Mood and Stress Worksheet
ACTIVATING EVENT
Describe an activating event from your own life:
OLD BELIEF SYSTEM
Describe your thinking (self talk) as:
irrational:
over-emotional:
problem-focused:
CONSEQUENCES
Describe, as a result of this self-talk, your
negative emotions (feelings):
& negative behavior(actions):
NEW BELIEF SYSTEM
Describe your new thinking as:
rational (accurate):
emotionally appropriate:
solution-focused:
NEW CONSEQUENCES
Describe, as a result of this self-talk, your
new emotions (feelings):
& new behavior (actions):
Friday, April 24, 2009
How to Disagree!
The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.
Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.
The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.
If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:
DH0. Name-calling.
This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:
u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!
But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like
The author is a self-important dilettante.
is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."
DH1. Ad Hominem.
An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:
Of course he would say that. He's a senator.
This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?
Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.
DH2. Responding to Tone.
The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.
Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.
So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.
DH3. Contradiction.
In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.
This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.
Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.
DH4. Counterargument.
At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.
Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.
There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.
DH5. Refutation.
The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.
To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.
While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.
DH6. Refuting the Central Point.
The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.
Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.
Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:
The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:
But this is wrong for the following reasons...
The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.
What It Means
Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.
But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.
The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.
Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he's really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.
But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.
If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it.
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.
The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.
If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:
DH0. Name-calling.
This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:
u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!
But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like
The author is a self-important dilettante.
is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."
DH1. Ad Hominem.
An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:
Of course he would say that. He's a senator.
This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?
Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.
DH2. Responding to Tone.
The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.
Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.
So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.
DH3. Contradiction.
In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.
This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.
Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.
DH4. Counterargument.
At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.
Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.
There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.
DH5. Refutation.
The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.
To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.
While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.
DH6. Refuting the Central Point.
The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.
Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.
Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:
The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:
But this is wrong for the following reasons...
The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.
What It Means
Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.
But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.
The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.
Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he's really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.
But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.
If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it.
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
Spot false arguments and make strong ones.
Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement
CLICK FOR FULL IMAGE
Bam! Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement has been Maslowtized.
I just finished reading an interesting essay entitled How to Disagree. Written by Paul Graham, the essay introduces and describes a seven-level Hierarchy of Disagreement. How To Disagree is so powerful it was rumored to be the bible of online casino poker - a sport that requires a great deal of bluffing and mental will. From name-calling to carefully reasoned refutation, Graham breaks down each level of the hierarchy with a brief explanation. I completely agree with Graham’s theory but I have to disagree with him in one critical area: his use of illustrations (he uses none).
Visual-learning works great for many people and I thought it would be helpful to represent this theory graphically. When you are using CreateDebate, the goal is to write strong arguments (funny ones welcome too, sometimes). You will write stronger arguments if you think about this graphic while you write. As you browse the site and read debates, try to mentally classify the arguments with the most points. Which level do they reach? Graham postulates that all arguments falling below Contradiction are unconvincing. You may come across popular arguments that are intellectually dishonest. Vote them down or respond: use your pin to pop those balloons.
As you craft a response, do your best to explicitly refute the central point of the argument. In most cases, that will require thinking of something better than that’s what she said. The web is giving you an opportunity to respond to the world. Take advantage of this opportunity.If you found this analysis then you might enjoy using CreateDebate.
We built our site from scratch and our community is growing quickly! Check it out!
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-arguments/
CLICK FOR FULL IMAGE
Bam! Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement has been Maslowtized.
I just finished reading an interesting essay entitled How to Disagree. Written by Paul Graham, the essay introduces and describes a seven-level Hierarchy of Disagreement. How To Disagree is so powerful it was rumored to be the bible of online casino poker - a sport that requires a great deal of bluffing and mental will. From name-calling to carefully reasoned refutation, Graham breaks down each level of the hierarchy with a brief explanation. I completely agree with Graham’s theory but I have to disagree with him in one critical area: his use of illustrations (he uses none).
Visual-learning works great for many people and I thought it would be helpful to represent this theory graphically. When you are using CreateDebate, the goal is to write strong arguments (funny ones welcome too, sometimes). You will write stronger arguments if you think about this graphic while you write. As you browse the site and read debates, try to mentally classify the arguments with the most points. Which level do they reach? Graham postulates that all arguments falling below Contradiction are unconvincing. You may come across popular arguments that are intellectually dishonest. Vote them down or respond: use your pin to pop those balloons.
As you craft a response, do your best to explicitly refute the central point of the argument. In most cases, that will require thinking of something better than that’s what she said. The web is giving you an opportunity to respond to the world. Take advantage of this opportunity.If you found this analysis then you might enjoy using CreateDebate.
We built our site from scratch and our community is growing quickly! Check it out!
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-arguments/
Friday, April 17, 2009
ASSERTIVENESS TRAINING
ASSERTIVENESS TRAINING
Best Self USA - http://www.bestselfusa.com/
All of us should insist on being treated fairly; we have to stand up for our rights without violating the rights of others. This means tactfully, justly, and effectively expressing our preferences, needs, opinions and feelings. Psychologist call that being "assertive," as distinguished from being unassertive (weak, passive, compliant, self-sacrificing) or aggressive (self-centered, inconsiderate, hostile, arrogantly demanding). As mentioned in chapter 8, the Women's Movement since the 1960's has been a powerful influence on millions of women: women have gotten better career opportunities, more rights to control their bodies, more help from husbands with child care and housework, and so on. These changes happened because women assertively stood up for their rights.
Because some people want to be "nice" and "not cause trouble," they "suffer in silence," "turn the other cheek," and assume nothing can be done to change their situation or "it is our cross to bear." The rest of us appreciate pleasant, accommodating people but whenever a "nice" person permits a greedy, dominant person to take advantage of him/her, the passive person is not only cheating him/herself but also reinforcing unfair, self-centered behavior in the aggressive person. That's how chauvinists are created.
Purposes
Assertiveness is an antidote to fear, shyness, passivity, and even anger, so there is an astonishingly wide range of situations in which this training is appropriate. Factor analysis of several assertiveness scales (Schimmel, 1976) has suggested several kinds of behavior are involved.
• To speak up, make requests, ask for favors and generally insist that your rights be respected as a significant, equal human being. To overcome the fears and self-depreciation that keep you from doing these things.
• To express negative emotions (complaints, resentment, criticism, disagreement, intimidation, the desire to be left alone) and to refuse requests. See "I" statements in method #4.
• To show positive emotions (joy, pride, liking someone, attraction) and to give compliments. Accept compliments with "Thank you."
• To ask why and question authority or tradition, not to rebel but to assume responsibility for asserting your share of control of the situation--and to make things better. You are no one's slave.
• To initiate, carry on, change and terminate conversations comfortably. Share your feelings, opinions and experiences with others. See method #8.
• To deal with minor irritations before your anger builds into intense resentment and explosive aggression. See method #5.
Steps
STEP ONE: Realize where changes are needed and believe in your rights.
Many people recognize they are being taken advantage of and/or have difficulty saying "no." Others do not see themselves as unassertive but do feel depressed or unfulfilled, have lots of physical ailments, have complaints about work but assume the boss or teacher has the right to demand whatever he/she wants, etc. Nothing will change until the victim recognizes his/her rights are being denied and he/she decides to correct the situation. Keeping a diary may help you assess how intimidated, compliant, passive or timid your are or how demanding, whiny, bitchy or aggressive others are.
Almost everyone can cite instances or circumstances in which he/she has been outspoken or aggressive. These instances may be used to deny we are unassertive in any way. However, many of us are weak in some ways--we can't say "no" to a friend asking a favor, we can't give or take a compliment, we let a spouse or children control our lives, we won't speak up in class or disagree with others in a public meeting, we are ashamed to ask for help, we are afraid of offending others, and so on. Ask yourself if you want to continue being weak.
One may need to deal with the anxiety associated with changing, to reconcile the conflicts within your value system, to assess the repercussions of being assertive, and to prepare others for the changes they will see in your behavior or attitude. Talk to others about the appropriateness of being assertive in a specific situation that concerns you. If you are still scared even though it is appropriate, use desensitization or role-playing to reduce the anxiety.
