Introduction: Lately I have been talking with my friends about their emotional problems. Out of these talks I have developed this work which outlines a kind of psychology that addresses their emotions and underlying narratives and beliefs they have about themselves, which in turn affects their emotions. It is kind of an emotional narrative Psychology so for a lack of a better word and out of convenience I just call it Emotional Narrative Psychology, or just ENP for short. It is not an original theory or method per se. It is more of a mixture of different psychological theories and ideas that I have adopted, adapted and pieced together to form a fairly coherent model that is easy to understand and implement. The main benefit of ENP is that it can be used to help change a person’s narrative of reality and therefore change their emotions. It consists of six main emphases of which a person must be familiar with to practice. Three parts of ENP are theoretical and three parts are practical and are used in therapy.
Practical Use: ENP can be used to help identify emotional problems that a person is having and treat a person so that they no longer are being affected by negative emotions. At the same time, this theory is only really designed for emotions and to some extent the philosophies and narratives of a person with a problem, which means that this type of psychology is quite limited in scope in that it is not used to treat any kind of major psychological disorder. It can however be used to supplement and aid many other psychological treatments and methods.
The Theory Part 1: The first part of the theory I would like to discuss deals with different levels of dependence, but before doing that it is important to mention how dependence can vary in a person’s life and how no one person is perfect in all aspects of their life. While writing in his book about Integral Psychology, A Brief History of Everything, Ken Wilbur has demonstrated how a person in one area of their life might be quite advanced but in another area underdeveloped. A good example of this and in the spirit of this essay could be how a person might be very dependent on another person financially, and in relationships with their family be quite independent, but yet in relationships with teammates in their favorite sport be very much interdependent.
One possible way to diagram a person and their different areas of life would be to use the following diagram.
Diagram 1: Areas of Life
In the diagram above, each protruding section is representative an area of concern in a person’s life. Some areas might be bigger and more important, and some are less. As we shall discuss shortly these different areas can be even further diagrammed to show the levels of dependence that intertwine a person’s life when they form relationships with other people.
So not only does a person have different areas of life, but they are also either more developed or less developed in each area. One way to think about this would be in relationship to levels of dependency. I first became familiar with this concept when studying psychology as an undergraduate at Oklahoma State University, but later gave more thought to it while earning a graduate certificate in peace and conflict studies at the University of Kansas. This theory deals with different levels of dependency including co-dependence, independence, and interdependence. These different stages of development can apply to multiple facets of life. So what are these terms and what do they mean?
The following definitions are taken from Melanie Tonieavans website for convenience, but are generally thought to be this by many different authors on the subject. http://www.melanietoniaevans.com/articles/codependence-independence.htm
Co-dependence can be termed as: relying on others to provide what we are not providing for ourselves. Obviously as new born babies we are extremely co-dependent. We have no ability to provide safety, survival needs and emotional sustenance for ourselves. In our co-dependent stages of life we are totally vulnerable and all of our trust is placed on the actions and resources of others. We, on our own, are powerless.
Independence can be termed as: being self-reliant, self-empowered and capable of providing our own needs, emotionally, mentally, physically and spiritually. As we grow older we begin making progress towards independence. In our independent stages of life we build purpose, direction and trust for ourselves. We are powerful within our own energy and know that we can rely on and provide for ourselves.
Interdependence can be termed as: being a whole and balanced person who is able to share with and join in the healthy resources of life and others. This facilitates an even greater expansion in life than the independent stage, as we now have unlimited access to even more love, success and happiness than we could have provided for ourselves.
If I can summarize in my own words, the key is that in co-dependence we need another to some extent. Key signs of co-dependence are if a person has to ask somebody else for permission to do something, if a person worries another might say no, or a person is afraid to do something because he or she is worried what somebody might say. If this is the case, then it can be argued that the person is co-dependent on another in some aspect of their life. People with whom we are co-dependent with can exert power over us and control us. Part of this has to do with weaknesses with who we are. To use boundary language that I will discuss later, a person that is co-dependent is “thin skinned” and is easily sensitive to many issues. Another person can easily “push their buttons” and manipulate them. Another way of putting it would be to say that a person has “holes in their boundary.” These holes are areas of their self that are not complete and are vulnerable to others. This will be diagramed later as an opening in the boundary.
In independency we gain freedom to do what we want and how we want in an aspect of our life. This for many people, especially those that are co-dependent, is the goal in life, but it too has its drawbacks. People that are purely independent often lack the deep connections with others that make us human. To use boundary language that I will discuss later, the independent person has “built up thick walls” around themselves to protect themselves from getting hurt, and while these walls allow a person to “blow off” anything and “not let it get to them”, at the same time it also prevents them from having meaningful deeply connected relationships. By closing a hole in one’s boundary in a specific area of life, a person moves from codependency to independency. While this lessens their vulnerability, it at the same time reduces their chances to have the connections and closeness that that vulnerability brought. This can be diagrammed later by a thick boundary.
In interdependency a person has become independent in an area of life, but now seeks out the connection that they once knew in co-dependency, but without the pain and suffering caused by personal boundaries being crossed in an offending manner. So, an interdependent person is essentially approaching another person with an offer saying, “I am an independent person. I can take care of myself, so I really don’t need anybody else in this area of my life, but regardless I am seeking to share myself with you. I believe that by opening myself up to you, I will show you my vulnerabilities and weaknesses, but that I am also trusting of you to not use these against me, but instead to know my weaknesses and accept them and try to care for me. I will do the same for you by also respecting you and your vulnerabilities. If we can do this, then I believe both of us will be stronger and better than we were before when we were independent.” The interdependent person then gains the help and support of others that the independent person doesn’t have.
