|
|
If you want to be happy, then you have to learn how to think clearly. If you think unhappy thoughts,
you will get unhappy emotions as a consequence. In the ancient world, Buddhism and Stoicism advocated mind control to
reduce emotional suffering. In the modern world, Albert Ellis pioneered this field of enquiry, followed by Aaron Tim
Beck. Dr Jim Byrne is now combining all of those systems of thought into a highly effective system of critical thinking
to produce a self-coaching approach to emotional self-management. This can also be seen as an effective system of emotional
intelligence development. ~~~ SITE MAP ~~~
|
|
|
|
Friday, October 30, 2009
Choose to Look Through a Happy Frame
Friday again; and I’m on it!
 The current issue of Scientific American Mind has an article by Howard Fields
on ‘The psychology of pain’, which contains evidence that mind set affects the level of perceived pain.
This research is relevant to the validation of Cognitive Emotive Narrative
Therapy, in that we argue that the mind set – ‘framing’ – of the client determines the intensity
of their emotional pain when faced with significant adversities. Or as Fields (2009) puts it: “The
pain we experience is a synthesis of what happens in our body and what we expect, which depends on what we are told or have
otherwise learned” (Page 45). How much more true this is of psychologically salient adversities will
be shown as this information is elaborated in a paper on ‘The Validation of CENT’, in the weeks ahead. Please watch this space.
~~~
Last
week I wrote about how CENT is a system
of ‘reframing’ the adversities we experience in our lives. When we look at a situation through
a new frame, we get a new set of perceptions, emotions and behaviours.
Actually, we always look at any
‘external stimulus’ through some kind of frame. A frame is a set of inferences, nested together,
which taken together, determines how we interpret what we are ‘seeing’.
We cannot look out through our eyes and see ‘what is there’.
Light bounces off what is ‘outside’ us, and that light travels through the holes in our eyes, and gets
picked up by nerve endings which carry it to several parts of the brain. Different brain structures combine
that light stimulus into some kind of ‘meaningful phenomenon’, based on our past (cultural) experience; and we
project the resulting phenomenal apparition back out to where the light came from. Our family and community
has as much (or more) to do with our perceptions as we (individually) do, no matter how old we are, and (once we are ‘independent’)
no matter where our family resides relative to us in time and space. Our personality, character and actions
are all determined by vastly complex networks of cumulative, interpretative experiences, stored in long term memory, below
the level of conscious awareness.
The problem is that we do not notice that we are perceiving something through the
prism of a frame – or ‘tinted lens’ - which determines how it shows
up for us.
 The therapeutic effects of Cognitive Emotive Narrative Therapy (CENT) stem from the fact that a person who looks through
a lens of one configuration (or tint) will not experience the same stimulus/response as a person who looks through a lens
differently configured (or tinted).
Last week I gave the example of somebody who loses
their job, and has the frame: “This should not be happening”. That is just the most obvious
element of this frame: the dominant inference. Other linked inferences might include: “I cannot afford
to lose my income”; “My children are going to starve”; “My partner is going to scorn me”.
“I will be shamed in my community”. “I won’t be able to continue with my
social life with my friends”; and other elements. However, the first inference is sufficient to trigger
all the other subordinate inferences; and the subsequent emotional disturbance is an effect of the whole, multi-inference
frame.
For shorthand, in CENT, we characterize a frame as being like a window frame. The dominant inference of the frame is
assumed to be written around the window frame. As we look out through the frame, at a preoccupying stimulus
– like losing our job – we can begin, with the help of CENT, to see that the resulting emotions are driven, not by the loss of the job (per se), but by the
nest of inferences - (about the loss of the job) - enclosed by the dominant frame.
The next step is to
change the frame, from negative to positive. Once we change the frame, the resulting emotions and behaviours
automatically change; because this is a causal relationship. The frame
determinesour response. Or rather, the fram-ing of the stimulus
causes our response.
So we ask our clients: “What frame are you using to
make sense of this event or object (the loss of job; dispute with a partner; or whatever)?”
The
client will normally say: “I’m not looking through a frame. The situation is just horrible
in and of itself”.
This is never true; and the client has to be helped to see that they
always interpret their experiences, using a socially shaped set of frames.