Consider where your values--your "shoulds"--come from. Children are bombarded with rules: Don't be selfish, don't make mistakes, don't be emotional, don't tell people if you don't like them, don't be so unreasonable, don't question people, don't interrupt, don't trouble others with your problems, don't complain, don't upset others, don't brag, don't be anti-social, do what people ask you to do, help people who need help, and on and on. Do any of these instructions sound familiar? They help produce submissive children--and adults. There are probably good reasons for many of these rules-for-kids but as adults we need not blindly follow rules. Indeed, every one of these injunctions should be broken under certain conditions: You have a right to be first (sometimes), to make mistakes, to be emotional, to express your feelings, to have your own reasons, to stop others and ask questions, to ask for help, to ask for reasonable changes, to have your work acknowledged, to be alone, to say "no" or "I don't have time," and so on. The old feelings deep inside of us may still have powerful control over us (see chapter 8). We can change, however.
Besides recognizing we have outgrown our unthinking submissiveness, we can further reduce our ambivalence about being assertive by recognizing the harm done by unassertiveness: (1) you cheat yourself and lose self-respect because you are dominated and can't change things, (2) you are forced to be dishonest, concealing your true feelings, (3) inequality and submissiveness threatens, if not destroys, love and respect, (4) a relationship based on your being a doormat, a slave, a "yes-person," a cute show piece or a source of income is oppressive and immoral, (5) since you must hide your true feeling, you may resort to subtle manipulation to get what you want and this creates resentment, and (6) your compliance rewards your oppressor. On the positive side, assertiveness leads to more self-respect and happiness. Build up your courage by reviewing all the reasons for changing.
Finally, there are obviously situations in which demanding immediate justice may not be wise, e.g. if you can get fired, if it would cause an unwanted divorce, if you might be assaulted, etc. Even in these more extreme cases, perhaps well planned or very gradual changes would be tolerated. Under any circumstances, discuss the reasons for becoming assertive with the other people involved so they will understand and approve (if possible) or at least respect you for being considerate of them, others, and yourself.
STEP TWO: Figure out appropriate ways of asserting yourself in each specific situation that concerns you.
There are many ways to devise effective, tactful, fair assertive responses. Watch a good model. Discuss the problem situation with a friend, a parent, a supervisor, a counselor or other person. Carefully note how others respond to situations similar to yours and consider if they are being unassertive, assertive or aggressive. Read some of the books listed at the end of this method. Most assertiveness trainers recommend that an effective assertive response contain several parts:
1. Describe (to the other person involved) the troublesome situation as you see it. Be very specific about time and actions, don't make general accusations like "you're always hostile...upset...busy." Be objective, don't suggest the other person is a total jerk. Focus on his/her behavior, not on his/her apparent motives.
2. Describe your feelings, using an "I" statement which shows you take responsibility for your feelings. Be firm and strong, look at them, be sure of yourself, don't get emotional. Focus on positive feelings related to your goals if you can, not on your resentment of the other person. Sometimes it is helpful to explain why you feel as you do, so your statement becomes "I feel ______ because ______." (see the next method).
3. Describe the changes you'd like made, be specific about what action should stop and what should start. Be sure the requested changes are reasonable, consider the other person's needs too, and be willing to make changes yourself in return. In some cases, you may already have explicit consequences in mind if the other person makes the desired changes and if he/she doesn't. If so, these should be clearly described too. Don't make dire threats, if you can't or won't carry out them out.
Example assertiveness responses:
Situation: Your wife or girlfriend comes home from work and talks during dinner about office politics and rivalry.
Response: "Every night this week we have spent the dinner hour talking about the personality conflicts at your office. I'm glad we can talk, but I get fed up with the pettiness, as I see it, of the people you work with. I miss talking about the news, my work, our new house plans, and how we are getting along."
Poor responses: An unassertive person would suppress his anger and say nothing or pretend to be really interested. An aggressive person would blow his top, calling his wife's co-workers names and telling her how boring and petty she is.
Situation: Your husband or boyfriend looks (excessively) at attractive women.
Response: "You used to be subtle about it, but lately you ogle every well built woman you see. I feel irritated that you aren't more concerned about my feelings and I feel unsure that you would be faithful if you had a chance to have an affair. I really feel hurt. If you would change, I'd feel a lot better, I will promise I won't flirt, and I will really work on making our sex good."
Poor responses: Pretending not to notice his looking and either turning off sexually or starting to flirt (in anticipation of his having an affair). Of course, the aggressive reaction would be to call him a sex maniac and to refuse to have sex for several days.
Situation: A friend repeatedly makes plans with you and then cancels at the last minute.
Response: "When we make plans and you change your mind at the last minute--you've done that two out of the last three times, I feel frustrated because it's too late to make plans with someone else. Besides, I start to think that you don't really want to be with me if you can find anything else to do. In the future, I'd like for you to tell me at least an hour in advance if you have to change plans. Would you do that?"
Poor responses: Let it go, fearing the friend will get mad. Or: tell the friend how inconsiderate she is and that it is amazing she has any friends at all.
Situation: You have just been introduced to someone, but you did not learn his/her name.
Response: As soon as appropriate, ask, "What is your name again?" Use it the first chance you get, so you won't forget it again.
Poor responses: Let it go and try to avoid situations where you need to use his/her name. An aggressive response would be to blame him/her, "You don't speak up very well, what's your name again?"
Following these guidelines, write out in rough form some ways of responding in your problem situations.
STEP THREE: Practice giving assertive responses.
Using the responses you have just developed, role-play (method #1) the problem situations with a friend or, if that isn't possible, simply imagine interacting assertively. As recommended in method #1, start with real life but easy to handle situations and work up to more challenging ones expected in the future. Use the many other suggestions given in method #1.
You will quickly discover, if your friend plays the role realistically, that you need to do more than simply rehearse the assertiveness responses. You will realize that no matter how calm and tactful you are, how much you use "I" statements, and how much you play down a desire for change, it will still sometimes come out smelling like a personal assault to the other person. The other person may not be aggressive (since you have been tactful) but you should realize that strong reactions are possible, e.g. getting mad and calling you names, counter-attacking and criticizing you, seeking revenge, becoming threatening or ill, or suddenly being contrite and overly apologetic or submissive. Your friend helping you by role-playing can act out the more likely reactions. In most cases, simply explaining your behavior and standing your ground will handle the situation. But, there are helpful special techniques for responding to criticism and when the interaction is not going well.
When we are criticized, there are various ways of attacking back. We may be sarcastic, get mad, or criticize back. We assume "I count, you don't." That's aggressive. We may cry, be quiet, or get away. We imply "You count, I don't." That's passive. We may pretend to forget but get even by procrastinating, being late or slow, being silent or whiny, bad mouthing the critic, or doing any thing that drives him/her up a wall ("Oh, I didn't know that was bothering you"). That's passive-aggressive. Instead of these kinds of reactions to criticism, McKay, Davis & Fanning (1983) recommend using one of these approaches reflecting a "We both count equally" attitude:
1. Acknowledge that the criticism is true, if it is. Don't make flimsy excuses but do give honest explanations (if you have a valid one). Examples: "Yes, I have put off doing the report." "Yes, I was late this morning but my car wouldn't start."
2. Even if you don't agree with most of the criticism, you can single out some part that you do agree with and indicate where you agree, disregarding all the disagreements. Examples: "You could be right about..." "I understand how you feel about..." This is really ducking the issue but that may be what you want to do.
3. Listen carefully and ask for clarification until the person's views are understood. Focus on his/her main point and ask, "What is it that bothers you about...?"
In most interactions, it is not just one person assertively asking for changes, but rather two people wanting to express their feelings, opinions or wishes (and maybe get their way). So, each of you must take turns being assertive and then listen empathetically...that's good communication if it results in satisfactory compromises.