In opening oneself up to connection and mutual benefit of another, the person also opens themselves up to being vulnerable. This kind of vulnerability is different than the type of vulnerability experienced in co-dependence though. In this type of vulnerability a person can share their weaknesses, and the other instead of manipulating them or making them worse can act to help the person grow. Sharing this type of vulnerability in a trusting and caring environment also fosters a deep and meaningful connection between the people involved. This type of vulnerability will be diagramed below as an opening in a boundary with a thick door guarding it. The person has control over the door to open up their vulnerability and share it or close it. This differs to that of the codependent person who has no control over their boundary making them able to be hurt by others who are not acting to foster growth.
The following is a diagram of how codependency, independency, and interdependency can be mapped out. Some of these mapping concepts were first introduced by Dr. Paul in his book Mind OS, but I have adapted them here to meet the theories discussed above. In addition the concept of a flexible boundary has been mapped out showing a person that “can meet others halfway.”
Diagram 2: Dependency
It is therefore one of my goals when practicing ENP to discover areas of a person’s life in which they are either co-dependent or independent and help enable them to work towards interdependence in their relationships.
An unhealthy person’s life relationships if diagramed might then look something similar to the next diagram. In the following diagram a person in most of the areas of their life is co-dependent and has holes in their boundary. These holes are symbolic for things that they don’t have control over and allow others to control even if it is against their best interest. In only a couple of the areas of life the person’s boundary is being represented by a thick wall showing their independence or in one case a doorway showing their interdependence.
Diagram 3: Unhealthy Boundary
Where as an ideal healthy person’s relationships, a person who is very interdependent and most aspects of life, might look like next diagram. In the following diagram a person’s boundaries for each aspect of life is represented by a gateway demonstrating healthy interdependence with those around the person.
Diagram 4: Healthy Boundary
When a person is in a codependent relationship, they don’t have control over how reality affects their inner world. Their ability to control what comes in or out of them from the outside world is compromised. Other’s words and actions can affect them, and often times this is in a negative way. Negative and offending moments from reality can cause a person to have their feelings hurt, their values changed, their narratives manipulated, and their beliefs in self deflated. Such a person has lots of holes in their boundary of inner self. These openings make them vulnerable. This can be diagrammed in the following way.
Diagram 5: Loss in Codependency
In the next example we can see that a purely independent person theoretically has built the boundary of self so strong and impenetrable, that they are not affected by actions in reality whether for the good or the bad. When negative and offending moments happen the person’s strong boundary deflects them resulting in them not being affected.
Diagram 6: Protection in Independency
Finally, the interdependent person can selectively allow feedback to enter into their inner self. By entering into positive relationships with others, relationships that foster growth, they become better than who they were. By opening themselves up they are making a deep connection with another. At the same time they are making themselves vulnerable in a similar manner to the codependent person, but in this situation by expressing and showing their vulnerabilities to another, a person is able to become better in different areas of their life including their feelings, values, narratives, and beliefs in self. In this case the vulnerability is actually embraced in a way that allows a person to be stronger. This of course can only happen if the vulnerability is respected and cared for by another instead of being abused. This can be diagrammed as seen below.
Diagram 7: Gain in Interdependency
One of the many goals then of ENP is to help and aid a person in becoming less and less codependent and more and more interdependent with independency sometimes being a midpoint goal. This can be done first by helping to strengthen a person in each area of life. This includes helping a person to define, discover, and develop each area of life in a way that not only allows them to become in tune with their core values, but also empowers them to fully live in tune with these values. At times this means taking a stance that is against what their family, friends or society might have them do, or what it is expected of them that they should do. These situations may be difficult and stressful but in the end it is a step that they need to do in the path of living in tune with their true values.
In the end in a healthy individual, I think the person will have the power and skill set to say no to people that would manipulate and/or abuse them. Their independency will instead enable them to act in ways that works towards their self-preservation, gain, and prosperity while being in line with their true values. And then ultimately in interdependency they will be able to open up and share among others giving and receiving empathy making connections. Such relationships might very well incorporate love, caring, and growth.
The Theory Part 2: This part of the theory is based roughly off of a concept I was first introduced to by Dr. Paul Dobransky. I had discovered his concepts of boundaries while reading his e-book called Mind OS. Dr. Paul Dobransky specializes in relationship advice and counseling.
Dr. Paul, as he likes to be called, introduced ideas of personal boundaries visually mapped out, some of these are similar to the diagrams seen previously, but others are different. This concept is quite complicated, but Dr. Paul has gone to great lengths to simplify it. I had long been aware that many of my own psychological problems and drug addiction had been caused by underlying unconscious psychological/emotional troubles and that I had to a large extent eventually come to terms and peace with these issues within myself, but hadn’t ever been able to quite so clearly put all the pieces together until reading Dr. Paul’s explanations of his views of psychology. I was also additionally impressed with his ability to draw images on paper using circles to make simple but effective and powerful two-dimensional diagrams of complex psychological phenomena.
But while Dr. Paul mainly dealt in diagrams dealing with a single main boundary, I find it much more accurate, if not also unfortunately more complicated to expand upon his ideas. I prefer to use boundaries to describe different areas of life as shown previously, but also to use three boundaries to describe any one area of a person’s life at any given time. This would be like taking any one are of a person’s life which is just one part of the diagrams dealing with the multi-facets of life and zooming in to one of the parts closely to only then examine its parts, which I then diagram into three sections. These three sections or boundaries are the “ideal self boundary line” or who a person thinks they are in their mind, the “reality feedback boundary line” or what feedback reality is giving to them about who they really are, and their “action line” or how they are actually acting at a given moment.
An important factor that distinguishes Dr. Paul’s diagrams between my diagrams is my incorporation of the ideal self line and how it is positioned in relationship to the reality feedback line. I firmly believe many if not most emotional problems initially arise because these two lines are in conflict.
