that every case I have reviewed I have been comfortable with the innocence or guilt of the person that I've looked at. I do not believe we've put a guilty... I mean innocent person to death in the state of Texas.”--George W. Bush
“Never regret anything because at one time it was what you wanted.”--Unknown
“It's regret, I think that really is the worst kind of pain. Yeah guilt is bad, and sadness is bad, but regret is the sickly combination of both.” --Unknown
“Is it possible that all the horrible things you've done have been forgotten by everyone-except yourself?”--Unknown
“Alas! How difficult it is not to betray one's guilt by one's looks.”--Ovid
“Innocence does not find near so much protection as guilt.”--Francois de La Rochefoucauld
“Now, I don't want to get off on a rant here, but guilt is simply God's way of letting you know that you're having too good a time.”--Dennis Miller
“Now, of course, the great thing about the solar system as a frontier is that there are no Indians, so you can have all the glory of the myth of the American westward expansion without any of the guilt.”--Sarah Zettel
“Repentant tears wash out the stain of guilt.”--Saint Aurelius Augustine
“Guilt is present in the very hesitation, even though the deed be not committed.”--Cicero
“Guilt is a spiritual Rubicon.”--Jane Porter floating around in our culture and our consciousness.
“Why don't Jews drink? It interferes with their suffering.”--Henny Youngman
“How tedious is a guilty conscience!”--John Webster hat we can do. It is greatly misunderstood and because of this it is rarely given in the truest sense of the w
“We prefer a meaningless collective guilt to a meaningful individual responsibility”--Thomas Szasz.
--Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
Friday, October 14, 2011
Guilt Quotes--Part I
In my wanderings about the literature on guilt, I ran across some quotes. Some are sprinkled throughout an ebook I’ve written on guilt. Here’s some I thought were good:
“Guilt is anger directed at ourselves.”--Peter McWilliams
“If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber.”--Albert Einstein
“If you wind up with a boring, miserable life because you listened to your mom, your dad, your teacher, your priest or some guy on TV telling you what to do, then YOU DESERVE IT.”--Frank Zappa
“It is the confession, not the priest, that gives us absolution.”--Oscar Wilde
“Guilt is the price we pay willingly for doing what we are going to do anyway.”--Isabelle Holland
“The guilty think all talk is of themselves.”--Chaucer
“Guilt is absent when the act is justified.”--Anon
“For socialists, not just the wealth, but the guilt must be redistributed.”--Andrew Sandlin
“Guilt is the very nerve of sorrow.”--Horace Bushnell
“It is quite gratifying to feel guilty if you haven’t done anything wrong; how noble! Whereas it is rather hard and certainly depressive to admit guilt and to repent.” Hannah Arendt
“You can bear anything if it is not your fault.”--Katherine Fullerton Gerould
“Guilt is regret for what we’ve done. Regret is guilt for what we didn’t do.”--Unknown
“I have half a conscience to go ahead and do it, and feel guilty afterwards.”--Unknown
“Guilt: the gift that keeps on giving.”--Erma Bombeck
“Fear is the tax which conscience pays to guilt”--Anon
“Whoever blushes confesses guilt, true innocence never feels shame.”--Jean-Jacques Rousseau
“Guilt is perhaps the most painful companion of death.”--Coco Chanel
“I have never smuggled anything in my life. Why, then, do I feel an uneasy sense of guilt on approaching a customs barrier?”--John Steinbeck
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
“Guilt is anger directed at ourselves.”--Peter McWilliams
“If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber.”--Albert Einstein
“If you wind up with a boring, miserable life because you listened to your mom, your dad, your teacher, your priest or some guy on TV telling you what to do, then YOU DESERVE IT.”--Frank Zappa
“It is the confession, not the priest, that gives us absolution.”--Oscar Wilde
“Guilt is the price we pay willingly for doing what we are going to do anyway.”--Isabelle Holland
“The guilty think all talk is of themselves.”--Chaucer
“Guilt is absent when the act is justified.”--Anon
“For socialists, not just the wealth, but the guilt must be redistributed.”--Andrew Sandlin
“Guilt is the very nerve of sorrow.”--Horace Bushnell
“It is quite gratifying to feel guilty if you haven’t done anything wrong; how noble! Whereas it is rather hard and certainly depressive to admit guilt and to repent.” Hannah Arendt
“You can bear anything if it is not your fault.”--Katherine Fullerton Gerould
“Guilt is regret for what we’ve done. Regret is guilt for what we didn’t do.”--Unknown
“I have half a conscience to go ahead and do it, and feel guilty afterwards.”--Unknown
“Guilt: the gift that keeps on giving.”--Erma Bombeck
“Fear is the tax which conscience pays to guilt”--Anon
“Whoever blushes confesses guilt, true innocence never feels shame.”--Jean-Jacques Rousseau
“Guilt is perhaps the most painful companion of death.”--Coco Chanel
“I have never smuggled anything in my life. Why, then, do I feel an uneasy sense of guilt on approaching a customs barrier?”--John Steinbeck
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Examples of Guilt--Part VI
This is the last of a six-part series of articles on guilt, emphasizing specific examples, and how to deal with them. Written by a psychologist.
