This set of essays outlines one of my favorite and frequently recommended skill sets – basic assertiveness.  These skills have been critical to my success as a professional and simply as a human being.  One of the most common concerns I hear from clients revolves around handling of conflict, coping with difficult people,  and self-induced guilt/anxiety over breaking  some arbitrary “rule.”  Playfully I will ask them, “did you ever sign anything that said you would accept a job transfer to Timbuktu?”  Of course they never have and I can say, “Well then you have the right to say ‘no thanks’.”  If you possess natural skill in asking for  what you want, and saying what you mean, and without any queasy feelings,  congratulations — you can stop reading.  For the rest of you, read on.

(NOTE:  I apologize for some of the awkward formatting, paticularly with the dialogues.  I’m certain there is a way to get the wrap around to indent and line up.  Someday I hope to learn about it; for now it is sloppy.)

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS

For several years in my mid-30’s I did a lot of contract work as a stand-up trainer for the U.S. Government.  Of course the way one really learns a subject is by teaching it to others.  One particular opportunity emerged when I was asked to teach a program in Basic Assertiveness. I didn’t know one thing about the topic, but I needed the work and said “yes” to the gig.  Then I read the course text, When I Say No, I Feel Guilty, and delivered the program.  That learning turned out to be critical in my personal development.  The psychology of assertiveness, as presented  by Manuel J. Smith in When I Say No, is profound and broad-scoped.  That book,  which is in its umpteenth edition and translated into another umpteen languages, changed me forever.  Let me  say here and now that I owe Manuel J. Smith big time.

The Proof is in the Pudding

Self-help books don’t always translate into behavior change, but this one did for me, and apparently millions of others.  Shortly after digesting Smith’s book I was returning an item to a local Radio Shack.  I had purchased a gadget at one of their Atlanta stores, about 30 miles away.  Meanwhile a RS store had just opened around the corner from my home.  The gadget didn’t work as advertised, and I figured to save time and money by returning it to the close-by store.  I entered and cheerfully explained the matter to a very busy young male clerk, who was still opening product boxes.  “….and so, I was hoping to return this here.” “Well,” he said, “we really aren’t supposed to take back items purchased at other stores,” and went back to his business.  As I turned around and headed for the door the thought hit me:  “What did he just say?”  Remembering an almost identical scenario in Smith’s book I recognized the “not supposed to” manipulation.   Manipulators are expert in translating their preferences into vague “rules” for you to live by.  By insinuating I had broken an implied rule, my young clerk was leading me to feel sufficiently awkward, anxious and guilty to withdraw my request.   In actuality the clerk had only hinted at true policy.   The rule he actually evoked was “I’m obviously busy and only an inconsiderate creep would inconvenience a busy person.”  He may as well have said, “this isn’t my problem; so take your gadget back to where you bought it!”

For me to confront this further would violate a zillion norms and implied rules having to do with inconveniencing others, pushing narcissistically for my own needs,  not gracefully taking “no” for an answer, and showing up as rude dude.  Smith, however, points out that in conflicts  such as these somebody is going to be inconvenienced:  “who’s it going to be, you or them?”  Get this now:  If somebody does not want to give you what you want, you have to be willing to break some of these implicit rules.

Back to Radio Shack…

Me:  “Excuse me,” and in my most polite and least contentious manner, “I’m not clear; did you say there is a store policy that prevents you from taking this return, or…not?”

He: “Well,” he answered impatiently and matter-of-factly, “we’re just not supposed to.”  That message was semi-respectful, but the tone was all too clear, “are you stupid or what?”  He was relying on the implicit rules of politeness to make me feel bad for inconveniencing him.  He fully expected me to tuck tail and scamper….and I would have…before When I Say No.

Me:  “I hate to be annoying, but this is important to me, so please be clear, can you or can you not take back the item?”

He: “I will have to ask the manager.”  Would I really push this further?

Me:  “Is the manager here?”

He: “Yes, she’s in the back.”

Me:  “Would you mind to walk back and ask her?”   He was surprisingly calm at this stage and realized he was going to have to do his job.   I held my breath; he returned in a few minutes.

He: “Yeah, she says we can take it.

Me: “Great, I appreciate it.”

That incident was a first-magnitude epiphany:  a well-mannered southern gentleman (depending on who you’re asking) could be assertive without being a complete jerk about it.  Next I realized how easily I had been manipulated all my life – giving in to others to avoid disapproval or their discomfiture.  Co-dependency on my part had been a way of life — avoiding conflict, but at a price. Going forward I was determined to ask for what I wanted, say what I meant, and stop being buffaloed by my own neurotic needs for approval.  I have not been perfect, but I have been waaaaaay better.

Fellow assertiveness trainees:  It turns out, that your number one culprit is not the frustrating, artful manipulator, but you.   As Pogo said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”   You let it happen, and until you master your assertive rights, and learn to set boundaries with people (including yourself  oddly enough) you will be a sitting duck for manipulation and a loser in conflict.  The big lesson is right out of the cognitive-behavior S-O-R model of thinking-feeling.  It’s all about the assumptions you make and the way you think.