While the action line is how a person acts, and the reality feedback line is literally the feedback being given to a person by reality, the ideal self line is much more complicated. For starters the ideal self line mainly pertains to deeply held narratives, some of which may even be subconscious. This is not necessarily what a person thinks about him or herself. This difference is often over looked, but I believe is powerful and a key to understanding human nature. The difference could be highlighted as the difference between what a person thinks logically and what a person really believes. It is actually a person’s deeply held beliefs, which are more of a narrative of a situation that determines how a person will act most of the time rather than their thoughts which reside on a more surface level.
An example of this could be of a person that is about to go bungee jumping or some other very safe but yet nonetheless threatening endeavor. A person that is ready to jump experiences intense emotions. This is because their deeply held beliefs hold that if they fall, they will get hurt. This has been proven to them time and time again throughout their life. Logically and intellectually they can deduce that if they jump, they will be fine, but deep down inside a belief or narrative still exists that if they fall, they will get hurt. This belief exists and perseveres despite the person logically knowing it is not true. Before a person jumps, they will have a conflict of narratives in their mind, one will be an old existing deeply held narrative that falling equals hurt. This will be challenged by a new reality feedback that jumping in this situation has been safe for others. This feedback results in a thought that it must therefore be safe for them too. The new reality feedback and resulting thoughts will be in direct conflict with the old beliefs causing intense anxiety. For those that jump, the new reality feedback and subsequent thoughts have formed a new narrative that has been strong enough to challenge the old narrative, and if they are indeed safe, then part of that old narrative in almost all cases is changed resulting in the lead up to successive jumps becoming easier and easier. For a person that at the last moment changes their mind and doesn’t jump, the old ideal self narrative stating that falling equals pain and therefore should not be attempted has won out in the end.
This is just one example, but many examples can be given to describe almost any phobia, even the irrational ones. Irrational phobias happen whenever a person for whatever reason gains a narrative that something bad will happen even though reality can give them many instances in which things will be okay. On an intellectual level a person can easily process why they should not be afraid, yet their phobia and its narrative negative narrative still exists.
The common example of somebody who is afraid to fly in an airplane is another good example. Such a person can logically and rationally tell other’s that flying is statistically safe, even safer than other forms of travel they do on a regular basis, yet they still cannot bring themselves to board a plane. This is because of a deep residing belief held in their ideal self narrative that says if they fly they will be hurt. Therefore whenever they think about flying in an airplane, they experience intense anxiety.
These are classic examples of how a person’s thoughts can be of one thing, but yet more deeply held narratives hold onto an opposing idea causing an emotional reaction.
I would like to chart a few simple examples of how the different boundaries can align and how different emotions might then result as an outcome. I would like to start very simply at first with just a couple of basic two line diagrams. These first two simple diagrams represent a loss and a gain.
Diagram 8: Basic Loss and Gain Boundaries
In the basic gain diagram a person’s ideal self line is small. There reality feedback line is large. This represents something in reality happening to a person that is better than what they think they deserve, which in turn causes a feeling of gain.
The opposite diagram is the diagram of loss. In the basic loss diagram a person has a reality feedback that sends a message to them that they are actually less than they believed they were. This results in a feeling of loss.
I believe that all positive emotions have a feeling of gain associated with them, and all negative emotions have as feeling of loss associated with them. But as we all know emotions are actually much more complicated than just a simple feeling of loss or gain.
The following examples diagram a way a person can become angry, depressive, or shy.
Diagram 9: Ideal self, Action, and Reality Feedback Boundaries
In the Angry Person diagram the blue line of reality feedback is much lower than the green line of action and the red line of ideal self. In this diagram the green line of how they are acting is on the inside of the red line, but for the example of anger this is not an exact requirement, but I did put it there for convenience. (It often seems in many cases that the ideal self line and the action line are similarly aligned. This makes sense as people often act how they believe.) The key to this diagram is that the reality feedback line is far inside the other lines causing a basic loss. The person in this situation in an area of life will have a vision (or narrative) of who they think they are and what they believe they can do, but reality will be giving them feedback in a forceful way opposing their narrative. The difference between the feedback from reality and the internal narrative of a person, the ideal self image, causes stress. The stress a person feels is a literal stress of the two differing lines pushing and pulling on each other. In the case of this diagram, the stress will be manifested as anger. If angry people are examined, it can be found that what is happening is not congruent with what they believe should be happening. This simple diagram starts to demonstrate that. Many other factors are in play but on a deep internal level, they believe that reality should be bigger and better than what it really is.
In the Shy Low Self-Esteem Person diagram almost the exact opposite is happening. Reality is actually sending signals that a person can have more freedom than what they are acting like, but because of a belief that they are not good enough, they don’t act. In this case, the small red circle of ideal self is causing stress on them to not act as much as they could. The red circle of ideal self is pulling on the green circle of action keeping it down through stress. In part, the person knows they could have more freedom, but are limited in a painful manner by a limiting narrative of ideal self.
The Shy / Anxiety diagram shows a more rare type of person that has a small green line of action, while the blue line of reality is larger. In theory it might seem that they could act more freely, but in reality his or her acting shy, or basically limiting his or her actions, is a self-defense mechanism used to avoid getting hurt. In this case a person’s narrative of ideal self is larger than the feedback given by reality. If the person actually acted the way they believed, they would be in conflict with the reality around them. In actuality this scenario would have played out many times in their past causing them to get hurt. So instead knowing that when they act the way they believe they will get hurt, the shy/anxiety person acts very shy as a self-defense mechanism of not having ideal self’s boundary conflict with reality’s feedback. It is to some extent a successful coping mechanism for in the short term not having reality give feedback that restricts their actions (as they have already restricted it themselves voluntarily). Unfortunately in the long term it still leads to problems as their ideal self image and reality feedback are not congruent.
Most “coping” mechanisms can be diagramed illustrating gaps between boundary lines that the coping mechanism helps them patch or attempt to fuse. Unfortunately, coping mechanisms do not actually adjust poorly placed ideal self boundaries which are the core cause of the problem. In fact they might sometimes lead to the boundaries getting more out of balanced as it temporarily removes the checking system causing the stress or tension in the boundaries that forcefully holds them together to be temporarily displaced; thus in the long run exasperating the situation.