To continue…
Bigger causes of guilt require greater perspective, but not any more effort to find a third standard. For example, there are various methods of reducing collective guilt. One of these methods is to deny an ingroup’s deleterious actions or results. “It really isn’t so bad.” By denying the ingroup’s harmful actions, or downplaying the severity of the harm, the effect of collective guilt is lessened. Gangs routinely ignore the violence they perpetrate on one another in the service of maintaining gang “integrity.” If an individual or group can neglect to observe the harm caused by their actions, either consciously or unconsciously, the involved parties will not feel collective guilt. So, if the gang “does a drive by,” then pays no attention to the aftermath, “justice is served” (with no ambivalence, no guilt).
Another way to reduce collective guilt is to deny responsibility, pleading the group’s actions were just. If a person does not feel that the ingroup is responsible for the harm caused by actions, collective guilt will be lessened. This works well if one identifies with the group and minimizes his or her own individual actions. However, if a person believes that only individuals are responsible for their own actions, and not a collective group, then they cannot deny the existence of collective responsibility, thereby they as individuals will feel some guilt. This is individual rationalization when it works, guilt when it fails to separate the person from the group.
Another is to focus on positive aspects caused by the harmful action. “Look at the good that came out of that.” If the individual believes that there were just reasons for the harm inflicted, collective guilt is likely to be reduced. Outgroup dehumanization is one effective means towards justifying the ingroup’s actions. For instance, an individual or group may choose to focus on the benefits of high levels of factory production and consumption, and not on its harmful effects on the environment. Rebellion upsets the control of dictatorships, resulting in presumably better forms of government. Union bargaining escalates costs (dues, meetings), but is not something an individual will necessarily suffer much from, so there results greater good for all—shorter work hours, greater hourly wages, more vacations, all in the service of justifying the Union’s action.
Again, in the literature, there are more academic and intellectual approaches to dealing with guilt. Guilt can sometimes be remedied by punishment (a common action advised or required in many legal and moral codes); forgiveness (see the next ebook by this title by this author); making amends (reparation--legal--or acts of reparation); sincerity, as in displaying remorse (confession to clergy) or restorative justice (paying pennance for a crime). Regarding the latter, law does not usually accept the agent's self-punishment, but some ancient codes made allowances for this. In ancient Athens, the accused could propose his own remedy, which could, in fact, be a reward, while the accuser proposed another consequence. The jury usually chose something in-between. This forced the accused to effectively bet on his support in the community, as Socrates did when he proposed "room and board in the town hall" as his fate. He lost, and drank hemlock, as advised by his accuser.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
To continue…
Bigger causes of guilt require greater perspective, but not any more effort to find a third standard. For example, there are various methods of reducing collective guilt. One of these methods is to deny an ingroup’s deleterious actions or results. “It really isn’t so bad.” By denying the ingroup’s harmful actions, or downplaying the severity of the harm, the effect of collective guilt is lessened. Gangs routinely ignore the violence they perpetrate on one another in the service of maintaining gang “integrity.” If an individual or group can neglect to observe the harm caused by their actions, either consciously or unconsciously, the involved parties will not feel collective guilt. So, if the gang “does a drive by,” then pays no attention to the aftermath, “justice is served” (with no ambivalence, no guilt).
Another way to reduce collective guilt is to deny responsibility, pleading the group’s actions were just. If a person does not feel that the ingroup is responsible for the harm caused by actions, collective guilt will be lessened. This works well if one identifies with the group and minimizes his or her own individual actions. However, if a person believes that only individuals are responsible for their own actions, and not a collective group, then they cannot deny the existence of collective responsibility, thereby they as individuals will feel some guilt. This is individual rationalization when it works, guilt when it fails to separate the person from the group.