In Smith’s title, the Say No followed by Feel Guilty means that when I assert for my own needs by denying a request or asking for what I want, there is a subtle and implicit (and semi-crazy) logic that I am really supposed to preserve harmony and make other people feel happy.  If I fail, that means I am a jerk in one form or another, and….. I feel guilty.

The Problem

We enter the world as naturally assertive infants – we let our caretakers know when things are not right.  Several natural patterns either get us what we want or protect us from punishment:

#1.  Anger-aggression – we are unhappy and demand to be fed!

#2. Fear-flight/freeze – we fear a lot of stuff, then avoid or withdraw

#3. Verbal problem-solving – we negotiate a win

Socialization robs us of all three:

• #1 It’s not ok to stomp your foot and scream
• #2 It’s not ok to run away and be a chicken or avoid problems
• #3 It’s not ok to ask for what you want or say what you mean, you have to play nice and by “the rules”

Children are small, helpless and naïve.  Parental good/bad messages are often moral in nature.  Errors and mistakes are judged as deviations from what “should be” and labeled as wrong, willful, obstinate, or naughty.  Children learn to feel inadequate, shameful, anxious, fearful and guilty.   Instead of “clean up your room because I want you to learn good personal habits,” the message becomes “clean up your room because that is what good girls/boys should do.”  Assertive responsibility/authority for the message is transferred from parent to some abstract moral authority.  Later it can become “why are you experimenting with drugs, sre you some kind of degenerate junkie?”

If not careful we can bring together the evil trio of learned feelings into adulthood:  (1) nervousness/anxiety, (2) inadequacy/ignorance, and (3) shame/guilt.   Most of us have been trained in the fine art of moralistic manipulation and counter-manipulation which often substitutes for direct, assertive problem solving.  Requests will often be couched as selective, self-serving moral arguments:

• You are planning to come for Thanksgiving dinner and bring the kids?  Your father would be heart-broken if you break that tradition.  He’s so looking forward to it. I’m not sure his heart will stand it. This is so disappointing.
• After all the training and development investment we’ve put into you, you cannot  possibly be thinking of leaving? You’ve always been such a loyal and committed team player.  What am I going to tell the Board?  Why didn’t you speak up earlier?  Do you know how this makes me look? Why don’t you just go on and clean out your desk?
• You aren’t coming to my recital? You promised!  Is your job more important than I am?  What’s your excuse this time? All the other kids’ parents find a way to be in town.  I’m sure the Jones’ will give me a lift,  they’ve almost become like parents to me.

Familiar?  But when it’s your mother, your boss or your child launching this stuff in tones of utter despair, anguish, and anger it can be hard to take.  What to do? The smart play is workable compromise which is problem-solving.  The stupid play is to be manipulated into something you don’t want. To negotiate intelligently you have to keep a cool head, which is near;y impossible if you are feeling guilty/anxious.  You will need two things:  (1) Clear knowledge of your assertive rights and (2) Verbal skills that will allow you to cope with manipulation.

Part 2 Covers Your Assertive Bill of Rights

ASSERTIVE BILL OF
RIGHTS

Assertive Right I.  You have the right to judge your own behavior, thoughts, and emotions and to take the responsibility for their initiation and consequences upon yourself. You have the right to be the ultimate judge of yourself.

This is the foundation on which the other rights rest. “I’m not coming for Thanksgiving,” “I’ve found a better job,” “I cannot make it to this recital” all declare your independence which is likely to be highly disturbing to Mom, the Boss, your Child. Their efforts to manipulate you through guilt reflect their own powerlessness and unwillingness to problem-solve with you.  In questioning your reasoning and motivation they actually target your guilt/anxiety. If you buy-in to the idea that you have violated a moral-based “rule,” you become highly vulnerable to caving in. When that happens, modern psychology says you have “should” all over yourself.  “Should” is at the heart of many modern mental problems.  It is often an effort to imply an arbitrary moral structure (right versus wrong) to a problem situation, one that benefits the manipulator.  Good children “should” come home for Thanksgiving and not selfishly go skiing. Good employees “should” be loyal and ignore salary-doubling  job offers.  Good parents “should” attend their children’s recitals.  Notice that “right versus wrong” is a completely different issue from “what works.” If something doesn’t “work” for you in your life, then no moral imperative is going to change that.  As Smith notes, “It is your life and what happens in it is up to you, no one else.”  This is existentialism to the max.  For those who continue to get stuck on morals, it should be pointed out that there is hardly a behavioral practice so reprehensible that it hasn’t been approved of by one culture or another in history.  The Greeks approved of infanticide for weakly children, the Ammonites sacrificed children to the God Moloch, the Romans tacitly approved pedophilia;  the Sunnis can still employ the  talaq (“I divorce you” three times).  Get the picture?

What about the legal system? It is a completely arbitrary set of rules designed to limit behavior and settle disputes.  One always has the right to defy it and suffer the consequences: Socrates, Jesus, Thoreau,  King, and war-time conscientious objectors.  You  will always know when you have violated a real societal rule, people with badges and guns come to see you.

