Ve Have Vays of Making You Talk Part IV Fatalism

In Part I of this post, I discussed why family members hate to discuss their chronic repetitive ongoing interpersonal difficulties with each other (metacommunication), and the problems that usually ensue whenever they try.
I discussed the most common avoidance strategy - merely changing the subject (#1) - and suggested effective countermoves to keep a constructive conversation on track. In Part II, I discussed strategies #2 and #3, nitpicking and accusations of overgeneralizing respectively. In Part III, I discussed strategy #4, blame shifting.  Now I move on to strategy #5.

To review once again, the goal of metacommunication is effective and empathic problem solving. In this post, I will discuss an avoidance strategy called fatalism, and describe appropriate counter-strategies to get past it.

As with all counter-strategies, maintaining empathy for the Other and persistence are key.

Strategy #5: Fatalism

Fatalism is a doctrine that advances the idea that almost all events are fixed in advance so that human beings are powerless to change them. It is commonly used to refer to an attitude of helplessness and resignation in the face of some ongoing events which are thought to be unalterable, or in the face of some future event or events which are thought to be inevitable.

In metacommunication, fatalism is most commonly invoked in order to resist and discourage further attempts at solving family problems whenever somebody tries. When one family member wants to bring up a highly emotionally salient past event that has led to unresolved feelings, for example, a second family member protests, "Why are you bringing this up again? You cannot change the past."

Well of course you cannot change the past.  At least not as far as we know, anyway.  The past seems to be rather fixed, does it not? No one denies that. Perhaps there is an alternate universe out there somewhere, but if so, we have no access to it. 

The fallacy here, however, is the implication that the past is no longer having any effect on the present, nor will it have any continuing effect on the future. It implies that people are not affected by memories in the here and now, and that they do not use past events in order to predict future ones.   It almost seems to be arguing that every moment in the present is entirely independent and disconnected from every previous moment.

Fatalism is unfortunately a significant component of the be­lief systems of many cultural groups that have emigrated to the United States. Many times, patients who attempt to metacommunicate about family problems so that they can be solved are accused of being troublemakers.

Another accusation based on a belief in fatalism is the charge that patients who are known to be in therapy are inappropriately trying to be psychiatrists themselves. "Quit trying to analyze everything!" is a frequent family rallying cry.

Fatalism-implying accusations can, however, be used to pave the way for individual family members to question, rather than perpetuate, established fatalistic family belief sys­tems. Individuals can empathize with fatalistic family members by admitting that they themselves used to think just as the family does.  However, they then go on to add that they now have developed real doubts about those ideas.

Why shouldn't they try to analyze a situation? Understanding a problem is benefi­cial for figuring out a way to solve it.  People in the family may disagree, but only because they feel helpless about changing their future. These feelings of helplessness often stem from past experiences or catastrophes that befell their forefathers.  That anxiety has been passed down from one generation to the next, often with the source of the original anxiety becoming lost. Times have changed for the better, but the family continues to act as if these somewhat ancient horrors are still in operation.

In response to the accusation that they are dwelling on the past, individuals can point out how those past situations are continuing to affect the family's present situation. They can say that they are bringing them up because they want to have better relationships with the family. The old problems are creating distance, and they want to be closer.

In response to the charge that they are being troublemakers and creating dissonance in the family, individuals can reply that the dissonance already exists, and they are trying to reduce it by discussing its causes. They can add that if the bad feelings can be reduced, then the whole family will wind up feeling happier and warmer with one another.

All Food Is Poison and Anything You Eat May Kill You

People with panic and anxiety disorder are very suggestible, and they are especially suggestible to their own stupidity. The story of the last month, below, reveals my extremely scientific approach to food intolerance and how it may affect the brain. Please note: If you read this and decide that you, too, are intolerant to all the things I have listed, then we should have a martini together. Contact me. (Except that martinis are derived from wheat, and are now a terrible poison to me. I will be drinking a tea made out of organic quinoa shavings, while you enjoy your delicious martini.)

About one month ago, I decided I was intolerant to Gluten. Gluten can cause all sorts of bad things, I’d read, and I wanted no part of it. It has been reported to cause indigestion, osteoporosis, rashes, and depression. I cut all Gluten out of my life. By the second day off Gluten, I decided I was cured of every anxious thought I have ever had. I ran about through the wet grass in the night, and hurled a tennis ball at the moon.

“Yah! I am cured!” I said to the moon.

A few days later I started feeling dizzy and anxious again, so I decided I had an intestinal parasite. I researched all kinds of parasites, and found out that some can bore into one’s brain! They really can. They can invade every major organ in the body. I researched some online cures that promised to expunge parasites from the body.