Another is to focus on positive aspects caused by the harmful action. “Look at the good that came out of that.” If the individual believes that there were just reasons for the harm inflicted, collective guilt is likely to be reduced. Outgroup dehumanization is one effective means towards justifying the ingroup’s actions. For instance, an individual or group may choose to focus on the benefits of high levels of factory production and consumption, and not on its harmful effects on the environment. Rebellion upsets the control of dictatorships, resulting in presumably better forms of government. Union bargaining escalates costs (dues, meetings), but is not something an individual will necessarily suffer much from, so there results greater good for all—shorter work hours, greater hourly wages, more vacations, all in the service of justifying the Union’s action.
Again, in the literature, there are more academic and intellectual approaches to dealing with guilt. Guilt can sometimes be remedied by punishment (a common action advised or required in many legal and moral codes); forgiveness (see the next ebook by this title by this author); making amends (reparation--legal--or acts of reparation); sincerity, as in displaying remorse (confession to clergy) or restorative justice (paying pennance for a crime). Regarding the latter, law does not usually accept the agent's self-punishment, but some ancient codes made allowances for this. In ancient Athens, the accused could propose his own remedy, which could, in fact, be a reward, while the accuser proposed another consequence. The jury usually chose something in-between. This forced the accused to effectively bet on his support in the community, as Socrates did when he proposed "room and board in the town hall" as his fate. He lost, and drank hemlock, as advised by his accuser.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
Examples of Guilt--Part V
This is the fifth of a six-part series of articles on guilt, emphasizing specific examples, and how to deal with them. Written by a psychologist.
To continue…
More complicated is the example of the wife who had the affair. She committed a sin of commission. She did something at the same time both reactive and proactive, that on the surface was negative, and it had a bigger impact on hers’ and others’ lives. Was her behavior immoral? From the Christian standpoint, it was. From a psychological perspective, it was understandable. The former judges, the latter evaluates. We understand the pressures the wife must have felt. We know her motives but we also know the mores and can probably guess the transgressed wedding vows. Was her behavior illegal? No, not in the USA (not considering Blue Laws). It is not illegal to have an affair in the United States, even though infidelity is the second most often cited reason for divorce, so it is not a matter of violating law. But the judging side of us thinks this act is personally heinous.
In this case, the third standard would be to identify the dysfunction in the marriage and to assess the dynamics. Preferably this will have occurred before the affair, but this requires that the wife would have had the skills necessary to confront the pain of poor communication with her husband, his drinking, avoiding or worse, ignoring her. Likely, she had little or no skills in these areas, and maybe experienced mood problems and low self-esteem, either before or during the marriage, thus she probably tolerated such a protracted negative union way too long. A review of her personal history probably also would reveal flaws in the development of self-control. Thinking about all these aspects, likely, the wife had considerable ambivalence. Regardless, the third standard is to acknowledge all these possible scenarios and experiences and to act upon what they suggest in other ways. In this case, marriage counseling was indicated, and if that failed, divorce counseling. If the wife made conscious all these experiences, availed herself of the options and then had an affair, we might have had a much greater acceptance of her behavior, even though if she was still married, it would have been the same “immoral” act, viewed judgmentally. But, psychologically, her affair would have made sense and in some circles, would even have been adaptive; that is, it pushed her out of her comfort zone, beyond her limitations and paved the way for psychological growth. This illustrates the principal of re-framing; that is, pulling back and looking at the bigger picture. This is just another way of stating, pay attention to another or third standard, and don’t succumb to the pressure of accepting only one of the two limited viewpoints (sins of omission or sins of commission). In the future, this will help heal the “faulty soul” feeling, which will be invaluable in working with shame and self-forgiveness (the next ebook, which is part three in this series of ambivalences).