Assertive Right II.  You have the right to offer no reasons or excuses to justify your behavior 

Rights II – X elaborate further on ways others can manipulate us.  Turning to Right II, when you offer reasons to justify your choices, you invite further questioning and the risk of being out-maneuvered with logic.  Do you prefer Tylenol to Aspirin?  What if I can cite 15 double-blind experiments to prove the superiority of Aspirin (which I cannot).  But suppose the evidence is overwhelming and the logic incontrovertible? No matter, if Tylenol works for you (and for that matter, even if it does not, but you want to take Tylenol) that’s all that counts.  We may elect to have the Tylenol-Aspirin debate, but it’s a free society and because you never signed anything that said you would choose the double-blind winner, YOU CAN CHOOSE TYLENOL.  Understand that you are free to be as illogical as you please.  Questions?

Other notes:  Just because I ask you to explain yourself and justify your choice, you are under no obligation to do so. “I simply do not want to do that,” will be sufficient for anybody who respects your right to choose.  It is perfectly legitimate to quote Sally Albright (When Harry Met Sally), “I like it the way I like it.”

Assertive Right III.  You have the right to judge whether you are responsible for finding solutions to other people’s problems

Each of us is responsible for our own psychological well-being, happiness and success inlife.  We cannot, repeat cannot, make others happy.  I have told many clients that if I could make them happy I would do so; therefore, logically they cannot expect to make others happy.  Each of us must learn to cope.  We may offer counsel to another, but they must solve their own problems – that is the thesis of modern psychotherapy.  However, if I can manipulate you into believing that coming to Thanksgiving dinner is essential to my happiness, and you cave on your skiing plans, you will have been conned.  Moreover, there is the obvious implication that my needs are more important than yours in this matter, and therefore, your needs will have to be sacrificed.  Be responsible for your own needs and allow others to be responsible for their own.

Clerk: Your problem is holding up the line.

You:  That’s right, I am holding up the line; fix my problem or we’ll be here even longer.

Lone Ranger:  Tonto, we’re surrounded by 10,000 hostiles; looks like we’ve had it this time.

Tonto:              What you mean “we” Kimo Sabe?

Assertive Right IV.  You have the right to change your mind

Changing your mind is healthy and normal, but it can drive other people crazy.  Changing your mind often signals your adaptation to realities, and true survival in certain cases.  To the manipulator it signals error or unpredictability.  The manipulator implies that you cannot be trusted to make decisions by yourself.

Clerk:  May I ask why you are returning this item?

You:    Yes, I didn’t like it after I got it home.

Clerk:  It’s all the fashion rage right now.

You:    Yes, but I don’t like it.

Clerk:  It goes great with your shoes.

You:    Yes, but I don’t like it.

Note You’s (above) unwillingness to offer reasons or justifications.  This is a technique called “broken record” discussed in a later section.

Assertive Right V:  You have the right to make mistakes, and be responsible for them

Admitting a legitimate mistake is a powerful assertive behavior.  It says, “Yes, I’m human, I make mistakes, and I’m accountable for them.”  To a manipulator your mistake is an opportunity to manipulate you through guilt.  The underlying message is that you cannot be trusted and therefore require external control in the form of a structuring rule provided, of course, by the manipulator.

Mate-1:           You completely screwed up dinner! Don’t you know how to operate a simple back-yard grill?

Mate-2:            You are right; I did goof it this time.  Like you, I make mistakes.

He:      You’re late again!

She:    Yes, I am late.  It was dumb of me not to pay closer attention to the time.

Assertive Right V.  You have the right to say, “I don’t know”

Nobody knows everything, even in areas of supposed expertise.  What I don’t know about psychology would fill a library, really.  Manipulators will expect you to know everything and discredit you if you don’t. When someone attempts to discredit us, we feel threatened. That will happen only if you hold yourself to an unrealistic standard of perfection.  To survive manipulation you simply remind yourself that you can only know what you know at this moment.  Listen to Sirius-XM “Doctor Radio;” these NYU Langone physicians are very comfortable in saying, “Frankly, we don’t know everything about this…or even all there is to know.”  To admit that is impressive and builds credibility. These are highly expert types, yet they know the limits of theirknowledge.

Manipulator:  Just what do you think would happen to this country if everybody decided to be his own judge?!?

You:    I don’t know, what do you think would happen?

.

Assertive Right VII.  You have the right to be independent of the goodwill of others before coping with them

“No man is an island” – John Donne

“There are some damned fine peninsulas” – Manuel Smith

If somebody is going to lose in a conflict, who would you rather it be – you or the other guy?   Look back at my opening Radio Shack story; workable compromise wasn’t looking good.  Either I was going to leave and drive 60 miles, or the clerk was going to be inconvenienced.  I thought my request was reasonable and was willing to sacrifice his goodwill.  Smith is clear, “You’ll never be loved if you can’t risk being disliked.”  Threats of disapproval have obvious payoff for the manipulator if you do cave.  If you don’t react, then that ploy won’t work for very long, i.e. manipulators eventually get over it.

Manipulator:     I’ll remember that.   You’ll be sorry.

You:                   I  don’t understand, why will you remember that?  Are you saying you won’t be my friend?