Once
they begin to recognize that they are ‘frame dominated interpreting machines, or organisms’, they can begin to
normally look for the frame when they are upset, and to ask themselves: “What would be
a more empowering frame through which to view this unfortunate development?”
Once they know how to determine a more empowering
frame, they are home and dry. It takes a little time, of reviewing the new frame over and over again before
they get it into long term memory.
~~~
I have begun to identify literature sources for a paper on
‘frame theory’. This is an existing discipline, strongly influenced by semiotics, which has
a role in cognitive science, cognitive psychology, educational psychology, and so on. Frames are much like schemas, and are elements of more elaborate narratives or stories.
People build life scripts out of frames and stories. This is my next paper on CENT theory, and it will be completed
in the next few weeks. (For existing papers on CENT, please
check here: The Institute for CENT Studies.)
~~~
Also, I have almost completed my
book proposal for my magnum opus on The Birth of Cognitive Emotive Narrative Therapy.
Watch this space for more news over the next few months.
~~~
I am also working on a few new training
courses, based on video clips and textual material. The first is on ‘Getting Things
Done Using CENT’, which demonstrates
how to use CENT to overcome procrastination.
The second course will be on ‘Anger Management’. These courses will be available online;
and can be accessed, at low cost, instantly. Again, watch this space.
~~~
Jim
Dr
Jim Byrne
ABC Coaching and Counselling Services
Jim.byrne@abc-counselling.com
~~~
Why not AddThis
to your social networks: 
~~~
Lunzer, E. (1989) Cognitive development: Learning and the mechanisms of change.
In: Patricia Murphy and Bob Moon (eds) Developments in Learning and Assessment. London:
Hodder and Stoughton, in association with the Open University. Pages 29-30.
MacLachlan, G. and Reid, I. (1994) Framing and Interpretations.
Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University Press. Pages 10-14.
Monday, October 26, 2009
And then there were Five (Windows)!
What is the Windows Model?
It is
a system of reframing perceptions!
Over a period of several weeks, I have been outlining
a model I use to help myself and my clients to ‘reframe’ our unpleasant or distressing experiences.
To ‘reframe’ anything means to look at it in a new ‘context’; to change the ‘surrounding
frame’, so that it looks different. For example, if you look at your loss
of a job through a ‘frame’ of “this should not be happening”, (or the frame of what Albert Ellis called
‘musturbation’), it will seem very, very bad. However, if you look at it through a frame of “Into
every life a little rain must fall”, it will look a whole lot better. From the obvious
noxious effect of using demanding shoulds inappropriately, Ellis over-generalizes to the idea that
people have to be helped, first and foremost, to “dispute their shoulds and musts”. Especially as further developed by Dr Tom Miller, this includes all shoulds and musts, which results in the
dumping of moral language possibilities. Ellis considered that should/must/demands were at the
core of human disturbance. But he failed to note that shoulds and musts are also at the core of moral
thinking and moral injunctions. Thus he sacrificed moral language to alleviate emotional disturbance. In CENT, we correct that mistake by distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate
shoulds and musts. We do not begin by looking for the shoulds.
We begin by looking for an empowering way to reframe problems, when those problems
cannot be changed materially. And in the process of reframing them, we may come across inappropriate
shoulds and musts, which we dispute, debate and challenge; and encourage our clients to give up.
But we do not disparage the word ‘must’, by calling its use ‘musturbation’.
For on some occasions, there is nothing more appropriate than a strong, powerful, moral MUST! (“You
must not be cruel to others”. This is an expression of the Golden Rule,
to treat others as we would wish to be treated). Reframing means the same as ‘re-interpreting’,
and if you change your interpretation of anything, it shows up as ‘something else’,
something revised, something modified. Therefore, when we find ourselves in a situation
which we cannot change, materially, we still have the option to change it ‘phenomenally’. That
is to say, we can still change how it ‘shows up’ for us, in our “mind’s eye”. For many months, I have been working on a way to develop a few, punchy, powerful ‘reframing’ tools, and
I eventually came up with the idea of a ‘Mind Hut’ (which has been developed during the previous posts to this
blog). The hut has (or had) Four Windows, each of which has a ‘reframing instruction’ on its
frame. (This is also a form of ‘attention directing’, a la Dr Edward De Bono [6] ). So far I have developed Four Windows; but the fourth one is now proving to be a problem, on a par with
some of the traditional elements of REBT which do not support a moral perspective on life. Part of my reason
for developing CENT has been that REBT was revealed, during the conflict over Albert Ellis’s status, at the Albert Ellis
Institute, as an amoral philosophy which cannot sustain a moral discourse. (It is amoral
specifically because it has eschewed the moral terms: should, must, have to, ought to, got to, need to).