Finally, assertiveness is used to confront difficult situations and people. Some people just won't take "no" for an answer; some kids continue arguing and arguing; some people don't realize how determined you are until you repeat the message many times. One technique is called the broken record: you calmly and firmly repeat a short, clear statement over and over until the other person gets the message. Examples: "I want you to be home by midnight," "I don't like the product and I want my money back," "No, I don't want to go drinking, I want to study." Repeat the same statement in exactly the same way until the other person "gets off your back," regardless of the excuses, diversions, or arguments given by the other person.
There are other techniques to use when the communication is breaking down, for instance the topic may have gotten changed, one or both people may be losing control of their emotions, or the interaction may be at an impasse: (1) shift the focus from the issue at hand to what is happening between you and the other person. "We are both getting upset, let's try to stay reasonable," "We have drifted off the topic, can we go back to ____?" (2) If you need time to think or to calm down or if no progress is being made, consider taking a break: "That's important, let me think about it. Can we take a 10-minute break?" "I need to sleep on that before making a decision," "I'm too upset right now to discuss it, I'll be ready to deal with it at 3:00 tomorrow afternoon."
STEP FOUR: Try being assertive in real life situations.
Start with the easier, less stressful situations. Build some confidence. Make adjustments in your approach as needed.
Look for or devise ways of sharpening your assertiveness skills. Examples: Ask a friend to lend you a piece of clothing, a record album, or a book. Ask a stranger for directions, change for a dollar, or a pen or pencil. Ask a store manager to reduce the price of a soiled or slightly damaged article, to demonstrate a product, or exchange a purchase. Ask an instructor to help you understand a point, find extra reading, or go over items you missed on an exam. Practice speaking and making small talk, give compliments to friends and strangers, call up a city official when you see something unreasonable or inefficient, praise others when they have done well, tell friends or co-workers experiences you have had, and on and on. Keep a diary of your interactions.
Time involved
Perhaps as little as a couple hours is needed, if you only have one or two situations in which you want to improve. If you are generally submissive, count on several hours for understanding, preparing, practicing and actually changing.
Common problems
Several problems have been mentioned above. Some people refuse to admit their submissiveness. Some are afraid to change. If you do change, some of your friends, relatives and/or co-workers may have difficulty accepting such a basic change in personality. Tell them why you want to be different; most will support you. If you ask for changes in others, you are likely to be resisted and maybe resented. Appeal to their sense of fairness.
It is not uncommon for a formerly passive person to be so successful in changing that he/she becomes overly demanding. Perhaps the new found power goes to his/her head and he/she becomes aggressive and obnoxious. If you can remain just as sensitive to other people's rights as you are to your own, this isn't likely to happen.
Effectiveness, advantages and dangers
Assertiveness training has been used with shy, anxious, depressed, stressed, aggressive and other kinds of persons. There is "relatively convincing evidence" that assertiveness training is effective, i.e. it changes the trainee's behavior, at least in situations similar to those used for practice during the training sessions (Rimm & Masters, 1974). It is not certain that assertiveness generalizes to "novel" situations, i.e. ones you haven't practiced or thought about.
Furthermore, considering the hundreds of articles and the 15-20 major books proclaiming the usefulness of assertiveness training, it may surprise you that there is very little scientific evidence that the trainees' marriage, work place, friendships and family relations are improved after learning to be assertive in a seminar (Eisler, Miller, Hersen & Alford, 1974). Amazing, isn't it? In fact, there are hints that an untrained spouse of a trainee may become less assertive, more socially anxious, and less sure of his/her social skills (Kolotkin & Wielkiewicz, 1982). So it may be wise for married couples or friends or work groups to take assertiveness training together, emphasizing cooperation and congeniality.
All the research observations referred to in the last paragraph apply to formal training provided by graduate students or professionals. There is almost no data about the effectiveness of reading about assertiveness on one's own and practicing with a friend. Certainly the impact of self-taught assertiveness on friends and loved ones is unknown; it sounds convincing that a pleasant, considerate, fair but assertive person would make a good partner, but perhaps what seems considerate and fair to one person may seem aggressive to another person. As we change, we should be alert to the possibility of making life worse for others. Much research is needed.
Alberti and Emmons (1978, 1986), who were the original writers in this area, believe that assertive training works only with people who are not entirely passive or continuously aggressive. For the extremes, they recommend psychotherapy. Likewise, if the people around you will react hostilely to your being graciously assertive, perhaps you should see a lawyer. Refusing to make the coffee may result in losing your job or a promotion, so move cautiously. It may be wise to postpone a confrontation until the time is right.
There is no known danger, although some research has suggested that certain men believe that sexual aggression, such as kissing, fondling, and even intercourse, is a little more justified, if the women has initiated the date, gone to the male's apartment, let the man pay for everything, etc. A female being assertive or unassertive is not going to cause a rape (that is a male sickness), but all of our behavior has implications in other people's minds--and some of those minds are chauvinistic, weird, inconsiderate, etc. In general, you are surely much safer being assertively honest, rather than overly shy, needy and dependent, afraid of hurting someone's feelings, uncertain of what to say, and so on.
Additional readings
Mental health professionals consider Alberti & Emmons two books to be the best in this area (Santrock, Minnett & Campbell, 1994). Books that justify aggressiveness, the use of intimidation, and self-centered looking out for #1 are not recommended by professionals. Elgin (1980) and Piaget (1991) offer help countering a "control freak" or a verbally aggressive person (see references below). Video and audio tapes about assertiveness and dealing with difficult people are available from CareerTrack (1-800-334-1018).
Adler, R. B. (1977). Confidence in communication: A guide to assertive and social skills. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Alberti, R. E. & Emmons, M. L. (1975, 1986). Stand up, speak out, talk back. New York: Pocketbooks.
Alberti also has six audiotapes: Making yourself heard: A guide to assertive relationships. San Luis Obispo, CA: Impact Publishers .
Bloom, L. Z., Coburn, K. & Pearlman, J. (1976). The new assertive woman. New York: Dell.
Bower, S. A. & Bower, G. H. (1976). Asserting yourself: A practical guide for positive change. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Elgin, S. (1980). The gentle art of verbal self-defense. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Elgin, S. (1995). You can't say that to me! Stopping the pain of verbal abuse--an 8-step program. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Jakubowski, P. & Lange, A. (1985). The assertive option: Your rights and responsibilities. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Piaget, G. (1991). Control freaks: Who are they and how to stop them from running your life. New York: Doubleday.
Phelps, S. & Austin, N. (1987). The assertive woman: A new look. San Luis Obispo, CA: Impact Publishers.
Best Self USA - http://www.bestselfusa.com/
All of us should insist on being treated fairly; we have to stand up for our rights without violating the rights of others. This means tactfully, justly, and effectively expressing our preferences, needs, opinions and feelings. Psychologist call that being "assertive," as distinguished from being unassertive (weak, passive, compliant, self-sacrificing) or aggressive (self-centered, inconsiderate, hostile, arrogantly demanding). As mentioned in chapter 8, the Women's Movement since the 1960's has been a powerful influence on millions of women: women have gotten better career opportunities, more rights to control their bodies, more help from husbands with child care and housework, and so on. These changes happened because women assertively stood up for their rights.
Because some people want to be "nice" and "not cause trouble," they "suffer in silence," "turn the other cheek," and assume nothing can be done to change their situation or "it is our cross to bear." The rest of us appreciate pleasant, accommodating people but whenever a "nice" person permits a greedy, dominant person to take advantage of him/her, the passive person is not only cheating him/herself but also reinforcing unfair, self-centered behavior in the aggressive person. That's how chauvinists are created.
Purposes
Assertiveness is an antidote to fear, shyness, passivity, and even anger, so there is an astonishingly wide range of situations in which this training is appropriate. Factor analysis of several assertiveness scales (Schimmel, 1976) has suggested several kinds of behavior are involved.
• To speak up, make requests, ask for favors and generally insist that your rights be respected as a significant, equal human being. To overcome the fears and self-depreciation that keep you from doing these things.
• To express negative emotions (complaints, resentment, criticism, disagreement, intimidation, the desire to be left alone) and to refuse requests. See "I" statements in method #4.