In an individual that is healthy and “well-balanced” what is well balanced are the concepts of boundaries; who a person thinks they are, how a person acts, and the feedback given to the person by reality is congruent. This type of person does not have stress from different boundaries conflicting with each other. “Stress” as it is referred to on colloquial language is actually on a psychological level two different boundary lines pulling and pushing on each other causing tension. As these psychological boundaries are forced to move and resist, this is felt with in one’s consciousness as stress.
Additionally, often times it is said about a person “that they accept” themselves. What is really meant by this in reference to the diagrams is that a person is accepting how their actions, reality feedback, and ideal self interact and overlap.
The Theory Part 3: Having given thought about emotion, I have come to believe there are 9 broad spectrums of emotions. This idea stems from experiences I have had from many years of teaching foreign languages at the university level and in different countries, as well as studying different foreign languages. It seems a little bit like common sense, but I have observed that most languages have grammar tenses that are grouped into present tenses, past tenses, and future tenses. This is a fairly common feature across most language families. I firmly believe this is because languages have evolved to reflect certain ultimate concerns of humans, but it is these same concerns that also effect emotions. It is logical then to theorize that like unto a similar fashion that languages are represented in tenses, emotions too if driven by the same concerns can also be broadly grouped into a tense like structure. I have therefore made a chart of the 9 broad spectrums of emotions. One axis of this chart takes into consideration concepts of past, present, and future that are fundamental in a human’s mind in creating narratives of how they construct and understand reality. The other axis of this chart deals with the concepts of basic loss and gain mentioned above, but loss and gain are not that only possibilities. It is also possible for a person to be in a static state of being in which they are not experiencing significant losses or gains, so that has been also included in the chart.
This last category of static emotions are the ones that I think are the least likely for people to focus on and thus they have the smallest set of vocabulary to draw from because as languages developed and concerns were being expressed the concerns of losses or gains came to the center of attention. Oftentimes people are focused not on maintaining a static state of being, although there are some cultures and religions, some aspects of Buddhism being one that teach this, but instead people are often motivated to either act in a way so that they avoid loss, or act in a way that they will work towards gains. It is therefore the reason that most emotions being expressed in languages deal with loss or gains. I find this interesting because while static emotions are the least expressed, I feel like they are also the most commonly experienced.
Chart 1: 9 Key Emotions
| Focus/concern | Loss | Static | Gain |
| Past | depression | acceptance of past satisfaction, fulfillment | rejoice, reminisce |
| Present | discomfort | acceptance of present calm, content | happy, joyful |
| Future | anxiety | acceptance of future complacent “I’m okay with that.” | hope, excitement |
Since emotions are generally understood by people in society, but also very subjective and hard to define, I have found very little research into defining the emotions and then charting the relationships between them. In fact it wasn’t easy to come up with the chart above, nor do I believe that everyone’s definitions of the emotions listed above will makes sense to them as placed in the chart. Nevertheless I think considering how subjective emotions are, the above chart’s 9 core emotions have been placed fairly accurately. I also believe that these 9 emotions are to a large extent at the core of all emotional experiences, much in the same way that loss, gain, and being static are at the root of the emotions in this chart.
Each one of these root/master emotions takes many forms depending on the circumstances. Many other factors in turn influence these different emotions branching them out and making them into a myriad of emotions that we has humans feel. These influential factors are all influenced by our narratives about the situation. These narratives include, but may not be limited to internal/external motivation, internal/external fault narratives, global/personal narratives, controlling/being controlled narratives, and acceptance/judgment narratives. Each narrative and how a person perceives what is happening will then in turn take the root core emotion and change it to some extent; this acts as a filter in a way. Combining different narratives or filters then gives a person a wide variety of emotions.
For the purpose of this essay the three static and gain emotions are not discussed in depth as they for the most part don’t cause problems in a person’s life, where as the loss emotions of depression, discomfort, and anxiety do. In addition while the loss emotions are very identifiable and real to people as they are often strong and clear, the gain emotions are less so, and the static emotions are even more vague and difficult to define, yet of course we all know it when we feel it.
If somebody is in a static state with regards to boundaries in all three of the past, present, and future, they are likely to say something similar to “I’m okay with that.” There are many words in the English language to indicate that like the following: acceptance, fulfillment, contentment, and satisfaction. There are even more colloquial phrases and expressions to communicate ones static emotional state. Still most words or expressions that express static states of the past, present, or future are vague. This is because such static emotions do not cause the intensity that the loss or even the gain emotions do. Therefore the English language hasn’t evolved enough to warrant a clear delineation.
Since the loss emotions are ones that often cause focused on with the intent of changing them, I have made diagrams about these emotions, which not only describe the emotion, but possible constructive and destructive outcomes. The diagrams attempt to show a process and cycle in a way that a person can better understand what is happening in their life. If they can see the greater process, it is my hope that they will then be able to act differently and more constructively in the future. When talking to a person with a problem, a main goal is to attempt to help a person understand more deeply and in a new way and more complete way what is happening. The anxiety and discomfort diagrams have been in part influenced by Dr. Paul’s diagrams in Mind OS, but have been significantly adapted.
In the chart above with nine emotions, all of the nine emotions are emotions that are being experienced in the moment, but some of the emotions being experienced in the moment are because the mind is concerned about the past, future or even the present. This is to say a “past” emotion is not a reflection about a past bad mood but rather a reflection about a past experience that causes a person to experience a bad emotion in the moment. Likewise a person might be thinking about a future event and as a result in the moment experience an emotion. Emotions can only be experienced in the now, but the narratives that precipitate the emotions often have a concern with the past, present, or future. Because of this, I think such emotions share certain commonalities and can be grouped together and thus thinking about emotions as a grid of nine root emotions is helpful.