But what if it wasn’t a parasite? What if it was just my own idiocy? Then I would have paid $47 for a revolting “colon cleanse” that would just cleanse the nutrients from my body and make me even more dizzy and ill.

I held off, but still brooded heavily about the parasites.

Another week or two went by. By Thursday 5/19, I decided that I didn’t drink enough water. Water, by God, now that was the solution! If I could gurgle down about 10 glasses a day of water, I would be instantly healed and would wake up with my hair in a braid and a song on my lips. As I woke, I would sing a song that would begin with the words: “Another glorious day to celebrate my life!” I made a chart and started to check off how many glasses of water I imbibed per day. On the first day, I drank 10 glasses of clean, pure water.

I woke up feeling just as rotten as ever. “Perhaps,” I thought, “I was right about the parasites.” I also pondered a bit about brain tumors and incurable mental illness. Or maybe I had lactose intolerance? Maybe I was allergic to coffee. Maybe there was some kind of oil in the coffee bean that was sick-making, and caused incurable mental illness. Why, look at the proliferation of coffee shops, and all the poor sad addicts standing in line.

On Friday 5/20, I gave up coffee.


On Saturday 5/21, I was fully convinced that my troubles were all due to a mysterious malady called Fructose Malabsorption. If you have this problem, you can’t eat most fruits, high fructose corn syrup, asparagus, artichokes, onions, leeks, wheat, and brown rice. Basically, everything that is good for you. Fructose Malabsorption can make one extremely anxious and depressed, and can even make one’s eyeballs ache. Plus, it causes bad poop incidents and a bloated tummy that looks like you just swallowed a dodgeball. All these terrible things have happened to me. Therefore, I had "Fructmal."

I started drinking coffee again. What did it matter? Apples were poison.

By Sunday 5/22, I had discarded the Fructose Malabsorption theory altogether. It would be a bore to never eat an apple again! How would I explain this weird food intolerance at Appletini parties?

Instead, I now determined that my trouble was corn and dairy. Corn, the evil of America! No pretty corn-fed maidens, sipping frothy glasses of milk, would tempt me again. I packed up the industrial-sized bag of Costco tortilla chips and, on Monday 5/23, thrust them at our nanny on my way to work.

“Take them, take the awful things from my sight!” I begged.

“But, we just bought those,” she said.

“And look, I have eaten half the bag,” I cried. “It is no wonder the corn has made me quite ill and mad.”

I glared at the cheese in our fridge with suspicion. No doubt it had been made from mad cows and goats, and eating it would pickle my brain matter. I would eat no cheese. I gave up coffee again. I had some weak tea without sugar and milk. I felt very bitter.

By now there was very little left on the "safe list" that I could eat. I ate a few nuts and a banana for breakfast, and became worried about the Fructose thing all over again. “Suppose I was right, and this banana is not on the ‘safe” list, and it makes me sicker than ever!” I fretted about this on the way to work.

By 11:00 I was so weak and shaky from not eating a proper breakfast that I had a panic attack, and immediately nibbled at the corner of a small Xanax. I felt much better.

If you can cure me of this stupidity, I will send you a package of cookies. They will not contain any wheat, corn, dairy, nuts, fruit juices, or sugar, and will taste like little turds coated in sawdust.

Hey Slapass What Are You Supposed to Be Doing Right Now Taint This

Hey fathead!

What are you doing here, anyway? Are you malingering, procrastinating, wasting your precious gifts, face deep in a laptop when you could be face deep in the lap of a fine young man or woman, ignoring your garden, ignoring your children, ignoring that strange man at the front door with the funny tic in his eye and the metallic smile, wishing you were somewhere else, wishing you could run off and join the circus, wishing that the world would stop and grant you a few more hours, biding your time until the muse comes up and bites you on the perineum, wasting your time until the oceans rise and wash over you and your uncompleted manuscripts?

Go on, get outta here! If I catch you on Twitter later this evening, there will be hell to pay, I assure you.

Are you still here? Do I have to take the switch to you?

Go away. Your naughtiness will be recorded in the annals for all to read and you will be mocked and people will throw potatoes at your head. And maybe bricks and nails.

I'm getting really angry now.

Go and make beautiful art, muttonheaded buffoon! The world is mooning over you, prematurely. The celebrity rags have already prepared their articles.

I am going to get on a plane now and whup the daylights out of your porkchop ass. Get ready, dinkums. When I arrive, I expect to see a first draft. Or hear your fine composition on the peee-a-no. Or taste your cake baked in the shape of the state of Texas. Or see the tree that you have carved into a fine replica of Abraham Lincoln. Or pet the little knitted Zombunny that you have stitched in your spare time.