• To show positive emotions (joy, pride, liking someone, attraction) and to give compliments. Accept compliments with "Thank you."
• To ask why and question authority or tradition, not to rebel but to assume responsibility for asserting your share of control of the situation--and to make things better. You are no one's slave.
• To initiate, carry on, change and terminate conversations comfortably. Share your feelings, opinions and experiences with others. See method #8.
• To deal with minor irritations before your anger builds into intense resentment and explosive aggression. See method #5.
Steps
STEP ONE: Realize where changes are needed and believe in your rights.
Many people recognize they are being taken advantage of and/or have difficulty saying "no." Others do not see themselves as unassertive but do feel depressed or unfulfilled, have lots of physical ailments, have complaints about work but assume the boss or teacher has the right to demand whatever he/she wants, etc. Nothing will change until the victim recognizes his/her rights are being denied and he/she decides to correct the situation. Keeping a diary may help you assess how intimidated, compliant, passive or timid your are or how demanding, whiny, bitchy or aggressive others are.
Almost everyone can cite instances or circumstances in which he/she has been outspoken or aggressive. These instances may be used to deny we are unassertive in any way. However, many of us are weak in some ways--we can't say "no" to a friend asking a favor, we can't give or take a compliment, we let a spouse or children control our lives, we won't speak up in class or disagree with others in a public meeting, we are ashamed to ask for help, we are afraid of offending others, and so on. Ask yourself if you want to continue being weak.
One may need to deal with the anxiety associated with changing, to reconcile the conflicts within your value system, to assess the repercussions of being assertive, and to prepare others for the changes they will see in your behavior or attitude. Talk to others about the appropriateness of being assertive in a specific situation that concerns you. If you are still scared even though it is appropriate, use desensitization or role-playing to reduce the anxiety.
Consider where your values--your "shoulds"--come from. Children are bombarded with rules: Don't be selfish, don't make mistakes, don't be emotional, don't tell people if you don't like them, don't be so unreasonable, don't question people, don't interrupt, don't trouble others with your problems, don't complain, don't upset others, don't brag, don't be anti-social, do what people ask you to do, help people who need help, and on and on. Do any of these instructions sound familiar? They help produce submissive children--and adults. There are probably good reasons for many of these rules-for-kids but as adults we need not blindly follow rules. Indeed, every one of these injunctions should be broken under certain conditions: You have a right to be first (sometimes), to make mistakes, to be emotional, to express your feelings, to have your own reasons, to stop others and ask questions, to ask for help, to ask for reasonable changes, to have your work acknowledged, to be alone, to say "no" or "I don't have time," and so on. The old feelings deep inside of us may still have powerful control over us (see chapter 8). We can change, however.
Besides recognizing we have outgrown our unthinking submissiveness, we can further reduce our ambivalence about being assertive by recognizing the harm done by unassertiveness: (1) you cheat yourself and lose self-respect because you are dominated and can't change things, (2) you are forced to be dishonest, concealing your true feelings, (3) inequality and submissiveness threatens, if not destroys, love and respect, (4) a relationship based on your being a doormat, a slave, a "yes-person," a cute show piece or a source of income is oppressive and immoral, (5) since you must hide your true feeling, you may resort to subtle manipulation to get what you want and this creates resentment, and (6) your compliance rewards your oppressor. On the positive side, assertiveness leads to more self-respect and happiness. Build up your courage by reviewing all the reasons for changing.
Finally, there are obviously situations in which demanding immediate justice may not be wise, e.g. if you can get fired, if it would cause an unwanted divorce, if you might be assaulted, etc. Even in these more extreme cases, perhaps well planned or very gradual changes would be tolerated. Under any circumstances, discuss the reasons for becoming assertive with the other people involved so they will understand and approve (if possible) or at least respect you for being considerate of them, others, and yourself.
STEP TWO: Figure out appropriate ways of asserting yourself in each specific situation that concerns you.
There are many ways to devise effective, tactful, fair assertive responses. Watch a good model. Discuss the problem situation with a friend, a parent, a supervisor, a counselor or other person. Carefully note how others respond to situations similar to yours and consider if they are being unassertive, assertive or aggressive. Read some of the books listed at the end of this method. Most assertiveness trainers recommend that an effective assertive response contain several parts:
1. Describe (to the other person involved) the troublesome situation as you see it. Be very specific about time and actions, don't make general accusations like "you're always hostile...upset...busy." Be objective, don't suggest the other person is a total jerk. Focus on his/her behavior, not on his/her apparent motives.
2. Describe your feelings, using an "I" statement which shows you take responsibility for your feelings. Be firm and strong, look at them, be sure of yourself, don't get emotional. Focus on positive feelings related to your goals if you can, not on your resentment of the other person. Sometimes it is helpful to explain why you feel as you do, so your statement becomes "I feel ______ because ______." (see the next method).
3. Describe the changes you'd like made, be specific about what action should stop and what should start. Be sure the requested changes are reasonable, consider the other person's needs too, and be willing to make changes yourself in return. In some cases, you may already have explicit consequences in mind if the other person makes the desired changes and if he/she doesn't. If so, these should be clearly described too. Don't make dire threats, if you can't or won't carry out them out.
Example assertiveness responses:
Situation: Your wife or girlfriend comes home from work and talks during dinner about office politics and rivalry.
Response: "Every night this week we have spent the dinner hour talking about the personality conflicts at your office. I'm glad we can talk, but I get fed up with the pettiness, as I see it, of the people you work with. I miss talking about the news, my work, our new house plans, and how we are getting along."
Poor responses: An unassertive person would suppress his anger and say nothing or pretend to be really interested. An aggressive person would blow his top, calling his wife's co-workers names and telling her how boring and petty she is.
Situation: Your husband or boyfriend looks (excessively) at attractive women.
Response: "You used to be subtle about it, but lately you ogle every well built woman you see. I feel irritated that you aren't more concerned about my feelings and I feel unsure that you would be faithful if you had a chance to have an affair. I really feel hurt. If you would change, I'd feel a lot better, I will promise I won't flirt, and I will really work on making our sex good."
Poor responses: Pretending not to notice his looking and either turning off sexually or starting to flirt (in anticipation of his having an affair). Of course, the aggressive reaction would be to call him a sex maniac and to refuse to have sex for several days.
Situation: A friend repeatedly makes plans with you and then cancels at the last minute.
Response: "When we make plans and you change your mind at the last minute--you've done that two out of the last three times, I feel frustrated because it's too late to make plans with someone else. Besides, I start to think that you don't really want to be with me if you can find anything else to do. In the future, I'd like for you to tell me at least an hour in advance if you have to change plans. Would you do that?"
Poor responses: Let it go, fearing the friend will get mad. Or: tell the friend how inconsiderate she is and that it is amazing she has any friends at all.
Situation: You have just been introduced to someone, but you did not learn his/her name.
Response: As soon as appropriate, ask, "What is your name again?" Use it the first chance you get, so you won't forget it again.
Poor responses: Let it go and try to avoid situations where you need to use his/her name. An aggressive response would be to blame him/her, "You don't speak up very well, what's your name again?"
Following these guidelines, write out in rough form some ways of responding in your problem situations.
STEP THREE: Practice giving assertive responses.
Using the responses you have just developed, role-play (method #1) the problem situations with a friend or, if that isn't possible, simply imagine interacting assertively. As recommended in method #1, start with real life but easy to handle situations and work up to more challenging ones expected in the future. Use the many other suggestions given in method #1.
You will quickly discover, if your friend plays the role realistically, that you need to do more than simply rehearse the assertiveness responses. You will realize that no matter how calm and tactful you are, how much you use "I" statements, and how much you play down a desire for change, it will still sometimes come out smelling like a personal assault to the other person. The other person may not be aggressive (since you have been tactful) but you should realize that strong reactions are possible, e.g. getting mad and calling you names, counter-attacking and criticizing you, seeking revenge, becoming threatening or ill, or suddenly being contrite and overly apologetic or submissive. Your friend helping you by role-playing can act out the more likely reactions. In most cases, simply explaining your behavior and standing your ground will handle the situation. But, there are helpful special techniques for responding to criticism and when the interaction is not going well.