A) Depression
The first diagram deals with a loss in the past. By depression, I chose to use the most broad and all encompassing term. To be clear, this is not exactly what is meant by depression in a clinical setting, but does overlap with it.
Diagram 10: Depression
In the diagram the first thing that is represented is that a negative reality feedback has happened to a person in the past, a feedback that often times cannot be changed. This is represented by the red arrow inside the depression circle. But inside a person, the ideal self strives to hold onto a narrative that existed prior to the negative feedback, a narrative that was enriching to the person enlarging their sense of self.
If the person resists accepting a new narrative, one that incorporates the negative reality feedback circumstance, they can develop anxiety about their depression. At the same time, if a person chooses to repress the event, not to think about it at all and just pretend and act as they did before the feedback, then they most likely (assuming that there isn’t a change in the negative reality feedback) experience even more depression later.
The main way to deal with such depressions is to accept the negative reality feedback, in effect, redefining one’s image of ideal self to be smaller and not as free. If this is done a person will have a smaller self image, but the person will have a higher ratio of positive self regard in him or herself, and the lines of ideal self and reality feedback will become congruent causing the person to have less stress. This results in peace, even if it is a more limited view of ideal self.
One other option does exist, but I have not labeled it on the diagram as it is more complicated and often times unsuccessful. In this option instead of trying to accept a negative reality feedback, a person seeks to find the cause of the negative feedback and change it in a proactive manner to one in which will be more enriching to the person. In reality, people often try this. They either run away from the negative feedback or try to manipulate it into meeting their needs. If it is possible to find a solution that not only enriches oneself, but also the source of the negative feedback, then by all means I suggest doing it. Unfortunately, my experience has been that many people often go about this with an unhealthy strategy.
It also seems like most reality feedbacks that are negative exists for some reason and to some extent are founded in some kind of truth or as a product of a working system, in either case, they will be difficult to permanently change in a constructive manner. I instead advocate accepting the hard truths and cold ways of reality and learning to live within.
B) Discomfort
The next negative emotion is that of discomfort. This happens in the present moment when a person is dealing with an issue that is causing a perceived loss to them in some way.
Diagram 11: Discomfort/Irritation
In the above diagram a person perceives a negative stimulus in their environment. This stimulus is undesirable to them and causes some sort of discomfort or irritation. A person can then take different courses of action. One would be to ignore and repress the issue. If they don’t act at all and the stimulus does indeed lead to a long term loss, then a person will often become depressed over the issue. And while it is not shown in the diagram if the loss continues even more after that, than a person can additionally have anxiety about it.
Often times instead of not acting a person will choose to act. If they act impulsively in an irrational manner that hasn’t been well thought out, the likely outcome will be one of additional loss and hurt. This hurt can either be to the person that originally perceived the loss or to another. Regardless, an undesirable outcome unfolds.
Sometimes a person chooses to act constructively. They might be aware of this certain kind of perceived loss, the threats it brings, and how it can be successfully resolved to avoid those threats. If a person can act accordingly, then they will negate the original threat to their reality. This type of successfully navigating of a problematic situation will often times increase a person’s confidence and well-being.
While discomfort/irritation is one of the major root emotions, it comes in many different flavors depending on what circumstances additionally surround the discomfort. One type of irritation is impatient. In the case of impatience a person believes their desired outcome hasn’t happened quickly enough for their liking. For example, frustration can happen when things don’t happen according to a person’s expectations. On top of that is when things don’t happen according to a person’s expectations and they are being treated unjustly. This type of situation often leads to anger. The difference in environmental factors shows that a frustrated person can realize that what is happening is not what they wanted, but that they aren’t being unnecessarily mistreated, where as an angry person will believe that.
As mentioned anger is one of the many different types of discomfort a person can experience, but since it is such a common and serious issue in today’s society, I have chosen with the following diagram to depict how anger arises out of discomfort and what can be done with it.
Diagram 12: Anger
In the above diagram the first thing that happens is that an outside stimulus threatens the ideal self boundary. This is represented by the red arrow going down. This is experienced in the moment and is experienced initially at its root form as a type of discomfort. The process that is taking place is that the reality feedback of the situation is less than what a person’s ideal self narrative would prefer. In simple terms, reality is found lacking.
A few possible scenarios can take place when this happens. The first and best possibility is that a person accepts that reality is not actually lacking, but instead that their expectations of reality are unrealistic. After accepting the situation on its own terms, they can then calmly and rationally make a plan to change the situation in a way that might be more desirable. If the person has a lot of education and experience in dealing with situations similar to the one causing the discomfort, basically if they are wise, they might easily be able to act constructively. If they don’t they might try to repress the irritation and go on with their life.
If they repress the irritation, it might on its own terms go away, but those terms will be out of the control of the person experiencing the discomfort, and it is unpredictable. This method of handling discomfort is very common when dealing with the small irritations of daily life. If a person set out to try and fix every little thing that irritated them, they might not actually ever get anything done. The problem with this method of basically ignoring and outlasting discomforts is that sometimes they don’t go away and instead get stronger. If the source of the discomfort does not go away and one does nothing to handle it, a person may experience depression about the issue.
Another and very common reaction would be for a person to think that the discomfort was an unjust discomfort. This is quite sensible in a certain sense. A person has had past experiences, these past experiences have shaped their narratives of the world, and these narratives of the world have helped shape their subsequent actions. So a person is regularly acting in a way that they think will bring a certain outcome, one that likely avoids past discomforts. If that outcome does not happen in the way they expected, and they feel like it is unjust, then they might likely experience anger.