Go now and do what you are meant to do.    

Can anxiety panic attacks kill you

Can anxiety panic attacks kill you would be the tendency connected with current favorite information, we all know in the evaluation from the internet search engine which usually aids you produce the correct recommendations most of us look at looking for graphics relating to that Can anxiety panic attacks kill you . and also the outcomes you can observe beneath please be aware a few of the photos is a model.

Sample images Can anxiety panic attacks kill you

Can anxiety panic attacks kill you - this has quite been shared together with the expectancy which unfortunately we can easily really encourage employed to people. This post can certainly work to be a referrals if you are puzzled to choose the proper information This Can anxiety panic attacks kill you blogposts could possibly be your very best self selection to get used on the project prepare, as it has its own plan will feel more satisfied Can anxiety panic attacks kill you - Very helpful for you personally for this reason people are attempting get a dependable resource which usually can assist you obtain idea without the need of misunderstanding. do not forget to bookmark this page, given that could be someday you may need it all to come back simply because ones own inspirational options.

Should You Send That Query What We Can Learn From The Marshmallow Test

I know many of you are writers who plan to query or are querying, so this one is for you. However, today's topic applies to just about every area of our lives, so ... I guess this is actually for everyone, but we'll use the road to publication as an example.

Let's say you write a novel. You think it's a good novel. You read over it a few times, and you're amazed this riveting combination of drama and suspense and romance and intrigue could have flown from your fingers. Your mom reads it, and she agrees! She thinks you're the next ________________(insert the name her favorite published author here). Your heart beats faster. Your thoughts whirl with possibilities. You could really do this--you could share your work with the world and make it as a writer. With dreams of making the NYT Best Seller List dancing in your head, you do a little research on how to get published.

What you decide to do next and the implications of that decision can be nicely summed up with the following video.

Let me set this up for you.

You = Kid

Experiment = Query Process

Marshmallow = YOU TELL ME AFTER WATCHING THIS:

On Wednesday, I'll talk more about this experiment, what it tells us about impulse control, and what it could mean for querying writers (and everyone else).

Please stop by Laura's blog to check out her ever-intriguing Mental Health Monday post, and go to Lydia's blog to read her always-awesome Medical Monday post.

Now tell me--what does the marshmallow represent?

Getting Significant Others to Tell You the Truth Part I Judgments Masquerading as Descriptions

As I have mentioned in many posts in this blog, the key to effective problem solving for dysfunctional families is to initiate metacommunication (talking about the nature and manifestations of rules by which the family operates, as well as talking about the way the family communicates), and then learning how to do it effectively.  Many strategies were discussed previously in my two series, Ve Have Vays of Making You Talk and How to Disarm a Borderline.  


Many of the strategies described in the Disarm posts need not be limited to dealing with family members who have significant borderline behavior, but work well on anyone trying to avoid telling you that they are purposely frustrating you because they do not want you to pursue certain lines of questioning.


In this new series of two posts, I will describe situations in which individuals with whom one is attempting metacommunication seem to be answering the questions that have been posed to them but are, in actuality, avoiding answering the questions.

In the second, upcoming post I will describe a strategy used by people who do not want to tell you their real motives for why they did or did not do something - thereby blocking your efforts to understand them and their motives better: descriptions masquerading as explanations.

In this post, I will cover a problem that crops up when one family member questions another family member about his or her relationship with a third party.  I call it judgments masquerading as descriptions.

This applies in situations in which the goal for the metacommunicator is to avoid being triangulated into the relationship of two other family members who are at war with one another.  According to family systems theory, when any two family members are having an unstable relationship, they will often rope in a third party as a sort of buffer.  


Two of the three members of the triangle may seem to gang up on the third, but there is usually much more to the story than that.  If deemed necessary, the alliances can quickly shift, so that the person ganged up upon can suddenly join either of the other two parties to gang up on the third, who had previously been allied with the other member of the triangle.  The goal of triangulation is avoidance of the underlying conflict, not its solution.


In the process of roping in a potential triangulee, so to speak, one of the original warring dyad – will call him #1 - will tell stories about the other (#2) designed to provoke outrage at #2.  #2 will be said to have engaged in some dastardly behavior or other. 

In this situation, in order to prevent triangulation, The metacommunicator (#3) should then try to get a more complete description of what has transpired, to make sure that #1 is not leaving out any information that might change #3’s perspective about both the events in question and the reasons why #2 may have reacted the way he or she did. 


When first asked about a particular interactional relationship episode, #1 may  respond with a rather global judgment about the other person involved rather than a specific description of what actually took place. 