In the example of eating a big, calorie-rich meal to celebrate graduating college (despite my doctor’s warning), my re-framing will be to expand the viewpoint, vowing to change something in the future. “My doctor is right, but this is only one meal. I’ll go to the gym and start eating better tomorrow.” This is accepting the sin of eating fatty foods now, and putting off the treatment until later. This is also ambivalence, rationalizing and procrastination through “hyperbolic reasoning” (See the ebook on Procrastination). In this case, procrastination and guilt overlap. I then go on to accept the guilt, but propose a remedy; one that I’ll just not now employ, thus allowing me to enjoy the big meal in the moment with my friends. The third standard is to eat well and exercise later. I have introduced the element of time to reduce the severity of my sin of commission (eating poorly), and later I may or may not carry out my plan (statistics suggest that when it comes to food, the “plan” likely will not be carried out, but again, that is the subject of the Procrastination ebook).
Using this same example, another version of the third standard, is to reject the first two. “I don’t care what the doctor said, what does he know?” “I’m only twenty-two. I can eat anything I want because I’m young.” “My parents eat this way and they are still alive and healthy.” This strategy also works well in the next example, about getting an A- vs. an A. “I’m only in seventh grade. Colleges don’t even start to look at grades until high school (this is not always true, these days…). “I’ve got three more exams to make up that boo-boo, so I don’t have to worry about it.” “I’ve learned the difference between homonyms, so no problems down the road.” Ambivalence succumbs to rationalization, and then suppression, at least for the time being.
--Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/pge202.html
To continue…
More complicated is the example of the wife who had the affair. She committed a sin of commission. She did something at the same time both reactive and proactive, that on the surface was negative, and it had a bigger impact on hers’ and others’ lives. Was her behavior immoral? From the Christian standpoint, it was. From a psychological perspective, it was understandable. The former judges, the latter evaluates. We understand the pressures the wife must have felt. We know her motives but we also know the mores and can probably guess the transgressed wedding vows. Was her behavior illegal? No, not in the USA (not considering Blue Laws). It is not illegal to have an affair in the United States, even though infidelity is the second most often cited reason for divorce, so it is not a matter of violating law. But the judging side of us thinks this act is personally heinous.
In this case, the third standard would be to identify the dysfunction in the marriage and to assess the dynamics. Preferably this will have occurred before the affair, but this requires that the wife would have had the skills necessary to confront the pain of poor communication with her husband, his drinking, avoiding or worse, ignoring her. Likely, she had little or no skills in these areas, and maybe experienced mood problems and low self-esteem, either before or during the marriage, thus she probably tolerated such a protracted negative union way too long. A review of her personal history probably also would reveal flaws in the development of self-control. Thinking about all these aspects, likely, the wife had considerable ambivalence. Regardless, the third standard is to acknowledge all these possible scenarios and experiences and to act upon what they suggest in other ways. In this case, marriage counseling was indicated, and if that failed, divorce counseling. If the wife made conscious all these experiences, availed herself of the options and then had an affair, we might have had a much greater acceptance of her behavior, even though if she was still married, it would have been the same “immoral” act, viewed judgmentally. But, psychologically, her affair would have made sense and in some circles, would even have been adaptive; that is, it pushed her out of her comfort zone, beyond her limitations and paved the way for psychological growth. This illustrates the principal of re-framing; that is, pulling back and looking at the bigger picture. This is just another way of stating, pay attention to another or third standard, and don’t succumb to the pressure of accepting only one of the two limited viewpoints (sins of omission or sins of commission). In the future, this will help heal the “faulty soul” feeling, which will be invaluable in working with shame and self-forgiveness (the next ebook, which is part three in this series of ambivalences).
In the example of eating a big, calorie-rich meal to celebrate graduating college (despite my doctor’s warning), my re-framing will be to expand the viewpoint, vowing to change something in the future. “My doctor is right, but this is only one meal. I’ll go to the gym and start eating better tomorrow.” This is accepting the sin of eating fatty foods now, and putting off the treatment until later. This is also ambivalence, rationalizing and procrastination through “hyperbolic reasoning” (See the ebook on Procrastination). In this case, procrastination and guilt overlap. I then go on to accept the guilt, but propose a remedy; one that I’ll just not now employ, thus allowing me to enjoy the big meal in the moment with my friends. The third standard is to eat well and exercise later. I have introduced the element of time to reduce the severity of my sin of commission (eating poorly), and later I may or may not carry out my plan (statistics suggest that when it comes to food, the “plan” likely will not be carried out, but again, that is the subject of the Procrastination ebook).