Once a person is angry, they will be faced with different situations. One of these is to act destructively, which I will discuss more below. Often times though a person has realized that acting in anger more times than not in many certain types of situations leads to negative consequences. These people then choose to not act and repress their anger. In doing this, they sometimes can then make a constructive decision, but if they don’t make a constructive decision and just completely repress their anger two things can happen. In one case, the problem can alleviate itself from outside pressures, or it can persist. If the problem persists and doesn’t go away, a person will suffer depression. If the problem goes away, then a person will feel as if repressing their anger was the right thing to do. In reality, while repressing anger can end up in certain situations bringing success, it is not the ideal way to act. The ideal way to act as mentioned above would be to either in the first place not get angry and act constructively, or once angry to try to calm oneself and then act assertively and constructively.
In other cases sometimes acting destructively in anger can have a desired result, but this is often times as a result of another’s actions. In addition when acting destructively in anger achieves its goal, it often does so in a situation that is not win-win. Below is a diagram highlighting the role of the other when reacting to anger.
Diagram 13: Other’s Reaction to Anger
As shown in the diagram, it can be seen why anger is often productive, at least in the short run. When a person gets angry, the other person might either give in or act in a constructive way seeking out and finding a win-win solution that the angry person could not find. In both of these scenarios, the person that got angry won and got what they wanted. Unfortunately, when the person gives in, this is a win-lose relationship with the other person losing. Most people in an “other” role will not allow this type of relationship to continue and it will often lead to resentment and further destructive behavior. The benefit in anger in these two scenarios is that the angry person has effectively challenged the constricting and deflating reality check and won. By forcefully fighting the reality check and defending it off, the ideal self line has defended its boundary and maintained its narrative of the world. Unfortunately, if the other person was giving in and not finding a constructive solution, defense of the reality check is short lived and to some extent illusionary.
In another scenario, a person can flee a relationship. They can end the relationship in effect “burning the bridge” that connects them. This is an unhealthy outcome and is a lose-lose result as both parties are now existing in a world that does not offer the lost resources of the other.
In the last scenario, the other acts destructively. This too is of course a lose-lose relationship.
Therefore the ideal thing to do is to refer back to the first diagram dealing with discomfort and anger. It emphasizes to realize that when a negative reality feedback happens to a person that conflicts and attempts to restrict their vision of ideal self, the first thing a person should try to do is not view this reality feedback as unjust, but instead try to understand it and accept it on its own terms. Next a person should try to figure out a constructive win-win solution through the situation that benefits all parties involved.
C) Anxiety
In the diagram below, the course of anxiety is drawn.
Diagram 14: Anxiety
When first threatened by a negative feedback if a person is confident that they have both the knowledge and experience to handle a situation when confronted then they will be able to act calmly in a positive manner. This ideally will be in a manner that seeks to achieve a win-win outcome for all the parties involve.
If a person is repressing their anxiety and the external causes of the anxiety stay the same or grow (often causes grow worse if left unattended), then it is likely that the anxiety in a person will also grow. If the person represses the anxiety enough, it will resurface as depression and the person will regret in the future not having acted in the past in a positive way in the first place.
On the other hand the pressure of the stress can grow. This happens because the narrative of a perceived loss attempts to adjust the pre-existing narrative that was more free and larger. The two narratives have tension against one another. This causes stress and pressure. This pressure if not repressed can result in a person acting impulsively. This often times will mean a person acting in a fight or flight manner, which is usually destructive and harmful. On occasion the impulsive action turns out to be positive. This is often due to the fact that the other recognizes a person acting wildly and impulsive and attempts to take control of the situation in a win-win scenario.
In such a situation in which a person acted impulsively, but another was able to guide them to a win-win solution, the person experiencing anxiety can gain a positive experience and wisdom, thus allowing them to increase their confidence the next time they are confronted with a similar situation.
Ideally though, a person does not have to suffer through many mishaps and misadventures trying to stumble upon a correct way to deal with a stress of opposing future narratives or have somebody else figure their problem and the solution out for them. Ideally a person can learn to act proactively, consciously, and constructively. If a person has lots of education, knowledge, or wisdom about a situation and has experience with that situation, they will be able to act in a constructive manner. Even if a person has not been in a certain situation before, but they have knowledge and experience that they are able to pull from other areas of their life, it is possible for them to act in new and novel ways that are constructive and win-win.
A key then to dealing with anxiety is to change one’s ideal self boundary narrative beliefs and actions. With anxiety there is a tension between multiple different narratives a future self. If outside factors don’t change, and if a person does not change internally, then the anxiety persists. A person therefore can wait for external factors to change, hopefully in their favor, but often times not, or they can make a change inside of him or herself. Hopefully this change is to act consciously and constructively and not in an impulsive, destructive, or in a fleeing manner.
The Practice Part 1: In the previous sections different boundaries and dependencies have been discussed. Now I will attempt to give a few suggestions among many how out of balance boundaries and unhealthy dependencies can be addressed to help a person achieve fulfillment.
Ideal Self Boundary: In ENP a main boundary I try to address is the boundary of ideal self. This is because it is the boundary that is mainly constructed in a person’s mind. The boundary of ideal self can be changed in many ways that might enrich a person’s life. Additionally, often times when an ideal self boundary is changed, then the person’s actions in the future will also change, in effect adjusting the action boundary line. It is possible to just change the action line and only the action line to achieve a positive goal, but a person might not feel congruent in doing so, but if the ideal self boundary line is changed, in affect changing how a person views a situation and what they ultimately believe about it, then their behavior often changes naturally on its own to congruently meet their new worldview.
For instance, an ideal self boundary that is not well defined or has many holes in it will lead to a person being co-dependent. A person in this situation does not know what they want and is easily directed by other people. This direction on the other party’s part may or may not even be intentional and/or constructive. If it is constructive then the co-dependent person ends up more fulfilled, but sadly if isn’t, whether it is intentional or unintentional, the person ends up hurt.
To strengthen the boundary of ideal self a person can more clearly define who they are in the world, what they prefer, and what they want to do. I once regularly did this by asking myself the following questions.
