Posted by Larry Hoover on July 23, 2004, at 8:58:54
In reply to Re: Matt DDS? Other CBT'ers?, posted by Miss Honeychurch on July 23, 2004, at 8:32:33
> Dinah,
>
> My T always tells me that no one is ever responsible for my moods, that *I* am responsible for my moods.Hopefully not too pedantic, but mood and emotion are not synonyms. Mood is to emotion as climate is to weather.
> That is, if I get angry, *I* make myself angry, and not the other person. Very CBT. I am really still trying to work on this concept.
It's a starting point, not the destination.
Here's an example. In common conversation, you'll hear something like, "He pushed my buttons." That's an externalization of responsibility. It's like the 'she made me do it' excuse for spousal abuse.
CBT is more about, "Why do you have a button right there in the first place?" Which can then be followed up by questions like, "Does the pushing of that button remind you of anger from another time?", which is a question that bears on whether or not it's appropriate to be angry *in this instance*. Are you angry at the right person, at the right time? As you progress, the questions can change to something like, "Why on Earth do I leave my buttons out there where anybody can push them at will (or by accident)?" That's finally about setting healthy boundaries.
First, you have to recognize that the anger is yours. Everybody has buttons. The goal, IMHO, is to make your buttons inaccessible, like getting an unlisted phone number, with caller ID.
> BUT, the exception in Bean's book is when other people cause you PHYSICAL harm, just as you put forth as an example. So according to Bean, your example would be the exception.
There are lots of exceptions, but if you blame outside factors for all your anger, you are totally incapable of distinguishing which is the exception, and which is the rule.
> I love the idea of no one being able to upset me, that I solely am responsible for my emotions.
I don't think that's a healthy goal. We have anger for a darn good reason. The goal, IMHO, is to be angry when it is appropriate. Good luck on figuring out what appropriate means. Maybe it means "What would Jesus do?", but I doubt it.
> In fact, that is one of my CBT mantras which I receite every day, sometimes ad nauseum.
>
> It is a great concept, but sometimes hard to buy into. It is based on the tyranny of THE SHOULD.One of my friends wears a button now and again, which says, "Don't should on me. I don't."
One of the best defenses against should is a simple substitution. Could. Try it. "I should let it go." "I could let it go."
Best,
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:368717
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040723/msgs/369325.html