When we are criticized, there are various ways of attacking back. We may be sarcastic, get mad, or criticize back. We assume "I count, you don't." That's aggressive. We may cry, be quiet, or get away. We imply "You count, I don't." That's passive. We may pretend to forget but get even by procrastinating, being late or slow, being silent or whiny, bad mouthing the critic, or doing any thing that drives him/her up a wall ("Oh, I didn't know that was bothering you"). That's passive-aggressive. Instead of these kinds of reactions to criticism, McKay, Davis & Fanning (1983) recommend using one of these approaches reflecting a "We both count equally" attitude:
1. Acknowledge that the criticism is true, if it is. Don't make flimsy excuses but do give honest explanations (if you have a valid one). Examples: "Yes, I have put off doing the report." "Yes, I was late this morning but my car wouldn't start."
2. Even if you don't agree with most of the criticism, you can single out some part that you do agree with and indicate where you agree, disregarding all the disagreements. Examples: "You could be right about..." "I understand how you feel about..." This is really ducking the issue but that may be what you want to do.
3. Listen carefully and ask for clarification until the person's views are understood. Focus on his/her main point and ask, "What is it that bothers you about...?"
In most interactions, it is not just one person assertively asking for changes, but rather two people wanting to express their feelings, opinions or wishes (and maybe get their way). So, each of you must take turns being assertive and then listen empathetically...that's good communication if it results in satisfactory compromises.
Finally, assertiveness is used to confront difficult situations and people. Some people just won't take "no" for an answer; some kids continue arguing and arguing; some people don't realize how determined you are until you repeat the message many times. One technique is called the broken record: you calmly and firmly repeat a short, clear statement over and over until the other person gets the message. Examples: "I want you to be home by midnight," "I don't like the product and I want my money back," "No, I don't want to go drinking, I want to study." Repeat the same statement in exactly the same way until the other person "gets off your back," regardless of the excuses, diversions, or arguments given by the other person.
There are other techniques to use when the communication is breaking down, for instance the topic may have gotten changed, one or both people may be losing control of their emotions, or the interaction may be at an impasse: (1) shift the focus from the issue at hand to what is happening between you and the other person. "We are both getting upset, let's try to stay reasonable," "We have drifted off the topic, can we go back to ____?" (2) If you need time to think or to calm down or if no progress is being made, consider taking a break: "That's important, let me think about it. Can we take a 10-minute break?" "I need to sleep on that before making a decision," "I'm too upset right now to discuss it, I'll be ready to deal with it at 3:00 tomorrow afternoon."
STEP FOUR: Try being assertive in real life situations.
Start with the easier, less stressful situations. Build some confidence. Make adjustments in your approach as needed.
Look for or devise ways of sharpening your assertiveness skills. Examples: Ask a friend to lend you a piece of clothing, a record album, or a book. Ask a stranger for directions, change for a dollar, or a pen or pencil. Ask a store manager to reduce the price of a soiled or slightly damaged article, to demonstrate a product, or exchange a purchase. Ask an instructor to help you understand a point, find extra reading, or go over items you missed on an exam. Practice speaking and making small talk, give compliments to friends and strangers, call up a city official when you see something unreasonable or inefficient, praise others when they have done well, tell friends or co-workers experiences you have had, and on and on. Keep a diary of your interactions.
Time involved
Perhaps as little as a couple hours is needed, if you only have one or two situations in which you want to improve. If you are generally submissive, count on several hours for understanding, preparing, practicing and actually changing.
Common problems
Several problems have been mentioned above. Some people refuse to admit their submissiveness. Some are afraid to change. If you do change, some of your friends, relatives and/or co-workers may have difficulty accepting such a basic change in personality. Tell them why you want to be different; most will support you. If you ask for changes in others, you are likely to be resisted and maybe resented. Appeal to their sense of fairness.
It is not uncommon for a formerly passive person to be so successful in changing that he/she becomes overly demanding. Perhaps the new found power goes to his/her head and he/she becomes aggressive and obnoxious. If you can remain just as sensitive to other people's rights as you are to your own, this isn't likely to happen.
Effectiveness, advantages and dangers
Assertiveness training has been used with shy, anxious, depressed, stressed, aggressive and other kinds of persons. There is "relatively convincing evidence" that assertiveness training is effective, i.e. it changes the trainee's behavior, at least in situations similar to those used for practice during the training sessions (Rimm & Masters, 1974). It is not certain that assertiveness generalizes to "novel" situations, i.e. ones you haven't practiced or thought about.
Furthermore, considering the hundreds of articles and the 15-20 major books proclaiming the usefulness of assertiveness training, it may surprise you that there is very little scientific evidence that the trainees' marriage, work place, friendships and family relations are improved after learning to be assertive in a seminar (Eisler, Miller, Hersen & Alford, 1974). Amazing, isn't it? In fact, there are hints that an untrained spouse of a trainee may become less assertive, more socially anxious, and less sure of his/her social skills (Kolotkin & Wielkiewicz, 1982). So it may be wise for married couples or friends or work groups to take assertiveness training together, emphasizing cooperation and congeniality.
All the research observations referred to in the last paragraph apply to formal training provided by graduate students or professionals. There is almost no data about the effectiveness of reading about assertiveness on one's own and practicing with a friend. Certainly the impact of self-taught assertiveness on friends and loved ones is unknown; it sounds convincing that a pleasant, considerate, fair but assertive person would make a good partner, but perhaps what seems considerate and fair to one person may seem aggressive to another person. As we change, we should be alert to the possibility of making life worse for others. Much research is needed.
Alberti and Emmons (1978, 1986), who were the original writers in this area, believe that assertive training works only with people who are not entirely passive or continuously aggressive. For the extremes, they recommend psychotherapy. Likewise, if the people around you will react hostilely to your being graciously assertive, perhaps you should see a lawyer. Refusing to make the coffee may result in losing your job or a promotion, so move cautiously. It may be wise to postpone a confrontation until the time is right.
There is no known danger, although some research has suggested that certain men believe that sexual aggression, such as kissing, fondling, and even intercourse, is a little more justified, if the women has initiated the date, gone to the male's apartment, let the man pay for everything, etc. A female being assertive or unassertive is not going to cause a rape (that is a male sickness), but all of our behavior has implications in other people's minds--and some of those minds are chauvinistic, weird, inconsiderate, etc. In general, you are surely much safer being assertively honest, rather than overly shy, needy and dependent, afraid of hurting someone's feelings, uncertain of what to say, and so on.
Additional readings
Mental health professionals consider Alberti & Emmons two books to be the best in this area (Santrock, Minnett & Campbell, 1994). Books that justify aggressiveness, the use of intimidation, and self-centered looking out for #1 are not recommended by professionals. Elgin (1980) and Piaget (1991) offer help countering a "control freak" or a verbally aggressive person (see references below). Video and audio tapes about assertiveness and dealing with difficult people are available from CareerTrack (1-800-334-1018).
Adler, R. B. (1977). Confidence in communication: A guide to assertive and social skills. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Alberti, R. E. & Emmons, M. L. (1975, 1986). Stand up, speak out, talk back. New York: Pocketbooks.
Alberti also has six audiotapes: Making yourself heard: A guide to assertive relationships. San Luis Obispo, CA: Impact Publishers .
Bloom, L. Z., Coburn, K. & Pearlman, J. (1976). The new assertive woman. New York: Dell.
Bower, S. A. & Bower, G. H. (1976). Asserting yourself: A practical guide for positive change. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Elgin, S. (1980). The gentle art of verbal self-defense. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Elgin, S. (1995). You can't say that to me! Stopping the pain of verbal abuse--an 8-step program. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Jakubowski, P. & Lange, A. (1985). The assertive option: Your rights and responsibilities. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Piaget, G. (1991). Control freaks: Who are they and how to stop them from running your life. New York: Doubleday.