1. Who am I now?
2. How did I get here?
3. What do I want to be?
4. How can I do that?
5. What is my plan?
I found this method very useful for allowing me to examine my situation very clearly and make plans to achieve goals that I wanted. This system of questions sets to define clear objectives and make action plans to achieve them. In a way, I think this methodology of thinking for many people is quite normal and often successful if followed through. Unfortunately, I do also believe it is flawed and often simply doesn’t work.
Later in life I learnt through books like Getting To Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury, two Harvard professors, that making set goals and trying to achieve them will not always make us happy. I believe part of the reason this is true is because what we think we want and what will really make us happy are often very different things. In this book, I learnt that getting beyond the language of objectives and instead talking about core interests (or “needs” as in NVC language, which will be discussed later) a person can really come to terms with what they really want, not just what they think they want.
Considering this, I have adapted the original set of questions above and now use a much more complicated method of defining ideal self boundaries and clarifying it. While being lengthier, it also proves to work much better.
1. Who am I and where did I come from? (This is basically similar to what happens in the previous set of questions above in steps 1 and 2)
2. I ask myself concerning a certain narrative or situation in life what goals I want to achieve, or what outcome I want. (This is basically what happens in a similar way as the previous set of questions above. This is a combination of the above steps and a summary of them, especially steps 3, 4, and 5.)
3. I discover core values, interests, and needs through a process of communication with others, writing and journaling, and soul searching. (In this step, I often ask myself “Why?” over and over again concerning a goal/issue/objective to find out the core reason/value/need behind the goal.)
4. I then consider other possible scenarios, not just the original goals that I started out with. I try to imagine other scenarios and outcomes that might meet these core needs, or match my core values. (This differs from step 4 above as now instead of trying to figure out different ways to achieve one set goal, I now try to figure out many different ways that would meet my core values and needs.)
5. I then consider making a plan that will not just meet some objective that I originally wanted, but instead one that will fulfill my inner most needs and conform to my highest held values. The final plan might end up being considerably different than the original plan, but might also be easier and more in tune with my needs and values.
I find that working through these steps with my friends also yields valuable insights to them about their real nature of their ideal self and allows them to act more in accordance with ideal self.
Action Boundary: In addition to addressing the ideal self boundary, I can also help my friends by discussing their actions and their action boundary line. Often times when a person’s action boundary and reality feedback boundary are in conflict with each other, they get hurt. After discovering a person’s core values and needs using the method above, we can then discuss a constructive plan. This new plan will hopefully allow them to act in a new way, one that will hopefully have better reality feedbacks. Especially when the person has been in win-lose or lose-lose situations, it has been hard for the person to find a well thought out constructive plan that is win-win without knowing one’s core needs and values, but after going through the process of examining and discovering the core needs and values of my friends, I oftentimes need not even discuss making a plan with them. Once they realize who they are deep inside, a new plan on how to act and what to do in a situation then suddenly becomes clear to them. If a person has discovered and meditated on their true core values and needs, and then tried to think of a new way to act but has failed and entered into additional interactions with others that cause further loss, then extra suggestions can be given on how to act that will be in tune with everyone’s needs and values. In such situations where a person now knows who they are but keeps on trying different action plans to meet their needs and the needs of others but still fails, I try to brainstorm new and radically different sets of action plans that still meet everyone’s needs.
Reality Feedback Boundary: The third way of addressing boundaries would be to re-interpret the narrative of a reality feedback. Oftentimes what a person thinks is happening to them is not actually what is happening to them. Ways to go about rethinking and reframing a narrative will be discussed later in this work, but to make a quick example if a person has become paranoid and feels like their ideal self is being threatened, I might ask for examples of how this is happening and look to examine if they are really being threatened or not. If it turns out that they were not really being threatened but only imagined it, and then realize this, then they can adjust the interpretation of their reality feedback line and as a result change how they view and feel about a situation.
The Practice Part 2: When talking to my friends, I use two methods to help them discuss and uncover their emotional problems. The first of these is Non-Violent Communication or as it is better known as NVC. NVC is a method of conversing with people developed by Dr. Marshal Rosenberg. He has developed a useful and efficient system of talking to people in a way so that when talking to a person you can help them identify their feelings and needs. I have found that oftentimes a person doesn’t know what their feelings and needs really are, but that once they have been identified, they can understand more about themselves and possibly others that they are in conflict with. Dr. Rosenberg has regularly found that when people that are in conflict become truly aware of each other’s needs and accept those needs, then conflict resolutions, even in long standing serious conflicts, are often resolved quickly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication
I think that it is generally accepted and not controversial that humans are intellectual, emotional, physical, religious, and sexual beings. I have found NVC especially useful because in life I had little guidance on how to handle and process emotions. I went to school to get an education increasing my intellect. I went to church to learn about God increasing my spirituality. I went to counselors and AA to help get me clean from abusing substances thus increasing my mental health. I go to the hospital for my physical health, and for sexuality, I was able to take a class in university and read many books written by experts. In all these aspects of life and many others, there are important institutions to help us cope with life and prepare us, but not so much with emotions. It is widely acknowledged and known that we are all very emotional beings, yet so little time is put into actually fostering emotional wisdom and understanding. With the wisdom found in NVC and other books like Dr. Goleman’s book Emotional Intelligence I have found that my life has been greatly enriched.
The second method I use to talk to people is clean language. Clean language allows me to ask questions to my friend in a way that lets them deeper explore the problems they are having. My intention when using clean language is to give moments back of reflective listening, so that the person might then elaborate on them more. The following Wikipedia article gives a good introduction on clean language. When a person is able to talk about and issue with another using reflective language, they are often times able to discuss the matter more in depth and with better understanding. This can lead them to have new insights processing the situation in newer and better ways that they weren’t able to do prior to discussing the problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_language
The Practice Part 3: Once I have talked with my friend about their emotions and have tried to figure out what is happening from a perspective of dependency and boundaries, I try to discuss with them their situation in life in a manner that helps them to gain a new narrative on the events they are experiencing. It is my hope that by gaining a new narrative that my friend will have an adjustment of boundaries and therefore different emotional reactions to different situations.