Using this same example, another version of the third standard, is to reject the first two. “I don’t care what the doctor said, what does he know?” “I’m only twenty-two. I can eat anything I want because I’m young.” “My parents eat this way and they are still alive and healthy.” This strategy also works well in the next example, about getting an A- vs. an A. “I’m only in seventh grade. Colleges don’t even start to look at grades until high school (this is not always true, these days…). “I’ve got three more exams to make up that boo-boo, so I don’t have to worry about it.” “I’ve learned the difference between homonyms, so no problems down the road.” Ambivalence succumbs to rationalization, and then suppression, at least for the time being.
--Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/pge202.html
Examples of Guilt--Part IV
Examples of Guilt--Part IV
This is the fourth of a six-part series of articles on guilt, emphasizing specific examples, and how to deal with them. Written by a psychologist.
To continue…
Guilt can be appropriate and act to protect us from danger. Using the example of speeding on the freeway; speeding, potentially, was dangerous. I was in the wrong, even though I rationalized my behavior by citing everyone else’s wrong behavior. (“If everyone else is doing it, it must be OK.”) The cop had a different perspective. He was enforcing the law, and that day, I just happened to be the fish in his barrel. In this case, the evaluation (vs. judgment) is not about me personally, but of a motorist going too fast. My personal reaction is another matter, but I probably don’t feel so judged, because my sin was not so much about me, personally, even though it was me behind the wheel. But if the consequence of my acts was major, or the policeman was looking for me specifically, then my sin would have been increasingly judged as such, probably legally, and the evaluation of my driving would have bled over into the judgment arena, and would have resulted in greater punishment. Imagine if my speeding caused an accident and someone was killed.
Regardless, my conversation with the officer, while tense, might have emphasized my need to get home early, that I was late because my son had a baseball game and I was the umpire, etc. I might have manipulatively complimented the officer on his nice shiny badge or how good it is that he was protecting the public. (These ploys don’t work on police.) I am manipulating, but it is in the service of creating that third standard--my need to be somewhere else in a hurry. While not necessarily true, I’m at least rationalizing that my need is greater in importance than the current standard--driving the speed limit. So, in this case, unless I’m rushing my wife to the hospital to deliver a baby, I’m at fault and guilty. So, sometimes, creating a third standard and standing up for it, assertively, doesn’t work very well, especially when the potential consequences are bigger and the standard I’m creating in my own defense is wrong. In less structured or smaller-consequence circumstances, this might work better, especially if the standard is not so clear.
Remember the example of wearing clean underwear? The third standard is, “I already have on clean underwear, so drop it.” The standard is, “Mom, what are the chances of getting into an accident while wearing this pair of underwear?” “Mom, if I’m in the hospital with a concussion, what physician is going to care about my underwear?” Not wearing clean underwear is an example both of sins of omission (I didn’t change before leaving) and commission (I’ve been wearing this underwear only a little while and I’m not going to change them). The “third” standard in this situation is created by being rational, using statistics, i.e., exploring the likelihood of a “bad” experience actually happening while I am wearing this pair of underwear. Because this event is a small one and has very little likely external consequence, and because it is between two individuals, now in a personal relationship, the rules of engagement are broader and more flexible. There is more opportunity to insert another standard or way of thinking and behaving, not having to conform to either of the two manipulative ones. I could even refuse to conform to the guilt-induced manipulations imposed by Mom all together. In this case the ambivalence is also about which path of action to take, not just the result of conflicting values. In this particular example, the dynamic of inducing guilt probably will remain more at the level of evaluation rather than judgment, one, because it is a small event, and two, because it is local, pertaining to intimate, personal information between two parties who more regularly interact personally.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
This is the fourth of a six-part series of articles on guilt, emphasizing specific examples, and how to deal with them. Written by a psychologist.
To continue…
Guilt can be appropriate and act to protect us from danger. Using the example of speeding on the freeway; speeding, potentially, was dangerous. I was in the wrong, even though I rationalized my behavior by citing everyone else’s wrong behavior. (“If everyone else is doing it, it must be OK.”) The cop had a different perspective. He was enforcing the law, and that day, I just happened to be the fish in his barrel. In this case, the evaluation (vs. judgment) is not about me personally, but of a motorist going too fast. My personal reaction is another matter, but I probably don’t feel so judged, because my sin was not so much about me, personally, even though it was me behind the wheel. But if the consequence of my acts was major, or the policeman was looking for me specifically, then my sin would have been increasingly judged as such, probably legally, and the evaluation of my driving would have bled over into the judgment arena, and would have resulted in greater punishment. Imagine if my speeding caused an accident and someone was killed.