So the Fourth Window has now been withdrawn, and will be replaced in a future post, perhaps in about one week. There is also a Fifth Window, in the roof of the Mind Hut, which will be introduced in a couple of weeks. For the moment, my message is this: If you reframe your adversities
in life, they show up differently. Then you don’t feel obliged to say ‘This
should not be happening’, and your therapist does not have to dump ‘all absolute shoulds’
in order to relieve your suffering. Thus the ‘moral should’ can be preserved; not as a preference;
but as a strong prescription (as described by Hare, 1981). What do you think of these ideas? Please
leave a comment and let me know. Best wishes, Jim Dr Jim Byrne Doctor of Counselling ABC Coaching and Counselling Services Jim.byrne@abc-counselling.com/ ~~~
Why not AddThis to your social networks: ~~~
Hare, R.M. (1981) Moral Thinking: its levels, method and point. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
[6] De Bono, E. (1995) Teach Yourself to
Think. London: Viking/Penguin.
Monday, October 5, 2009
A delayed posting...Monday 5th...A TACK TO THE EAST  Sorry for the delay in posting this week's blog. I have been extremely busy.
I had
hoped to move on to look at how Critical Thinking links up with the Four Windows model, but do not have the time
for such an extensive consideration. Instead I will just look at a couple of questions you might have, and try to offer
some preliminary answers: Firstly: What kind of model is the Four Windows model, and
what is it related to? The Four windows model is an ‘attention directing' model,
similar in some ways to the attention directing models of Dr Edward De Bono. "All questions are attention directing
devices", says De Bono (1995: page 34[1]). But the Six Thinking Hats model developed by De Bono is a ‘systematic
attention directing model' which channels our cognitive behaviour more effectively than random attempts to think straight,
comprehensively or clearly. ~~~ Secondly: Why
should we believe that this kind of model would have a good effect on people who are grappling with psychological problems
that spoil their happiness and sense of wellbeing? I have not conducted a detailed
literature review on this question yet; and I will do so in the fullness of time. But for the moment, here is an indicator
of a likely positive outcome to that search: Jan Dőnges, writing in Scientific American Mind,[2] reports that: "In 2003, (James) Pennebaker
and statistician R. Sherlock Campbell, now at Yale University, used a statistical tool called latent semantic analysis (LSA)
to study the diary entries of trauma patients from three earlier studies, looking for text characteristics that had changed
in patients who were convalescing and met rarely with their physicians. (...) the researchers showed that content was
unimportant. The factor that was most clearly associated with recovery was the use of pronouns. Patients whose
writings changed perspective from day to day were less likely to seek medical treatment during the follow-up period".
"It may be that patients who describe their situation
both from their own viewpoint and from the perspective of others recover more quickly from traumatic experience..."
From this I infer a principle whereby a person with a mono-focal way of attending to their distressing experiences
will tend to get stuck with stressful feelings; and those who can shift their attention to other ‘frames' can more easily
and quickly recover from their traumatic experiences. (This is a major insight of CENT, and is copyright (c) Jim Byrne,
2009). Thus the Four Windows model is worthy of experimentation
to test my hypothesis. I will continue to test it on myself, and I would encourage you to test it on yourself, and record
your results. I would greatly appreciate hearing about your testing experiences. That's
all for this week. Best wishes, Jim Dr
Jim Byrne ABC Coaching and Counselling Services Jim.byrne@abc-counselling.com Why not AddThis to your social networks: ~~~
[1] De Bono, E. (1995) Teach Yourself to Think. London: Viking. [2] Dőnges, J. (2009) You are what you say. Scientific American Mind, Vol.20, No.4, July/August:
14-15.
|
|
If you like the Friday Blog, then why not share it with your social networks. Click the button
that follows and choose your network(s).
|