“One cannot live in terror of hurting other people’s feelings.  Sometimes one offends.  That’s life in the big city.” –Smith

Assertive Right VIII.  You have the right to be illogical in decision making

In truth, logic isn’t all that valuable dealing with our own and other people’s wants, motivations and feelings.  We often want things for crazy, illogical reasons.  The Approach-Avoidance paradox provides another good example:  “I want to, but I don’t want to.” The human condition is often guided by such conflicting motivations and feelings.  However, in the hands of a skilled manipulator, logic can be a devastating weapon. Who, after all, wants to be perceived as flighty, fickle, inconsistent or illogical?

Engineer husband:    I’ve done the calculations; this refrigerator has superior energy efficiency.

Non-Engineer wife:  That’s fine, but I like this one over here.

He:      I’d like to try that new Cajun restaurant.

She:    But you know that kills your stomach!

He:      I know that, and I’m willing to take the chance and suffer the consequences.

She:    That’s crazy!

He:      I’m sure it looks that way.

Assertive Right IX.  You have the right to say, “I don’t understand”

None of us can read minds, but a Manipulator will expect you to do that.  They will hint, imply, suggest or subtly act as if there is something you should know or be doing for them.  They expect you to read between the lines, anticipate their needs, and appreciate their unexpressed whims.  The message:  “You should be able to read my mind, or know my needs,” Marital mates are fairly famous for this. “If you paid attention you would know why I’m so upset!”  Au contraire, you have the right not to know or understand.

There are other forms of manipulation through your not understanding.  Certain sales types will often try to dazzle you with technical double talk, and it can be intimidating to be ignorant.  Be comfortable asking questions: “I’m sorry, but I don’t understand; why is this model superior to that one?”  Notice how often these technical types sputter when you start asking simple questions.

Assertive Right X.  You have the right to say “I don’t care”

Implicit in many manipulations is the notion that you should strive for perfection, and self-improvement at the very least.  We believe that if somebody goes to the trouble of pointing out opportunity for us to improve, it is somehow incumbent on us to follow that advice.   With our deficiencies highlighted there is only one legitimate response:  change what we are doing.  If you change to make the Manipulator happy, and not because it’s what’s best for you, then you’ve been had.  Failure to follow the advice implies we are corrupt, lazy, degenerate, worthless and unworthy.  This is nonsense of course and we have the right not to care one bit about all generous, well-considered plans for our improvement.

She:    The basement is a total wreck.

He:      Yes it is.

She:    How do you get anything done down there?

He:      I know where things are

She:    How could you possibly?

He:      I realize that you value a tidy basement, but frankly, I don’t care if it’s messy.

To halt  manipulation, ask yourself, “Am I really satisfied with myself and my behavior?  Do I see the need to change and do I want to?”

Boss:  Don’t you want to move into supervision?

Sub:    I’m not so sure I want the responsibility.

Wife:               Don’t you want to eat healthier?

Husband:      I know you’re into health food, but I’m ok with my diet.

Person 1:  Don’t you know that world hunger is a terrible problem?

Person 2:  I’m sorry, but I just cannot relate to that issue.

Distinguish:  I Want to, I Have to, I Should

Want-to’s are personal preferences that are completely discretionary.  Have-to’s are contingencies or  compromises needed to permit the Want-to’s.  If I Want-to go to college, I Have-to save now, and plan on working part-time as a student.  Have-to’s are the compromises needed to make the Want-to’s happen.     We have to decide, are the Want-to’s worth the Have-to’s?   Shoulds, on the other hand, are usually moralistic, manipulative structures aimed at getting us to do what somebody else wants.

Part 3 Presents a Series of Verbal Assertiveness Skills

SKILL BUILDING

Now that you know your assertive rights, you need to learn how to enforce them through assertive behavior.  It will do little good to say, “Stop manipulating me!”  To halt manipulation you must change your response to it.

Broken Record

The primary reason we lose in conflict is lack of persistence.  We hear “No” and give up.  Instead we must learn to be persistent and keep saying what we want over and over without getting angry, irritated or loud. Assertiveness is not aggressiveness;  angry feelings only cloud things.  Another key is not to be bated into offering reasons, logic, or motivations for why we want something.  If you stumble into trying to logically justify your wants, you will be immediately vulnerable to manipulation.  However, a little empathy does no harm (“I can see your point, I would feel the same way, but I want _____”), but let that be the end of it.  Phone solicitations provide a great place to practice.

Me:      Hello

Sol:     Is this Dr. Deviney?

Me:      Yes it is

Sol:     Dr. Deviney, I’m calling on behalf of the Under-Privileged School Boys of America, and I see that you have been a past contributor to UPSBA.

Me:      That’s right, I have contributed, but I don’t respond to phone solicitations, can you send me something in the mail?

Sol:     Yes, of course, but we’re having our annual fund drive, can I put you down  for $50?

Me:      No, I don’t give to phone solicitations; can you send me something and take me off your phone list?”

Sol:     Yes, of course, but it will help a lot of poor school boys if I can count on you for a $50 pledge.