Regardless, my conversation with the officer, while tense, might have emphasized my need to get home early, that I was late because my son had a baseball game and I was the umpire, etc. I might have manipulatively complimented the officer on his nice shiny badge or how good it is that he was protecting the public. (These ploys don’t work on police.) I am manipulating, but it is in the service of creating that third standard--my need to be somewhere else in a hurry. While not necessarily true, I’m at least rationalizing that my need is greater in importance than the current standard--driving the speed limit. So, in this case, unless I’m rushing my wife to the hospital to deliver a baby, I’m at fault and guilty. So, sometimes, creating a third standard and standing up for it, assertively, doesn’t work very well, especially when the potential consequences are bigger and the standard I’m creating in my own defense is wrong. In less structured or smaller-consequence circumstances, this might work better, especially if the standard is not so clear.
Remember the example of wearing clean underwear? The third standard is, “I already have on clean underwear, so drop it.” The standard is, “Mom, what are the chances of getting into an accident while wearing this pair of underwear?” “Mom, if I’m in the hospital with a concussion, what physician is going to care about my underwear?” Not wearing clean underwear is an example both of sins of omission (I didn’t change before leaving) and commission (I’ve been wearing this underwear only a little while and I’m not going to change them). The “third” standard in this situation is created by being rational, using statistics, i.e., exploring the likelihood of a “bad” experience actually happening while I am wearing this pair of underwear. Because this event is a small one and has very little likely external consequence, and because it is between two individuals, now in a personal relationship, the rules of engagement are broader and more flexible. There is more opportunity to insert another standard or way of thinking and behaving, not having to conform to either of the two manipulative ones. I could even refuse to conform to the guilt-induced manipulations imposed by Mom all together. In this case the ambivalence is also about which path of action to take, not just the result of conflicting values. In this particular example, the dynamic of inducing guilt probably will remain more at the level of evaluation rather than judgment, one, because it is a small event, and two, because it is local, pertaining to intimate, personal information between two parties who more regularly interact personally.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
Examples of Guilt--Part III
Examples of Guilt--Part III
This is the third of a six-part series of articles on guilt, emphasizing specific examples, and how to deal with them. Written by a psychologist.
To continue…
The trick was to “unbundle” one or more different dimensions that were embedded in one guilt-inducing level of communication. The principle is to deal with the different dimensions separately. Do so by making them conscious and then describe them out loud, preferably articulating each separately. This excavates the underlying ambivalence, exposes the anger and weakens the foundation of guilt. Unfortunately, still there might be some anxiety, but it will be more conscious. Now we have to speak up, which, for many of us, is another cause of anxiety. While this is still not entirely comfortable, it is a step away from verbal manipulation and towards psychological health.
Another thing I tried to do is in this example was to reduce comparisons to evaluations, not judgments. When we compare two “things” (ideas, beliefs, values, behaviors, etc.), we look at their merits. In my terms, that means looking at whether or not they work, or, whether they are effective; that is, accomplish the intended results. Something is superior or inferior if it does a better or worse job. This is an evaluation. That’s it. In the example, I created an Adult-Adult communication. This is good.
Judgment adds a different dimension, one of right or wrong. It tends to be more personal. Because it is personal, the judgment dynamic wreaks havoc at personal levels. It creates anxiety, depression, lowered self-esteem and is the chief player creating resentment. This would be a Parent-Child communication. This is bad. In the example, I failed to buy milk. That was not personal, but my wife made it so to maneuver me, to change my behavior using guilt. I separated the two dimensions, restoring the failing-to-buy-milk part to being just transactional; that is, a behavior without personal sequelae (referring again to anxiety, depression, etc.). I made it Adult-to-Adult, not Parent-to-Child communication. I challenged the judgment part (“Don’t you love me?”) by eliminating the personal association implied by failing to buy milk. Failing to buy milk had nothing to do with loving my wife. It had to do with my absent-mindedness. I feel the same about my wife, regardless of my memory problem. In real life, sooner or later, judgment is likely to creep into almost any communication. Small and mild judgments will not do serious damage and can be dealt with in the above manner; that is, by separating the dimensions, then using process-level communication to expose the ruse via assertive communication.
