Posts tagged “choice theory”
February 21, 2013 4 Comments

Parent and Child – “best” friends?

Choice theory emphasizes the importance of positive, caring relationships. In fact, our mental health is dependent on our having good relationships with others. So with this in mind, some might wonder how a parent being in such a close relationship with his/her child could be a problem. First, let’s agree that there is a difference between being a true best friend, who always has the best good of his friend in mind, and a “best friend,” who likes to hang out and “do stuff.” It feels to me that #5 – Being your child’s best friend – is referring to the latter.

The 7 Worst Things Good Parents Do

1. Baby your child.

2. Put your marriage last.

3. Push your child into too many activities.

4. Ignore your emotional or spiritual life.

5. Be your child’s best friend.

From a choice theory viewpoint, this is a really important topic! So many good things come out of parents being in good relationship with their children, and so many bad things come out of that relationship being broken. The more important the relationship (I’m hard-pressed to think of a relationship more important than the parent/child relationship), the more important it is to stay connected. Connection is everything; because as long as we are connected, we have influence. For a parent, influence is like gold.

The “best friend” from childhood was often rooted in insecurity, and was more about what could be gotten from the friendship, over what could be given. “Best friends” were there for the moment, like flavor-of-the-month ice cream, they tended to come and go. They had our back, for a while. They liked the same things, for a while, too. There isn’t necessarily a problem with having a “best friend.” It seems to be a rite of passage to have a best friend and to learn about being able to count on friends, as well as being disappointed by them. This is part of growing up. Problems occur, though, when parents behave in a way that mirrors childhood friendships. Young teachers, not used to being the adult presence and wanting to be on a buddy-buddy level with students, sometimes  learn about this problem the hard way. Most of them learn about what it means to be a professional and adjust their student relationships accordingly. A few do not make this adjustment and their careers can be cut short.

Parent and child have a special and unique friendship; theirs is a relationship like no other. Part of the uniqueness has to do with the challenge parents have to foster a warm, positive relationship, while also compassionately setting behavioral expectations within a consistent structure. Children want the warmth and acceptance that comes from a good friend, but they also want (yes, want) helpful structure and even limits in their lives. The warmth and acceptance between parent and child should last for a lifetime; the trick is knowing how and when to incrementally let go of the structure we have for our children and the limits we place on them.

6. Fail to give your child structure.

7. Expect your child to fulfill your dreams.

Friel, J. and Friel, L. (1999). The 7 worst things good parents do. New York: Barnes & Noble.
February 15, 2013 2 Comments

Your Own Oxygen Mask First

Number four on the list – Ignore your emotional or spiritual life – seems very relevant to talk about within the context of choice theory. I will share a few thoughts below, however I am interested to hear from you regarding how tangible this one is for you as a teacher or as a parent. What kinds of differences do you see in yourself or in your students or children when you put your spiritual life on a back burner? How long does it take to see these changes? Let me know. On to #4.

The 7 Worst Things Good Parents Do

1. Baby your child.

2. Put your marriage last.

3. Push your child into too many activities.

4. Ignore your emotional or spiritual life.

People that use commercial air travel a lot can probably finish the stewardess’s pre-flight set of directions for her. These directions include something like this –

We do not anticipate a change in cabin pressure; should it occur individual oxygen masks will drop  from the compartment overhead. Pull down on the mask until the plastic tubing is fully extended as this activates the flow of oxygen. Place the mask over your nose and mouth and breathe normally. For those of you traveling with small children, secure yourself first, then assist the child. Continue wearing the mask until otherwise notified by a crewmember.

This scenario is a classic example of an everyday occurrence in which we as adults really do need to take care of ourselves first. It is an especially good lead-in to the importance of teachers and parents nurturing their own spiritual and emotional health, because we cannot give what we don’t have.

One of the choice theory axioms is that the only person we can control is ourselves. This, hopefully, reminds us that instead of putting our energy into forcibly shaping the spiritual lives of our children, our time and effort is much better spent on gently bringing ourselves into alignment with God’s will for our own lives. It is easy to forget about the power of example, about how effective modeling is as a teaching tool.

Choice theory describes two basic management approaches – one approach is referred to as boss management, while the other is referred to as lead management. Simply put, boss management relies on external control strategies like punishment and reward to manipulate others, while lead management acknowledges the internal control mechanism that God placed in each of us.

The following quote seems to capture the concept of lead management and the importance of adults caring for their own emotional and spiritual lives about as well as any quote I have ever seen. We’ll close with this thought, but I encourage you to memorize the sentence and reflect on what it means. Let the thought inspire you.

Let it never be forgotten that the teacher must be what he desires his pupils to become.                              Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 58

5. Be your child’s best friend.

6. Fail to give your child structure

7. Expect your child to fulfill your dreams.

Friel, J. and Friel, L. (1999). The 7 worst things good parents do. New York: Barnes & Noble.
February 10, 2013 2 Comments

I Know What’s Best for My Kid! Don’t I?

This past week was a bit full for me. The beginning of the week had very important appointments for our Education Department at PUC, and then I headed out on the road on Thursday through Sabbath, visiting teachers in Santa Cruz and Mountain View and then preaching in Lodi for their Education Sabbath. Last weekend I worked on trying to improve the access to the blog through Google, but now I am wondering if I did more harm than good. Let me know if anything has changed for the worse as far as The Better Plan blog on your end. With that said, let’s move on to #3 on the 7 Worst Things Good Parents Do list – Push your child into too many activities.