Phelps, S. & Austin, N. (1987). The assertive woman: A new look. San Luis Obispo, CA: Impact Publishers.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Ordinary and Marvelous! - A Peek at the Peak
Best Self USA Counseling and Life Skills
10202 Vanderbilt Dr. Naples, FL 34108 •
(239) 591-4565 • www.BestSelfUSA.com •
Ordinary and Marvelous!
A Peek at the Peak
When human beings in every culture have a common behavior, that behavior is considered a part of basic human nature, rather than the product of cultural conditioning. For instance; marriage occurs in all cultures. Thus, marriage is part of human nature, and has what anthropologists call “cross cultural verification”. This brief essay is an introduction to a special kind of universal human experience that remains a mystery for most people. It is important to note that this mysterious phenomenon has cross cultural verification. This ordinary and marvelous event is something that comes from our fundamental human nature. Our challenge is to define this mystery that occurs in every century and every culture, and to understand its effects.
What does this experience feel like? Here are some quotations:
1. “I suddenly became vividly aware that every blade of grass had its own life.”
2. “Time seemed to stand still.”
3. “I lost awareness of my separate existence. I realized I was part of everything.”
4. “Everything -- the flowers, birds, and trees -- seemed alive with a buzzing or glowing energy. It was like someone had sprinkled 'pixie dust' everywhere.”
5. “It was so beautiful! It was still the ordinary world, but now I realized its perfection. Tears began to roll down my cheeks. I wasn't sad! I have never been so happy in my life; true rapture! It was as if an absolutely perfect reality had been there all along, and suddenly I could see lt.”
6. “Somebody turned reality up a notch. Everything was brighter. Somehow everything was more real.”
7. “Every detail was perfect. Nor could it possibly have been any other way!”
8. “Even while I watched it happen, I knew ... as though I had known all along. There was a feeling that of course this was how things really were.”
None of these statements would sound strange to an ancient mystic. Mystics have always been aware of these special states of consciousness. Mystical literature is full of such references. What is surprising is the dawning awareness that we all have mystical experiences. Very ordinary people who don't write poems, burn incense, meditate, see visions, use hallucinogenic drugs, or experience miracles, often report “peak experiences”. Remember, this is a common phenomenon in all cultures.
In our discussion of this subject we use the phrase “peak experiences” which is borrowed from the American psychologist, Abraham Maslow. Maslow and other psychologists have extensively researched this phenomenon, and they have applied the label “peak experiences” to what has been called “inspiration", “the Divine ecstasy”, “enlightenment”, “satori”, “being born again”, or “seeing the Glory of God”, etc.
Different Peaks
The psychological exploration of peak experiences has revealed some astounding facts and spawned fascinating speculations. Below are some of the types of peak experiences:
Insight experiences -- Newton when the apple hit him on the head -- Einstein when the general and special theories of relativity were “revealed” to him Bohr's discovery of quantum theory -- the “gift” of the perfect solution to a complicated problem, without any conscious problem solving on your part. Knowledge through revelation is a common peak experience for many people
.
Spiritual rapture -- St. Paul on the road to Damascus -- Buddha under the Bo tree -- Jesus in the desert -- the rapture of the prophets -- feeling God's presence around a camp fire - religious literature abounds with examples -- For a good discussion on this subject see William James, “The Varieties of Religious Experience”.
Creative experiences -- an entire symphony with full instrumentation playing in the mind of a great composer for the first time -- the rush of ideas pressing the mind of the novelist so that his typing can not keep up with the flow of ideas and words -- the states of consciousness associated with peak experiences are resident in the poet, artist, composer, musician, writer, actor, orator, dancer, the theoretical physicist, the sub-atomic physicist, and the astrophysicist
Nature experiences -- stars take your breath away one special night, even though the same stars are there every night -- things seem more real, more alive, brighter, perfect, beautiful -- a fraternal connection with an animal (i.e. Martin Buber's description of his experience with a horse) -- Nature is the setting for the most common kind of peak experience.
Impossible events -- Football’s “Imaculate Reception” -- the “hole-in-one” you knew was a hole-in-one before you hit the ball -- that sense of perfect action which you “know” will turn out perfectly as you do it -- feeling “in synch” with things and action -- sports, ballet, martial arts, and many other things that happen in “perfect synchronisity”.
Trauma experiences -- near death experiences, like men in combat -- people near death from sickness -- people who belong to the “zipper club” -- near fatal accidents, are commonly reported as changing peoples lives forever. Also included are trance states induced by tribal dancing, prolonged fasting or other deprivations. Groups who experience trauma (like earthquakes) are often bonded by the shared peak experience associated with many kinds of extreme stress.
There are other kinds of peak experiences. These examples are offered to stimulate memories of your own peak experiences.
After the Peak
For many people the aftereffects of peak experiences are every bit as real as the experience itself. The aftereffects are profound and long lasting. They seem to establish the validity of peak experiences in people's lives. Below are some of the reported aftereffects of peak experiences:
l. Peak experiences have a therapeutic effect in the sense that they remove problems from peoples lives. Long standing neurotic symptoms sometimes disappear. Occasionally, addictions are instantly overcome. Physical healings are reported in the aftermath of peak experiences. Such therapeutic effects are plentifully recorded in human history.
2. Peak experiences can change a person's view of himself in a healthy direction.
3. Peak experiences can change a person's view of other people and one's relationship to them in many ways.
4. Peak experiences can permanently change a person's world view or one's understanding of the meaning of life.
5. Peak experiences often release greater creativity, unique traits of personality,
spontaneity, expressiveness, and joy.
6. People often have exceptionally vivid recollections of their peak experiences, see them as desirable, enjoy reliving them in memory, and eagerly anticipate the occurrence of similar experiences.
7. The person is more apt to feel that life in general is worth while. In the midst of the ordinary, the person knows at his core that beauty, wholeness, goodness, truth, and meaningfulness, really do exist. Faith no longer means believing without evidence. He has personal experience of the divine nature. He has known his perfect self and experienced a perfect universe. Life itself is validated!
Personal Peaks
Maslow summarizes aftereffects this way. “I think that these aftereffects can all be generalized and a feeling for them communicated if the peak experience could be likened to a visit to a personally defined paradise from which the person then returns to ordinary life.” Maslow goes on to quote the mystic poet, Samuel Taylor Coleridge; “If a man could pass through paradise in a dream, and have a flower presented to him as a pledge that his soul had really been there, and if he found that flower in his hand when he awoke - Ay! and what then?” Peak experiences give us a glimpse of a reality that is stripped of our personal and cultural perspectives. It is nothing less than the direct experience of a reality that is unsullied by human limitations.
Your Peaks
Maslow asked thousands of people about their peak experiences. Here is Maslow’s first research question: “I would like you to think of the most wonderful experience or experiences of your life: happiest moments, moments of rapture, perhaps from being in love, or from listening to music, or suddenly ‘being hit’ by a poem or a work of art, or from some great creative moment. Would you please make a list of your experiences and your impressions of how the have effected you?”
10202 Vanderbilt Dr. Naples, FL 34108 •
(239) 591-4565 • www.BestSelfUSA.com •
Ordinary and Marvelous!
A Peek at the Peak
When human beings in every culture have a common behavior, that behavior is considered a part of basic human nature, rather than the product of cultural conditioning. For instance; marriage occurs in all cultures. Thus, marriage is part of human nature, and has what anthropologists call “cross cultural verification”. This brief essay is an introduction to a special kind of universal human experience that remains a mystery for most people. It is important to note that this mysterious phenomenon has cross cultural verification. This ordinary and marvelous event is something that comes from our fundamental human nature. Our challenge is to define this mystery that occurs in every century and every culture, and to understand its effects.
What does this experience feel like? Here are some quotations:
1. “I suddenly became vividly aware that every blade of grass had its own life.”
2. “Time seemed to stand still.”
3. “I lost awareness of my separate existence. I realized I was part of everything.”
4. “Everything -- the flowers, birds, and trees -- seemed alive with a buzzing or glowing energy. It was like someone had sprinkled 'pixie dust' everywhere.”