A more blunt example is the adult parent being “guilted” into supporting his manipulative progeny. In this case, assertiveness might have taken the form of “tough love.” The parent might have turned the argument around by saying “Was I abandoning you when I was paying your rent all these years?” “Who’s the bad guy when you don’t succeed and I have to bail you out, at my expense?” “How about you get it together and pull your own weight and stop using my support to mask your lack of initiative?” This teases out all the levels and “powers up” this parent. Now, the parent is focused on THE standard—his!
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
This is the third of a six-part series of articles on guilt, emphasizing specific examples, and how to deal with them. Written by a psychologist.
To continue…
The trick was to “unbundle” one or more different dimensions that were embedded in one guilt-inducing level of communication. The principle is to deal with the different dimensions separately. Do so by making them conscious and then describe them out loud, preferably articulating each separately. This excavates the underlying ambivalence, exposes the anger and weakens the foundation of guilt. Unfortunately, still there might be some anxiety, but it will be more conscious. Now we have to speak up, which, for many of us, is another cause of anxiety. While this is still not entirely comfortable, it is a step away from verbal manipulation and towards psychological health.
Another thing I tried to do is in this example was to reduce comparisons to evaluations, not judgments. When we compare two “things” (ideas, beliefs, values, behaviors, etc.), we look at their merits. In my terms, that means looking at whether or not they work, or, whether they are effective; that is, accomplish the intended results. Something is superior or inferior if it does a better or worse job. This is an evaluation. That’s it. In the example, I created an Adult-Adult communication. This is good.
Judgment adds a different dimension, one of right or wrong. It tends to be more personal. Because it is personal, the judgment dynamic wreaks havoc at personal levels. It creates anxiety, depression, lowered self-esteem and is the chief player creating resentment. This would be a Parent-Child communication. This is bad. In the example, I failed to buy milk. That was not personal, but my wife made it so to maneuver me, to change my behavior using guilt. I separated the two dimensions, restoring the failing-to-buy-milk part to being just transactional; that is, a behavior without personal sequelae (referring again to anxiety, depression, etc.). I made it Adult-to-Adult, not Parent-to-Child communication. I challenged the judgment part (“Don’t you love me?”) by eliminating the personal association implied by failing to buy milk. Failing to buy milk had nothing to do with loving my wife. It had to do with my absent-mindedness. I feel the same about my wife, regardless of my memory problem. In real life, sooner or later, judgment is likely to creep into almost any communication. Small and mild judgments will not do serious damage and can be dealt with in the above manner; that is, by separating the dimensions, then using process-level communication to expose the ruse via assertive communication.
A more blunt example is the adult parent being “guilted” into supporting his manipulative progeny. In this case, assertiveness might have taken the form of “tough love.” The parent might have turned the argument around by saying “Was I abandoning you when I was paying your rent all these years?” “Who’s the bad guy when you don’t succeed and I have to bail you out, at my expense?” “How about you get it together and pull your own weight and stop using my support to mask your lack of initiative?” This teases out all the levels and “powers up” this parent. Now, the parent is focused on THE standard—his!
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
Examples of Guilt--Part II
Examples of Guilt--Part II
This is the second of a six-part series of articles on guilt, emphasizing specific examples, and how to deal with them. Written by a psychologist.
To continue…
In most cases of guilt, the antidote is to create another (meaning, your) standard, other than that implied by committing or omitting something, or by conforming to the speaker’s wishes or arguing on the speaker’s terms only, or by conforming to the expectation (laws, values, norms), or worse, by just holding it all in and saying or doing nothing. We also have to challenge, and then negotiate the “rightness” or “wrongness” of THE standard. To do this, we have to become aware of the underlying forces acting upon us from the outside and our internal reactions. In common language, to reduce the guilt, we have to ask ourselves what it is WE want, not what is being imposed upon us. We have to think independently of the implied or real manipulation of the guilt-inducer. If we are paying attention to guilt-inducing communication, we will immediately “get” that we have been judged and that some set of standards has been or is about to be imposed upon us. If we are in tune, we immediately and consciously feel anxiety because there is conflict, and likely frustration, resentment or anger underneath. Now we know our feeling and if we are assertive, we can put our feelings into words and say something. In addition, when we speak, hopefully there will be something in our communication about the attempt to manipulate us (the cause of the anger); thus, we will defuse the indirect controls inherent in the guilt ploy. This is also articulating some process, not just the underlying feelings. (If you are not skilled at introspecting and then speaking up, see this author’s ebook, The Five Steps of Assertiveness.) The ambivalence is made conscious and we begin to think of “handling” the underlying conflicts and judgments through a different behavioral mechanism, most often employing simple assertiveness.