Me:      No, I don’t give to phone solicitations

Sol:     I appreciate that, but the need is so great”

Me:      No, I don’t give to phone solicitations”

Broken record does several good things for us, but primarily it allows us to avoid manipulation and remain focused on our goal.  Verbal self-discipline enhances our self-respect.

Common sense dictates that in some situations self-assertion may not work so well, and a balance of restraint and assertiveness is likely to work better.

Mugger:          Stick ‘em up.

Me:                 Yes sir, how high?

Police Officer:           Please show me your license and registration.

Me:                            Here you go.

Some commercial situations may not allow you to be successful either.

Me:                  You sold me faulty tires and I want you to replace them.

Salesman:      Sorry sport, those were sold without warranty – read your contract.

Workable Compromise

If you have the right to assert for your needs, so does the other fellow.  The long term goal is actually a negotiated, workable compromise.  Consider the faulty tire conversation in light of compromise.

Me:                  Mr. Salesman, you sold me faulty tires and I want them replaced.

Salesman:      Sorry, those were sold without warranty – read your sales contract.

Me:                  I’ve read the contract and realize that you are correct; I see there is a “no warranty” stipulation.  I wonder if we can work out something else?

Salesman:     Well, I could offer you another set of tires with a warranty, and at a significant discount.

Me:                  That sounds reasonable and workable, what do you propose?

Free Information and Self-Disclosure

Assertive people are skilled in initiating and maintaining open dialogue.  Free Information allows us to ask questions, listen and observe our communication partners.  In problem solving it can be extremely helpful to know our partner’s interests and concerns.  Moreover Free Information is a winner for shy people.  The Dale Carnegie Course actually takes this a step further by teaching a “stack” of opening questions that the shyest of people can use to open a conversation.  The real purpose of Free Information and Self-Disclosure is to promote open exchange which can be used for a variety of purposes.

Wife:               (scowling) These concert tickets just came in the mail; they’re in the back row. With crummy seats I’m not so sure this is a good idea. (Free Information)

Husband:      Sorry that happened.  I’m still willing to go if you want to.  (Free Information and Self-Disclosure)

Wife:               I appreciate that, let me think about it.

Notice the back-and-forth nature of FI and SD and how that facilitates potential problem-solving.

Coping with Criticism:  Fogging, Negative Assertion, Negative Inquiry

When challenged, threatened or criticized we often feel anxious, guilty and defensive because we’ve been trained to feel that way.  However, our negative reactions need not be automatic; it is possible to cut the learned emotional puppet strings.  Criticism is merely another person imposing an arbitrary structure of “shoulds” designed to keep us in line through emotional manipulation.

Husband to Wife:  “Are you going shopping again?  How much of this can we afford?” His obvious  judgment is that shopping is a waste of time and is expensive.  Unconstructive responses include silence (stonewalling), defensiveness (“You know perfectly well  I’ve had this planned!”) or counter-manipulation (“You mean I could have been with you, drinking beer and watching football?”).  The cycle usually escalates.

To cope effectively we need to:

• Distinguish facts from judgments
• Feel comfortable with the facts
• Inquire further about the facts; extinguish the manipulation; find out about the other person’s needs.
• Recognize that mistakes can create problems and inefficiencies, but are not always unproductive and stupid, and they have nothing to do with right-wrong morality.  Recall that Edison reflected that he hadn’t failed, but discovered hundreds of ways not to make a light bulb.

Fogging

Fogging requires you not to deny criticism or become defensive.  You become like a fog-bank – persistent, independent, non-manipulable, and offering no resistance to objects (criticisms) hurled.   Getting no reaction, the critic eventually gives up.

In form, you:

• Agree with any truth.

She:          You used the AMEX again after you promised not to!

He:            That’s right, I forgot and did that.

• Agree with the odds (any possible
  truth).

He:            If we don’t get control of the household budget, we could go broke and end up as street people!

She:          I guess that’s a possibility.

• Agree in principle.

She:          People  who retire comfortably begin to manage their finances early-on, and we certainly do not.

He:            You are right; we need to do a better job, particularly me.

In these  cases an assertive response is to acknowledge that there is some possible  validity to the criticism, but not to deny it.  After all most criticism does have some element of truth, otherwise you  wouldn’t get defensive.

A married  couple on their way out for the evening:

(Note to Reader:  If you don’t recognize this one, you’ve never been married.)

She:    Are you wearing that?

He:      Yes, I am.

She:    Well that tie does not go with that shirt.

He:      I supposed I could have picked something different.

She:    And those brown shoes.

He:      Maybe black would be better.

She:    You look like you’re dressed for a costume party.

He:      No question, fashion was never my shtick.

She:    You’re hopeless.

He:      I suppose I do seem that way at times.

She:    Will you stop that infernal fogging?

He:      I probably am over-doing it.

Fogging  requires you to listen only to what is actually said and avoid becoming defensive over implications.  You recognize that truth is a matter of  perspective.  As a learner, you think in  terms of probabilities (Will I really be mistaken for a clown?).  You reserve final judgment for yourself.

Negative Assertion

Some mistakes we make are 100% bona fide errors. We did it, no question.  Does that make guilt automatic?  No, but we must learn to assertively accept those things that are negative about ourselves, including our mistakes.