A woman, for example, might describe her father as “controlling.”  Unless #3 knows precisely what she means by “controlling,” he or she is in no position to judge whether this characterization is accurate.  #3 might have a very different conception about what constitutes “controlling” behavior and what does not, as well as about what behavior it is that the father might be attempting to “control.”  


A typical scenario in which #3 might conclude that he or she is being misled might go something like this: #1 states globally that her father tries to control whatever she does.  Dad might, unbeknownst to #3, call her incessantly on her cell phone whenever she goes out on a date.  Upon further inquiry or observation, however, #3 learns that the father bankrolls his daughter’s every whim, no matter how reckless, whenever she asks him for money.  #3 then draws the incorrect conclusion that the patient’s characterization of the father as “controlling” is completely distorted.

           

Notice something peculiar in this particular case.  If #1 knows that #3 may come to know facts which would call into question #1’s “judgment” about #2, then the goal of #1 may be to provoke #3 into siding with #2!  In other words, the goal of the triangulators may be to create a situation in which two people gang up against them!!  Also, if #2 creates the situation in a way that keeps it rather ambiguous as to exactly who did what to whom, this allows #2 to manipulate the triangle so that the potential metacommunicator can be provoked to change sides several times over the course of a long period of time, depending on what seems useful at the time the switch is provoked.

In order to avoid this scenario, it is important to find out exactly what behavior the father engages in that leads #2 to use the term “controlling.”  In other words, what specific behaviors and suspected motives of the father are entailed by #2’s use of the term?  Even people whom most others would find very power-oriented do not try to control absolutely everything that their family members do.  They would not in most instances care, for example, what time family members brushed their teeth. 


In this case, for example, the father is attempting to control his daughter's dating life, while letting her do whatever she wants in most other areas of her life.  In fact, he seems to be enabling her to do what she wants in those other areas.  So the judgment "controlling" is both correct and incorrect simultaneously.  Nobody is one was all of the time when it comes to almost any conceivable characteristic.  To think otherwise is black-or-white thinking, or "splitting" if you will.

#3 must be a good investigative reporter and ask for specifics using follow-upquestions.  He or she should ask for detailed examples of misbehavior by other family members, and run down implied but unspoken implications.  In the above case of a judgment masquerading as a description, #3 should ask for illustrative examples.  He or she could ask, “What exactly is your father trying to make you do or not do?”  If #2 responds with another global generalization such as, “Everything!” #3 should persistently ask for some prototypical examples.  


After an example of an interaction is finally given, it may still be necessary to ask for further clarification: Exactly how did the father’s behavior lead #2 to conclude that he wanted to control one of her activities?  The father’s statements as reported by #2 may sound relatively innocuous to #3, but such may not be the case.  #3 might ask, “What was it about that statement that made you think that he does not want you to get married?”

To summarize, to find out what #2 really means, #3 needs to ask for behavioral descriptions, not just the patient’s opinions regarding the other person's personalities. Metacommunicators must ask follow-up questions. They can ask for clarification of vague or confusing statements and inquire about seemingly insinuated but unspoken implications. 


To continue with the example a woman who described her father as “controlling,” the metacommunicator would learn much by asking the patient the following additional questions: What do you mean, in behavioral terms, by “controlling”? What is your father doing and saying that indicate that he wants to control you? What do you believe to be his motives for wanting such control, and on what do you base this belief? What part of your life do you think he wants to control? What exactly is he trying to get you to do or not do? How does he go about trying to control these aspects of your life? Under what circumstances does he act in such a manner, and under what circumstances does he not act that way? What are you doing or saying that might be provoking a “controlling” response?

In obtaining concrete descriptions of interactions rather than globalized judgments, it is also important to find out what the people in the described relationship vignettes actually said to one another. Finding out specifically who said exactly what to whom in reported conversations that were conflictual, adversarial, or anxiety-provoking for someone often adds a tremendous amount to a person’s understanding. Family members who may otherwise omit important details often are able to provide very accurate details of affect-rich conversations because such conversations are so emotionally salient for them. 

One should try also to elicit as much as possible about the whole conversation, not just a part of it. In particular, the way conflictual conversations end may provide important details about the patterns of mutual invalidation that often characterize poor communication in families. Statements such as “Mom did not respond at all after I told her that” are ambiguous and should trigger further requests for clarification. What did Mom actually do at the point of “no response”? It is impossible to not behave.  


Did Mom turn around and walk out of the room? Stare silently into space as if in a trance? Roll up into a fetal position? The answer to such questions allows #3 to better understand #2’s need for avoidance and ambiguity in their discussions of important issues.

The more specific and detailed the questions you ask, the more accurate the picture of the other’s relationships becomes.