5. “It was so beautiful! It was still the ordinary world, but now I realized its perfection. Tears began to roll down my cheeks. I wasn't sad! I have never been so happy in my life; true rapture! It was as if an absolutely perfect reality had been there all along, and suddenly I could see lt.”
6. “Somebody turned reality up a notch. Everything was brighter. Somehow everything was more real.”
7. “Every detail was perfect. Nor could it possibly have been any other way!”
8. “Even while I watched it happen, I knew ... as though I had known all along. There was a feeling that of course this was how things really were.”
None of these statements would sound strange to an ancient mystic. Mystics have always been aware of these special states of consciousness. Mystical literature is full of such references. What is surprising is the dawning awareness that we all have mystical experiences. Very ordinary people who don't write poems, burn incense, meditate, see visions, use hallucinogenic drugs, or experience miracles, often report “peak experiences”. Remember, this is a common phenomenon in all cultures.
In our discussion of this subject we use the phrase “peak experiences” which is borrowed from the American psychologist, Abraham Maslow. Maslow and other psychologists have extensively researched this phenomenon, and they have applied the label “peak experiences” to what has been called “inspiration", “the Divine ecstasy”, “enlightenment”, “satori”, “being born again”, or “seeing the Glory of God”, etc.
Different Peaks
The psychological exploration of peak experiences has revealed some astounding facts and spawned fascinating speculations. Below are some of the types of peak experiences:
Insight experiences -- Newton when the apple hit him on the head -- Einstein when the general and special theories of relativity were “revealed” to him Bohr's discovery of quantum theory -- the “gift” of the perfect solution to a complicated problem, without any conscious problem solving on your part. Knowledge through revelation is a common peak experience for many people
.
Spiritual rapture -- St. Paul on the road to Damascus -- Buddha under the Bo tree -- Jesus in the desert -- the rapture of the prophets -- feeling God's presence around a camp fire - religious literature abounds with examples -- For a good discussion on this subject see William James, “The Varieties of Religious Experience”.
Creative experiences -- an entire symphony with full instrumentation playing in the mind of a great composer for the first time -- the rush of ideas pressing the mind of the novelist so that his typing can not keep up with the flow of ideas and words -- the states of consciousness associated with peak experiences are resident in the poet, artist, composer, musician, writer, actor, orator, dancer, the theoretical physicist, the sub-atomic physicist, and the astrophysicist
Nature experiences -- stars take your breath away one special night, even though the same stars are there every night -- things seem more real, more alive, brighter, perfect, beautiful -- a fraternal connection with an animal (i.e. Martin Buber's description of his experience with a horse) -- Nature is the setting for the most common kind of peak experience.
Impossible events -- Football’s “Imaculate Reception” -- the “hole-in-one” you knew was a hole-in-one before you hit the ball -- that sense of perfect action which you “know” will turn out perfectly as you do it -- feeling “in synch” with things and action -- sports, ballet, martial arts, and many other things that happen in “perfect synchronisity”.
Trauma experiences -- near death experiences, like men in combat -- people near death from sickness -- people who belong to the “zipper club” -- near fatal accidents, are commonly reported as changing peoples lives forever. Also included are trance states induced by tribal dancing, prolonged fasting or other deprivations. Groups who experience trauma (like earthquakes) are often bonded by the shared peak experience associated with many kinds of extreme stress.
There are other kinds of peak experiences. These examples are offered to stimulate memories of your own peak experiences.
After the Peak
For many people the aftereffects of peak experiences are every bit as real as the experience itself. The aftereffects are profound and long lasting. They seem to establish the validity of peak experiences in people's lives. Below are some of the reported aftereffects of peak experiences:
l. Peak experiences have a therapeutic effect in the sense that they remove problems from peoples lives. Long standing neurotic symptoms sometimes disappear. Occasionally, addictions are instantly overcome. Physical healings are reported in the aftermath of peak experiences. Such therapeutic effects are plentifully recorded in human history.
2. Peak experiences can change a person's view of himself in a healthy direction.
3. Peak experiences can change a person's view of other people and one's relationship to them in many ways.
4. Peak experiences can permanently change a person's world view or one's understanding of the meaning of life.
5. Peak experiences often release greater creativity, unique traits of personality,
spontaneity, expressiveness, and joy.
6. People often have exceptionally vivid recollections of their peak experiences, see them as desirable, enjoy reliving them in memory, and eagerly anticipate the occurrence of similar experiences.
7. The person is more apt to feel that life in general is worth while. In the midst of the ordinary, the person knows at his core that beauty, wholeness, goodness, truth, and meaningfulness, really do exist. Faith no longer means believing without evidence. He has personal experience of the divine nature. He has known his perfect self and experienced a perfect universe. Life itself is validated!
Personal Peaks
Maslow summarizes aftereffects this way. “I think that these aftereffects can all be generalized and a feeling for them communicated if the peak experience could be likened to a visit to a personally defined paradise from which the person then returns to ordinary life.” Maslow goes on to quote the mystic poet, Samuel Taylor Coleridge; “If a man could pass through paradise in a dream, and have a flower presented to him as a pledge that his soul had really been there, and if he found that flower in his hand when he awoke - Ay! and what then?” Peak experiences give us a glimpse of a reality that is stripped of our personal and cultural perspectives. It is nothing less than the direct experience of a reality that is unsullied by human limitations.
Your Peaks
Maslow asked thousands of people about their peak experiences. Here is Maslow’s first research question: “I would like you to think of the most wonderful experience or experiences of your life: happiest moments, moments of rapture, perhaps from being in love, or from listening to music, or suddenly ‘being hit’ by a poem or a work of art, or from some great creative moment. Would you please make a list of your experiences and your impressions of how the have effected you?”
Friday, April 3, 2009
The Traits of a Self-Actualized Person
`BEST SELF CLINIC
Counseling and Life Skills • Naples, FL 34108 (239) 591-4565
Long Distance and local counseling
The Traits of a Self-Actualized Person
1. They perceive reality accurately and fully.
Their perceptions are not colored by specific needs or defenses. In other words, their perception of the world is characterized by B-cognition rather than by D-cognition.
2. They demonstrate a greater acceptance of themselves, others, and/or nature.
Because self-actualizers have accepted both the good and the bad in everything there is no need to deny the negative aspects of anyone or any thing. They are therefore more tolerant of things as they are.
3. They exhibit spontaneity, simplicity and naturalness.
Self-actualizers tend to be true to their feelings; what they really feel they tend to say and/or experience. They do not hide behind a mask and do not act in accordance with social roles. They are true to themselves.
4. They tend to be concerned with projects and issues rather than with themselves.
Self-actualizers are typically committed to some task, cause, or mission toward which they can direct most of their energies. This is contrasted with the preoccupation with one’s self often found in non-actualizers.
5. They have a quality of detachment and a need for privacy.
Because self- actualizing individuals depend on their own values and feelings to guide their lives they do not need to be in constant contact with other people.
“It is often possible for them to remain above the battle, to remain unruffled, undisturbed by that which produces turmoil in others. They find it easy to be aloof, reserved and also calm and serene; thus it becomes possible for them to take personal misfortunes without reacting violently as the ordinary person does. They seem to be able to retain their dignity even in undignified surroundings and situations. Perhaps this comes in part from their tendency to stick by their own interpretation of a situation rather than to rely upon what other people feel or think about the matter. This reserve may shade over into austerity and remoteness.”
6. They are autonomous and therefore tend to be independent of their environment.
Because self actualizers are B-motivated rather than D-motivated they are more dependent on their own inner world than on the outer world.
“Deficiency motivated people must have other people available since most of their main need gratifications (love safety. respect, prestige, belongingness) can come only from other human beings. But growth motivated [B-motivated] people may actually be hampered by others. The determinants of satisfaction and of the good life are for them now inner- individual and not social. They have become strong enough to be independent of the good opinion of other people or even of their affection. The honors, the status, the rewards, the popularity, the prestige and the love they can bestow must have become less important than self-development and inner growth.”