He:      You didn’t do too well with that.

She:    You’re right; I wasn’t too smart in the way I handled that, was I?

Friend 1:        That dress really doesn’t look good on you.

Friend 2:        You’re right, this style just doesn’t suit me.

A caveat:  Be careful with this skill in legal or employment situations.

Driver 1:         You dinged my bumper!

Driver 2:         Here’s my insurance agent’s contact information.

Do you have  problems receiving compliments?  Many people do.  The problem may be that you are allowing the locus of evaluation to reside outside yourself.  You mumble, act sheepish or quickly change the subject.  Try an assertive response.

Friend 1:        That dress looks nice on you.

Friend 2:        Thank you, I think it looks nice on me too.

OR

Friend 2:        I appreciate the compliment, but I haven’t really decided how well I like it

Negative Inquiry – Prompting Others to Be More Assertive with You

With Negative Inquiry we actually prompt/solicit further criticism.  There are two possibilities here: (1) What other criticisms exist that I ought to know about? (2)  How to exhaust potential criticism?

She:    Are you planning to waste another Saturday playing golf?

He:      I don’t understand,  what is it about me playing golf that bugs you?

She:    Well, you come home late and all worn out.

He:      I’m not clear, what is it about coming home late on Saturday and being tired that’s a problem?

She:    You never have enough energy for anything else?

He:      I don’t understand, what else should I have energy for?

She:    Well, we might go to dinner or a movie if  you had any energy left.

By calmly inquiring about the underlying nature of the criticism He has uncovered the real source of She’s criticism – She wants him to be available to do things with her on Saturday night.

• Be sure to avoid the temptation to use Negative Inquiry in a sarcastic  or cocky tone, “Go ahead, give me your
  best shot.”
• This skill can be helpful in commercial situations:
• An employee needs to know the full range of criticisms held by a boss, “What other things do I need to improve at?”
• A project manager needs to find the weak spots in the proposal, “What other factors should we be looking  at?”

What’s Next?

The above summary covers the first seven chapters of When I Say No, I Feel Guilty.   Chapters 8-11 cover specific applications and I won’t take you down these trails, but the titles are both intriguing and inviting for skill builders:

Chapt. 8         Everyday commercial situations – assertively coping where money is involved

Chapt. 9         Everyday authority situations – assertively coping with supervision or expertise

Chapt 10        Everyday equal relationships – working out compromises or just saying “No”

Chapt 11        Really close equal relationships – sex and assertion

-Good Luck,  DAD

What follows is the summary of Addictive Thinking, a book on addiction by Abraham Twerski, M.D., and Craig Nakken, M.S.W.  It is an overview of addictive thinking – the heart of addictive behavior.  There is a companion work in the same volume, The Addictive Personality, which may be covered here at some later date. 

All of us have encountered addiction either with family, friends, colleagues or even ourselves.  This particular volume caught my attention because of its straightforward and non-technical treatment of the subject that is appropriate for the lay public.  At the same time it provides insights for the professional who needs a quick refresher.  I present here a summary of their work with a few additional ideas mixed in.  Any significant distortion or misinterpretation is due to my own effort to produce a quick overview, and I apologize to the authors in advance.  I am not a clinical psychologist and cannot advocate professionally for their work other than it makes sense to me.  I will say that addiction makes its way to the work place and therefore deserves some basic understanding by I/O or HR types.

 I have used the author’s chapter headings and many of their examples.   Inasmuch as there are 23 chapters the reader will find this in 3 sequential postings.  Pronouns are masculine for my convenience as writer.

I.          What is Addictive Thinking?

“I now know that it is absolutely impossible for me to stop on my own, maybe.”  The idea is a logical contradiction, an absurdity, yet typical of the Addict.  Alcoholics Anonymous refers to it as “stinking thinking,” and it usually boils down to the central thoughts of “I don’t really have a problem,” or “I can control this.” Addictive thinking is like the distorted though processes of schizophrenia — different rules of thought that interfere with the person’s adjustment to reality.   Like the schizophrenic, the Addict is unaware of the distortion.  Even observers have trouble with the Addict’s logic and are taken in.   The schizophrenic cannot be budged from the belief that Venusians have put a transmitter in his head, and the Addict won’t budge from thinking he can find a way to be a safe, social, or recreational user.  The difference is that the schizophrenic is blatantly absurd while the Addict is superficially logical, seductive, and misleading.  Moreover, Addicts are compelled to use.  Around the Addict are Co-Dependents obsessed with the Addict’s using and their own need to control it through either help or punishment.  The similarity between Addicts and CD’s is that as they try different tactics of control, yet neither ever come to the conclusion, “I can’t control this.”  Other methods are required.

II.         Self-deception and Addictive Thinking

For many who are locked out of society-approved rewards (education, career, family, success), substances offer a substitute and instant gratification.   Deprived in other important areas they reason, “Why should I deprive myself of my favorite chemical?”   Prevention and cure require the Addict to develop two key life constructs:  (1) Ultimate life goals, and (2) Tolerance for delayed gratification.  Addictive substances, meanwhile, offer the promise of instant gratification in the forms of anesthesia or euphoria. 