In the example when I went to the store to buy groceries, I might have interrupted the guilt-inducing comments with my own, more assertive and direct retort. “Yes honey, I see I forgot the milk. I am sorry. By the way, where did you get the idea this means I don’t love you?” I have exposed the manipulation. Then I might have said, “I’m sorry. If you need milk right away, I’ll go back to the store and buy some. If not, I’ll stop by a store later when I go out again. Is that OK?” Now, I have stated what I want, or in this case, what I am willing to do to fix the problem. I am willing to take care of the problem because it was my forgetfulness that led to my wife’s complaint. But, I am also standing up for what I want by suggesting a solution that better fits my needs, and in this case, better fits reality. I am functioning on MY terms. While my wife and I may debate which “plan” is better, at least I was assertive. I created an “alternative” behavior. I created the third standard—mine, which, I believe, is equally right. I teased out the irrationally linked concepts, separated and dealt with them overtly by saying something. In this instance, the transaction was about buying milk, while the interaction and dynamic were about being loved, or not. These are two entirely different dimensions. So, the first thing I try to do, and did in this example, is to separate the two dimensions, which in this case I accomplished by asking my wife how she “figured” I didn’t love her just because I forgot the milk.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
This is the second of a six-part series of articles on guilt, emphasizing specific examples, and how to deal with them. Written by a psychologist.
To continue…
In most cases of guilt, the antidote is to create another (meaning, your) standard, other than that implied by committing or omitting something, or by conforming to the speaker’s wishes or arguing on the speaker’s terms only, or by conforming to the expectation (laws, values, norms), or worse, by just holding it all in and saying or doing nothing. We also have to challenge, and then negotiate the “rightness” or “wrongness” of THE standard. To do this, we have to become aware of the underlying forces acting upon us from the outside and our internal reactions. In common language, to reduce the guilt, we have to ask ourselves what it is WE want, not what is being imposed upon us. We have to think independently of the implied or real manipulation of the guilt-inducer. If we are paying attention to guilt-inducing communication, we will immediately “get” that we have been judged and that some set of standards has been or is about to be imposed upon us. If we are in tune, we immediately and consciously feel anxiety because there is conflict, and likely frustration, resentment or anger underneath. Now we know our feeling and if we are assertive, we can put our feelings into words and say something. In addition, when we speak, hopefully there will be something in our communication about the attempt to manipulate us (the cause of the anger); thus, we will defuse the indirect controls inherent in the guilt ploy. This is also articulating some process, not just the underlying feelings. (If you are not skilled at introspecting and then speaking up, see this author’s ebook, The Five Steps of Assertiveness.) The ambivalence is made conscious and we begin to think of “handling” the underlying conflicts and judgments through a different behavioral mechanism, most often employing simple assertiveness.
In the example when I went to the store to buy groceries, I might have interrupted the guilt-inducing comments with my own, more assertive and direct retort. “Yes honey, I see I forgot the milk. I am sorry. By the way, where did you get the idea this means I don’t love you?” I have exposed the manipulation. Then I might have said, “I’m sorry. If you need milk right away, I’ll go back to the store and buy some. If not, I’ll stop by a store later when I go out again. Is that OK?” Now, I have stated what I want, or in this case, what I am willing to do to fix the problem. I am willing to take care of the problem because it was my forgetfulness that led to my wife’s complaint. But, I am also standing up for what I want by suggesting a solution that better fits my needs, and in this case, better fits reality. I am functioning on MY terms. While my wife and I may debate which “plan” is better, at least I was assertive. I created an “alternative” behavior. I created the third standard—mine, which, I believe, is equally right. I teased out the irrationally linked concepts, separated and dealt with them overtly by saying something. In this instance, the transaction was about buying milk, while the interaction and dynamic were about being loved, or not. These are two entirely different dimensions. So, the first thing I try to do, and did in this example, is to separate the two dimensions, which in this case I accomplished by asking my wife how she “figured” I didn’t love her just because I forgot the milk.
-Dr. Griggs
http://www.psychologyproductsandservices.com/page202.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
