by Paul Flak, Ph.D.
In my exploration of thought processes it has become apparent to me that the way we structure our thinking makes huge differences to how we think and what we are capable of. While this may seem like a subtle or unnecessary thing to think about as we process information it becomes more influential when we consider the route of efficacy.
When we are presented with a challenge we have two options internally, we can engage our BAS system and activate problem solving states such as curiosity and exploration or we can engage our inhibitory system which will give us the urge to withdraw and experience an ineffective state.
While some might refer to this as self-esteem this seems like far to general a term to apply to a complex behavior. The idea of self-esteem suggests that our overall perception of ability stays constant and that it can be improved. I would posit instead that self-esteem is a state of perceiving yourself as up to the task or incapable of the task that is being presented. Since this varies with each situation it is hard to consider self-esteem to be a set level of state.
This is not to say that we cannot affect our state as we address different challenges or that having an average result of failure or and average result of success doesn't change our state tendency but rather that it is still dependent on conditions at each opportunity.
As an example you could consider the following which demonstrates incident specific differences and the response to them. A man may feel confident getting into a fight with another man due to his past history of success in fist fights. Once the other man pulls out a gun his confidence may change to inhibition and anxiety as his perceived likelihood of success has dropped significantly. This perceived likelihood of success can be affected by a variety of things, one of which is our self perception. Part of our self perception is generated from the way that we say things. Language and behavior are closely linked especially when we examine them in this context. Our language is a direct representation of the internal experience that we are describing. While we create many shortcuts in language the deep structure is still there and meaningful to us even if we aren't considering it while we are speaking. Take the difference between these two statements as an example of this;
"Your are behaving badly." "You are bad."
These two statements have significantly different impact on us. One is a judgment of our character which cannot be changed while the other indicates disapproval of a current action which can be changed. Internally this is an important difference as it affects our perceived ability to act in the situation. This is also something for the speaker to heed as well. Response to a negative perception of efficacy can lead to negative emotional states and striking out to drive the person off. This is probably not the intended goal when the statement is being made.
Along this line of thinking you might come to the conclusion that it is important not only to phrase things in a way that opens doors to your intention, it is also useful to keep ideas in mind that are open and provide resources rather than closed and limiting thoughts. The statement "He made me angry" is an excellent example of a limiting thought. For the speaker the idea underlying this statement is that he has no control of his state of emotion and that others run his state. Since we know people are able to control their emotions to a varying degree we can shift the statement to "I chose to become angry." While this shift may be argued by some there can be no disproving that it is actually true. The difference is that the first speaker perceived no efficacy in the scenario presented. The second statement now allows for a perception of efficacy and opens the way to new and different behaviors.
These distinctions make a difference in which internal system is engaged as we delve into experience. The more that we perceive ourselves to have the resources and abilities needed to deal with challenges the better our chances of actually dealing with them effectively. A further shift would be to understand that failure still results in learning making it useful rather than something that we feel badly about.
In this vein it seems that we have spent over a century using a descriptive pattern that is wholly problematic and encourages inhibition. This is the use of the words conscious and unconscious to describe our mental processing and behavior. The unfortunate reality is that these distinctions are muddied through misuse, media, and misunderstanding to the point that they are often a quick way to turn people off to ideas that could be of great benefit to them. Our description often includes a diatribe on the minimal size and capability of the conscious mind while lauding the godlike power of the unconscious.
Since we are using the same word as is used for the state of sleep or as a description of people as unconscious we tie ourselves to a helpless state of being able to do nothing. While this is not our intent this is the result of the use of these words and concepts. Putting something into the client's mind as being unconscious, and unconscious process, etc, immediately puts them in a position of not having the ability to deal with it and engages the inhibitory system generating helplessness and distress.
This is of course not to say that there is not a distinction between the two types of mental processes or suggesting that we don't address things on the unconscious level. It is instead an idea that by using different metaphors and semantics we can help our clients develop strong, resourceful ideas about themselves and their ability to deal with challenges.
The metaphor that I would encourage is that of primary and secondary processes. In the field of research primary work is that which is done by the researcher with the subject and then reported for others to understand. Secondary work is the result of the researcher's primary work and is a description of what occurred and the conclusions that particular researcher achieved. If we cross over to a computer metaphor the primary process is the result of programming, operating systems, hardware, etc. The secondary process is the input from the mouse and keyboard followed by the subsequent response on the monitor.
In both of these cases the descriptions and metaphors used in conjunction with primary and secondary processes lead us to a deep meaning that is one of the ability to do the primary work if we choose to. There is no reason, that is out of our control, that we could not do the primary research or primary processing presented above. This shift of metaphor results in a new vista for the client as they are now introduced to something that is in their control. This simple shift will result in an improved efficacy for the client leading to better outcomes and resources for them to draw upon.
The term "primary" in this context also removes many of the barriers to change that clients can develop from our descriptions of things as unconscious. This metaphor also creates a respect and value for the conscious, now represented as secondary, in its ability to guide the primary mind and review the results. This also has more potential for the client since many of us identify with our consciousness as being ourselves. We state this often when we describe things that we think, feel, etc. The statement "I think x" shows us this. The primary process does not include this "I" in its work.
As there is no way to avoid the distinction between the two functions of our minds this semantic shift may help us and our clients to open new doors for change and improvement. In a broader view, any time that we consider our conversation whether internal or external, we are served best to use metaphors that are permissive and give choice to get the best results.
For more articles by this author visit: www.TheCompoundMind.com
Posted: 06/16/2008