Addicts are taken in by their own stinking-thinking (see below).  The more intelligent the Addict/Co-Dependent, the more interesting is the form of the deception. For the Addict craving affects thinking in the same way a bribe affects judgment.   Stinking-thinking is designed to (1) Deceive oneself about control while (2) Permitting the habit to continue.  The Addict begins with the conclusin,”I need a drink” then builds the case using distorted logic.  The self-deception is so compelling that identification of addictive thinking must come from outside the Addict who will almost never see the absurdity in his own thinking:

• “I’m only a social drinker.” (But do social drinkers have hangovers, and lose families/ jobs?) 
• “I can control it.” (Yes, for about 1 day). 
• “I can quit anytime I want.”  (How many times this month?)
• “I can’t attend AA meetings…I would be embarrassed.”  (And that’s more important that dying?)
• “I’m not like them.”  (Who are you kidding?)

The threat of change associated with giving up the addiction produces Anxiety, which in turn creates the denial and self-deception that allows the continuing pattern of abuse.  Addictive thinking has its roots in low self-esteem and a sense of inadequacy/inferiority.  Oddly this is common with those most gifted.  Some escape into chemicals, some into controlling role of the Co-Dependent.

Co-Dependents replicate the addiction pattern in their own way – the illusion of control is prominent.  Their CD’s distorted thinking pattern goes this way, “I am so powerful I can cause, control and cure this addiction….If I had just been a better (spouse) this wouldn’t have happened…and they would quit.”

In response Al-Anon offers the Co-dependent’s 3 C’s:

• You didn’t Cause it
• You can’t Control it
• You can’t Cure it.  

As with the Addict there is fierce resistance to change, illusion of control, and low self-esteem.  The only real distinction may be actual substance abuse.

III.        The Addict’s Concept of Time

The Addict’s concept of time is different from that of non-addicts.  For example, Addicts think they can stop using anytime, and often they can abstain for a period.  It is the insistent, immediate craving for a drink, hit or a smoke that hijacks their thinking.  There is the famous AA aphorism, “One day at a time,” however “one minute” might be the only manageable unit of time.  What about the long-term negative consequences of using?  These take a long time to develop – cirrhosis or lung cancer do not really exist for the Addict, who is oblivious to the threat.  In summary, recovery often begins when the “one day” concept is grasped.

IV.       Confusing Cause and Effect

Addicts reverse cause-and-effect relationships.  It is pretty clear that using causes havoc:  unhappiness, remorse, carelessness, worries and lack of ambition.  Addicts reverse the logic, “I use because I am unhappy.”   The perceptual distortion will often continue with or without active use of drugs.

V.        Origins of Addictive Thinking

Using is a form of escapism – an anesthetic for the pain of living.  Why do some people fall into it and others not?  There are likely multiple origins, but according to Dr. David Sedlak Addicts lack the ability to reason with themselves, to make healthy decisions, and to exercise willpower.  Good reasoning requires (1) Knowledge of facts (i.e. the impact of long-term using), (2) Certain values/principles as grounds for decisions (i.e. cultural acceptance or rejection of using), (3) A healthy/undistorted self-concept stemming from a stable childhood.  A child experiencing an unstable, punishing or crazy world is likely to feel insecure, undeserving, and inadequate and develop the low self-esteem of “not OK-ness.”  Brought to adulthood, low self-esteem creates the anxiety, isolation and despair that lead to escape through chemicals.

VI.       Denial, Rationalization and Projection

The Addict’s distorted self-perception is a serious problem to be overcome, and  which is greatly complicated by a tricky pattern of ego defenses designed to (1) Reinforce the denial that is pervasive, and (2) Maintain the status quo of using.  Because these defenses operate unconsciously, it is useless to tell the Addict, “Stop Denying!”  Why? Simple Denial takes the form, “I do not have a drinking problem.”  Rationalization works with Denial and provides “good” reasons for using, e.g. “I am not an alcoholic, I only drink because…”  With Projection, which also reinforces Denial, the Addict focuses blame away from himself, e.g.  “She makes me drink; when she changes, I’ll stop.” Addicts need to be reminded that they cannot change anybody but themselves and that even if they are the products of a bad environment, remaining a victim is their own fault.

VII.      Dealing with Conflict

A chemically confused mind is oblivious to reality while generating a lot of conflict.  Low self-esteem creates fear and anxiety, much of which is actually warranted by blackouts, hangovers and public embarrassment.  Addicts must somehow come to believe that they are adequate people and recognize they do have coping abilities.  Helpers must remember that the Addict’s reality is one of distortion.  They should try to identify every positive feature in the Addict’s past and present that might allow him to feel good about himself.  Also, Addicts tend to over-generalize and engage in black-and-white thinking.  It is not clear why intermediate “grays” do not occur to the addictive thinker.