7. They exhibit a continued freshness of appreciation.
Self-actualizers continue to experience the events in their lives with awe, wonder and pleasure. Every baby or sunset is as beautiful and exciting as the first they had seen. Marriage is as exciting after forty
years as it was in the beginning. Generally such individuals derive great inspiration and ecstasy from the basic experiences of everyday life.
8. They have periodic mystic or peak experiences.
Maslow believed that all humans had the potential for peak experiences but only self-actualizers could have them full blown, since such individuals were not threatened by them and therefore would not inhibit or defend in any way. Generally peak experiences are the embracing of B-values.
“Feelings of limitless horizons opening up to the vision, the feeling of being simultaneously more powerful and also more helpless than one ever was before, the feeling of great ecstasy, and wonder, and awe, the loss of placing in time and space with, finally, the conviction that something extremely important and valuable had happened, so that the subject is to some extent transformed and strengthened even in his daily life by such experiences.”
Maslow concluded that some self-actualizers peak more often than others. The non-peakers (low frequency of peak experiences) tend to be practical effective people. Peakers (relatively high frequency of peak experiences) tend to be more poetic, aesthetically oriented, transcendent and mystical.
9. They tend to identify with all of mankind.
The concerns that self actualizers have for other people do not extend only to their friends and family but to all people in all cultures throughout the world. This feeling of brotherhood extends also to individuals who are aggressive, inconsiderate, or otherwise foolish. Self-actualizers have a genuine desire to help the human race.
10. They develop deep interpersonal relations with only a few individuals.
Self-actualizers tend to seek out other self-actualizers as their close friends. Such friendships are few in number but are deep and rich.
11. They tend to accept democratic values.
Self-actualizers do not respond to individuals on the basis of race, status or religion. They can be and are friendly with anyone of suitable character regardless of class, education, political belief, race or color. As a matter of fact it often seems as if they are not even aware of these differences which are for the average person so obvious and important.
12. They have a strong ethical sense.
Although their notions of right and wrong are often unconventional, self actualizers, nonetheless almost always know the ethical implications of their own actions
13. They have a well developed, unhostile sense of humor.
Self-actualizers tend not to find humor in things that injure or degrade other humans. Rather they are more likely to laugh at themselves or at human beings in general.
14. They are creative.
Maslow found this trait in all of the self-actualizers.
“This is a universal characteristic of all the people studied or observed. There is no exception. This creativeness appears in some of our subjects not in the usual forms of writing books, composing music, or producing artistic objects, but rather may be much more humble. It is as if this special type of creativeness being an expression of healthy personality is projected out upon the world or touches whatever activity the person is engaged in. In this sense there can be creative shoemakers or carpenters or clerks.”
This creativity comes from the fact that self actualizers are more open to experience and more spontaneous in their feelings. It is directly related to B-motivation.
15. They resist enculturation.
Self-actualizers tend to be nonconformists since they are inner-directed people. If a cultural norm is contrary to their personal values they simply will not adhere to it.
Start becoming your best self!
Counseling and Life Skills • Naples, FL 34108 (239) 591-4565
Long Distance and local counseling
The Traits of a Self-Actualized Person
1. They perceive reality accurately and fully.
Their perceptions are not colored by specific needs or defenses. In other words, their perception of the world is characterized by B-cognition rather than by D-cognition.
2. They demonstrate a greater acceptance of themselves, others, and/or nature.
Because self-actualizers have accepted both the good and the bad in everything there is no need to deny the negative aspects of anyone or any thing. They are therefore more tolerant of things as they are.
3. They exhibit spontaneity, simplicity and naturalness.
Self-actualizers tend to be true to their feelings; what they really feel they tend to say and/or experience. They do not hide behind a mask and do not act in accordance with social roles. They are true to themselves.
4. They tend to be concerned with projects and issues rather than with themselves.
Self-actualizers are typically committed to some task, cause, or mission toward which they can direct most of their energies. This is contrasted with the preoccupation with one’s self often found in non-actualizers.
5. They have a quality of detachment and a need for privacy.
Because self- actualizing individuals depend on their own values and feelings to guide their lives they do not need to be in constant contact with other people.
“It is often possible for them to remain above the battle, to remain unruffled, undisturbed by that which produces turmoil in others. They find it easy to be aloof, reserved and also calm and serene; thus it becomes possible for them to take personal misfortunes without reacting violently as the ordinary person does. They seem to be able to retain their dignity even in undignified surroundings and situations. Perhaps this comes in part from their tendency to stick by their own interpretation of a situation rather than to rely upon what other people feel or think about the matter. This reserve may shade over into austerity and remoteness.”
6. They are autonomous and therefore tend to be independent of their environment.
Because self actualizers are B-motivated rather than D-motivated they are more dependent on their own inner world than on the outer world.
“Deficiency motivated people must have other people available since most of their main need gratifications (love safety. respect, prestige, belongingness) can come only from other human beings. But growth motivated [B-motivated] people may actually be hampered by others. The determinants of satisfaction and of the good life are for them now inner- individual and not social. They have become strong enough to be independent of the good opinion of other people or even of their affection. The honors, the status, the rewards, the popularity, the prestige and the love they can bestow must have become less important than self-development and inner growth.”
7. They exhibit a continued freshness of appreciation.
Self-actualizers continue to experience the events in their lives with awe, wonder and pleasure. Every baby or sunset is as beautiful and exciting as the first they had seen. Marriage is as exciting after forty
years as it was in the beginning. Generally such individuals derive great inspiration and ecstasy from the basic experiences of everyday life.
8. They have periodic mystic or peak experiences.
Maslow believed that all humans had the potential for peak experiences but only self-actualizers could have them full blown, since such individuals were not threatened by them and therefore would not inhibit or defend in any way. Generally peak experiences are the embracing of B-values.
“Feelings of limitless horizons opening up to the vision, the feeling of being simultaneously more powerful and also more helpless than one ever was before, the feeling of great ecstasy, and wonder, and awe, the loss of placing in time and space with, finally, the conviction that something extremely important and valuable had happened, so that the subject is to some extent transformed and strengthened even in his daily life by such experiences.”
Maslow concluded that some self-actualizers peak more often than others. The non-peakers (low frequency of peak experiences) tend to be practical effective people. Peakers (relatively high frequency of peak experiences) tend to be more poetic, aesthetically oriented, transcendent and mystical.
9. They tend to identify with all of mankind.
The concerns that self actualizers have for other people do not extend only to their friends and family but to all people in all cultures throughout the world. This feeling of brotherhood extends also to individuals who are aggressive, inconsiderate, or otherwise foolish. Self-actualizers have a genuine desire to help the human race.
10. They develop deep interpersonal relations with only a few individuals.
Self-actualizers tend to seek out other self-actualizers as their close friends. Such friendships are few in number but are deep and rich.
11. They tend to accept democratic values.
Self-actualizers do not respond to individuals on the basis of race, status or religion. They can be and are friendly with anyone of suitable character regardless of class, education, political belief, race or color. As a matter of fact it often seems as if they are not even aware of these differences which are for the average person so obvious and important.
12. They have a strong ethical sense.
Although their notions of right and wrong are often unconventional, self actualizers, nonetheless almost always know the ethical implications of their own actions
13. They have a well developed, unhostile sense of humor.
Self-actualizers tend not to find humor in things that injure or degrade other humans. Rather they are more likely to laugh at themselves or at human beings in general.
14. They are creative.
Maslow found this trait in all of the self-actualizers.
“This is a universal characteristic of all the people studied or observed. There is no exception. This creativeness appears in some of our subjects not in the usual forms of writing books, composing music, or producing artistic objects, but rather may be much more humble. It is as if this special type of creativeness being an expression of healthy personality is projected out upon the world or touches whatever activity the person is engaged in. In this sense there can be creative shoemakers or carpenters or clerks.”
This creativity comes from the fact that self actualizers are more open to experience and more spontaneous in their feelings. It is directly related to B-motivation.
15. They resist enculturation.
Self-actualizers tend to be nonconformists since they are inner-directed people. If a cultural norm is contrary to their personal values they simply will not adhere to it.
Start becoming your best self!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