This can happen in different ways. Often, most importantly, a person can adjust their image of ideal self, so that it is more congruent with their actions and reality feedback. Also, a person can make a plan to act more constructively in future situations. This will help them bring their actions (action boundary) into congruence with ideal self and reality feedback. Lastly, a person might reinterpret a set of reality feedback circumstances seeing and understanding the situation in a newer more positive manner.
I firmly believe that a person’s worldview/schema/narrative/interpretation of a situation defines expectations. Then in turn a person’s underlying expectations of what will happen dramatically influences how they will act and feel when an event happens. Two people can easily experience the same event, but depending on the perceptions of that event, walk away from it in completely different moods. ENP looks to examine common narratives a person holds and how these narratives repeatedly lead to a person having negative emotions in similar reoccurring situations. By identifying a person’s boundaries and the boundaries of others they interact with, and examining how narratives help to form these boundaries, a person can understand why they are feeling the way they are. This might sound simple, and to some extent people do understand part of the equation of why they feel the way they do, but often lack to understand the role they play in their own feelings. Oftentimes if a person fully understood an undesirable situation or had the capacity to understand what was really happening on their own, they would have already solved the issue instead of letting it reoccur time after time.
Adjusting the interpretation of reality feedback boundaries can be done via different techniques. One way is through hypnosis. If during a hypnosis session a person is hypnotized to interpret their reality differently, than upon waking from a successful session they should think about an issue differently. This leads them to not only have different emotions but also act differently.
For example, let’s say a person is a smoker, has weight issues, or is afraid to fly. With each of these issues, a hypnotist will attempt to change a person’s interpretation of a certain event to either believe something will be good for them and is okay, or vice versa that something is not okay. If the hypnosis is successful then the person will awake and will view the selected situation differently, have a different emotional feeling towards it and then thus change their behavior.
While hypnosis requires a hypnotherapist, which often times can be time consuming, difficult, and expensive, there are other options. One of these is by applying principles taught in the book Loving What Is: Four Questions That Can Change Your Life by Byron Katie. By using these principals I am able to somewhat reframe my friend’s beliefs of world narratives through a natural progression and conscious process.
Byron Katie teaches a person to question their beliefs. She explains that if a person is experiencing bad emotions that they believe in something that is not true. She teaches that a person is often what they believe about themselves. She uses a well-thought out system to challenge narratives that are causing people to interpret situations poorly. She has offered a simple system of four questions to help turn around a narrative. These are the following:
1. Is it true?
2. Can I absolutely know that it is true?
3. How do you act when you believe this thought?
4. Who would you be without this thought?
Lastly, she invites people to take a step to turn that thought around.
She states that when a person believes a bad thought about themselves or their reality, they limit themselves and holds themselves down. This would be diagramed above by having a smaller ideal self boundary line in comparison to the action boundary line and the reality feedback boundary line.
Sometimes though a person over extends their boundary as expressed in the diagrams above so that their boundaries are intertwined with others. This could be the angry person diagram shown earlier. Katie mentions that there are only three kinds of business. These are my business, your business, and God’s business. She insists that people should tend only to their own business as that is what they have power over. If a person is able to untangle their boundaries from others that they have been intertwined with in co-dependent relationships, then they are setting themselves free. While many theories only go about addressing what is happening, Katie’s “work” is impressive in that it offers a person a method of how to go about freeing the mind. The following is a video of Katie being interviewed by Oprah and using her work to help address issues with Oprah’s self image.
http://flv-vm.oprah.com/podcast/xm/ss/bk2/ss-vidPod_bk2.m4v
The Summary: Fulfillment
A simple chart can be made summarizing and containing the different theoretical ideas mentioned in this essay. Fulfillment is achieved by having good decision making, knowing and understanding oneself, having good emotions and happiness, and being in positive social relationships.
Diagram 16: Fulfillment
The diagram can be summarized by the following. Having good emotions and happiness comes from accepting losses in the past, and learning how to act constructively in the present and future to deal with discomfort and anxiety.
Knowing oneself comes from finding out one’s core values and needs and then making a plan to act on them in addition to clearly defining one’s preferences and identity. Many people don’t know who they truly are or what they truly want in life. By understanding one’s core values and needs a person can then make a clear plan of action to act in a manner that brings fulfillment. This also helps them move from codependency to independency to interdependency.
Being able to make a good decision comes from having both ample experience and education to deal with a situation. Many people might often fail because they either do not have either first the education to know how to handle a situation, or if they do they don’t have the experience. With enough education and experience a person can take a situation in which they previously failed in and turn it into a success.
Once a person has balanced their emotions, knows who they are, and has learnt how to make good decisions, they can seek out positive interdependent social relationships with others that also know who they are (and sometimes even other parties that haven’t been able to achieve all this). Together they can act constructively in a win-win relationship achieving growth and fulfillment for all parties.
Conclusion: By using ENP a person can talk with another and identify their feelings, needs, circumstances, and relationships to others around them. Once this has happened narratives that are conflicting in a person’s life in certain situations in certain aspects of life can be challenged and addressed. Once a person has a new world view, they are likely to encounter similar situations, but with a new understanding, thus leading them to have different feelings.
Bibliography:
Paul Dobransky, Mind OS, e-book, 1999
Robert Fisher, and William Ury, Getting To Yes, 1991
Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ, 1995
Byron Katie, Loving What Is: Four Questions That Can Change Your Life, 2003
Marshal Rosenberg, Non-Violent Communication: A Language of Life, 2003
Ken Wilbur, A Brief History of Everything, 2001
No comments:
Post a Comment