VIII.     Hypersensitivity

Many Addicts use chemicals to get “high,” while others use them just to feel normal, i.e. relief from distress and discomfort.  Many Addicts are emotionally hypersensitive and experience emotions in the extreme.  A stimulus that might not produce a reaction in the average person can produce severe reactions in the Addict.  Many Addicts are loners who fear rejection and often expect it.  The anticipation may be so intolerable that the Addict actually provokes rejection just to relieve the suspense.  Oddly a reverse of this may involve clinging and possessive behavior.  Social withdrawal, abusive behavior and fanatic jealousy are often found among Addicts.  For many Addicts alcohol anesthetizes the feelings of being different or excluded.

IX.       Morbid Expectation

Addictive thinkers often experience a general feeling of apprehension and impending disaster.  The sense of being jinxed or doomed to failure creates a negative, cynical outlook, even self-sabotage when success is at the door.  Family and therapists supporting the Addict need to understand that even as recovery gains momentum the Addict is thinking, “I can’t make it, and I might as well get it over with,” followed by relapse.  The Addict’s outward behavior (verbal and otherwise) may not be a reliable indicator of what is going on inside.

X.        Manipulating Others

Addicts develop expertise in lying, covering up and manipulating.  Often it facilitates their using, but eventually it becomes part of their way of life – lying and manipulating even when there is nothing to gain.  Self-manipulation is a related phenomenon in which the Addict has a flash of insight about his self-destruction, considers himself cured by the insight,  then elects to leave treatment “no longer in need of it.”  Alternatively he may stay in treatment and become a junior therapist for other patients.  It should not be surprising that this short-cut is actually another manipulation of the recovery process. Instant recovery is highly unlikely given the years of addictive thinking.

XI.       Guilt and Shame

Guilt (“What I did”) over past actions can be managed through corrected action in the present and future.  On the other hand shame (“Who I am”) is actually low self-esteem that creates thoughts of futility based on the assumption of fundamental inadequacy and defects of personality.  “Why should I bother?” and “What difference does it make whether I drink or not?” are common thought patterns among Addicts.  12-step programs attempt to change shame into guilt.  Addicts are taught to be accountable for their behavior but not for having a disease.  Acceptance by other recovering people coupled with abstinence and personality overhaul can convert shame into guilt.  Addicts who work the steps eventually become constructive persons and begin to receive love and respect from family and community.

XII.      Omnipotence and Impotence

Delusions of power and omnipotence are present in Addicts and Co-dependents even though their lives have become quite unmanageable.  This is a defining characteristic of addictive thinking:  the inability to admit loss of control in defiance of that obvious reality.  People with other medical problems readily admit their personal powerlessness over their diseases.  But addiction that is framed as a moral failure (rather than a disease) prompts self-delusion and defensiveness.  12-step programs argue that because Addicts have no control over their chemical use, they must obtain that control from elsewhere – A Higher Power, religious or otherwise.  People who feel good about themselves are not usually threatened by their impotence in a situation, but those low in self-esteem must protect themselves from further put-down resulting from their inability to control the chemicals.  Outward grandiosity and expression of moral superiority over other, weaker types is another manifestation.

XIII.     Admitting Errors

The need to be right and to have been right in the past is yet another characteristic of addictive thinking.  Addicts can explain and defend their error-free behavior in ways that seem logical and reasonable, despite the obvious unmanageable mess.  Addicts must come to see that errors (and the accompanying apologies/amends) are part of normal life.   Step 10:  “And when wrong, promptly admitted it.”  Perfectionism is a huge burden.

XIV.     Anger

There are 3 phases to anger:  (1) The reflexive emotion when one is provoked; there is little control at this stage; this is termed anger, (2) The reaction to anger such as physical striking out; there is considerable control over this stage; this is termed  rage; (3) The retention of anger, termed resentment.  Legitimate anger preserves the social order as when it is evoked by some injustice.  Addicts exaggerate this by viewing  themselves as regular victims of an unfair world (“Why me?!”), and continuously feel slighted, offended, belittled, and humiliated.  Minor infractions become gross injustices to the hypersensitive, victimized addictive thinker.  Addicts use anger to punish the injustices.  With counseling and 12-Step treatment Addicts can become less self-centered and hypersensitive; blaming and rage also abate.   Modern psychology recognizes chronic resentment as self-harming:  “harboring a resentment is letting someone you don’t like live inside your head rent-free.”

XV.      The Confining Wall

Emotional sensitivity, poor self-image and morbid expectations lead Addicts to expect put downs, criticism and rejection from those around them, and many Addicts build defensive walls against the pain.  Addicts may passively withdraw or actively distance through self-righteousness, criticism or obnoxiousness.   Isolation protects, but deprives Addicts of the companionship they crave, illustrated by the dilemma of a high “porcupine index.”   Addicts act in ways that make other people avoid them (lying, manipulating, abusive behavior, etc.) yet paradoxically resent the isolation.  Loneliness compounds and validates low self-esteem, then invites chemical anesthesia in a vicious circle of self-fulfilling prophecy.  Those reaching out to an Addict or acknowledging his progress may be greeted with negative push-back. Addicts don’t know how to handle praise or even compliments.   The anonymous support group is an effective way for the Addict to associate with others who share the same problem.  In a safe environment they learn to see themselves in others.