The 7 Worst Things Good Parents Do

1. Baby your child.

2. Put your marriage last.

3. Push your child into too many activities.

For me, #3 and #7 are related, however there are differences between them, too. I will try to keep my comments separated for these two important areas and focus on the essence of each of them.

Much has been written on this phenomena, which is a more recent development in terms of sociology and culture, as those of us from the Boomer generation did not have to deal with this as kids. Maybe we had a parent who “forced” us to practice our piano lessons, but for the most part we were left to our devices to form friendships and engage in neighborhood play in all of its various forms. I am not sure of the official starting point when parents began to become so active in involving their children in so many planned activities, but at some point this shift occurred. At some point, too, maybe at the same time, we started assigning labels to the different parenting styles. We have come to view a tough, non-negotiating style as being a Tiger Mom; to a hovering, over-involved style as being a Helicopter parent; and to a more hands-off  approach as being a Free-Range parent. These are just a few of the labels. There are many more. Rather than dissect each of these approaches, which isn’t possible in my short comments here, I will try to focus on the essence of #3, the Agenda parent, through a choice theory lens. (I will use feminine pronouns exclusively to make the writing smoother, but masculine pronouns could be used just as easily.)

Like all human beings, an Agenda parent is urged by her basic needs to fulfill the quality world pictures she has identified and stored in her quality world mental scrapbook. I could see several basic need possibilities here. I could see the survival need, which has a lot to do with safety, urge a parent to be more vigilant in supervision. Rather than allowing a child to roam the neighborhood, like so many of us Boomers did, parents, still wanting a full life for their children, parents are willing to plan a full-plate of organized and supervised activities. I can see the power need (which we will talk about a lot more when we cover #7) urge a parent to place their children in what they think will be the best position for future success. And I can see the love and belonging need urge parents to get and keep their child involved with other children. It might be a way for parents to stay connected to other parents who are also bringing their students to soccer games and ballet practice and art class.

It would be instructive for an Agenda parent to honestly (maybe brutally honestly) reflect on whose quality world pictures are being targeted and pursued – the parent’s or the child’s? A parent might ask, “How does my child being in so many activities and having such a grueling schedule meet my needs?” The parent might respond with “It’s not about my needs! I am doing all this driving around and paying all the money for these activities for my child. It’s for her that I am doing this!” But choice theory would gently, but firmly, question that and suggest otherwise. Ultimately, it is highly, highly likely that an Agenda parent is creating full agendas for her child because of needs she has as a parent, rather than for the genuine needs of her child.

Are some activities good for our children to experience? Of course. Is it ever appropriate to push our children into things they don’t think they want to do? It might be, however I would be careful on this one. I think it is possible, even with young children, to begin to include their input when it comes to forming the agenda for their lives. The goal is to recognize that they are in the process of forming their own quality world picture books and to respect their individuality and uniqueness as they identify the things and skills they really want to embrace. As adults we just need to admit that our quality world pictures for our children are just that, OUR quality world pictures. It may be that we will influence them to embrace our quality world pictures – children often do follow in the footsteps of their parents – but it may be that they do not. Allowing them that freedom and supporting them in their discovery is such a huge gift!

I don’t know if this anecdote from my past will help clarify regarding the agenda issue, but we will end with this nonetheless –

When our children were younger we lived on the west coast, while my parents and sister’s family lived in the Orlando area. For a period of quite a few years my family would travel to Florida to spend time with loved ones and, well .  .  . play. There is so much to do in the Orlando area – Disney, Marineworld, Universal Studios, etc., etc. – which is great, however it all costs quite a bit. The Orlando part of the family all had season passes to the various attractions. We, on the other hand, had to come up admission fees. For several years, I took it upon myself, “knowing” that my family wanted to go these places, and knowing that I wanted to go to these places, to find the money to pay for the entrance passes. It was my kids and wife that eventually brought it to my attention that, if was up to them, they would just as soon spend more time at the (east coast) beaches (for free) than at the amusement parks. I had assumed they wanted to go the parks, when in fact that really wasn’t what they wanted. My agenda had ruled supreme, and cost me more money in the process. Our kids often want a simpler life than we assume. Mostly, they just want us.

4. Ignore your emotional or spiritual life.

5. Be your child’s best friend.

6. Fail to give your child structure.

7. Expect your child to fulfill your dreams.

Friel, J. and Friel, L. (1999). The 7 worst things good parents do. New York: Barnes & Noble.
February 2, 2013 2 Comments

Kids Need Happily Married Parents. Go figure.

We talked about mistake #1 in the last blog. Let’s move on to #2 – Put your marriage last.

The 7 Worst Things Good Parents Do

1. Baby your child.

2. Put your marriage last.

I wonder if the statement “Putting your marriage” last is even accurate. It seems like it would be a more accurate statement if it read “Acting like you’re putting your marriage last.” More often, I think, marriage partners very much want to experience intimacy—spiritually, emotionally, and physically—with each other. Something gets in the way of achieving intimacy, though, and partners recede back into coping mechanisms that are wrapped in hurt and pride. It may look like the partnership isn’t a priority, that work responsibilities or other friends or even their children, are keeping them from focusing on each other, but it isn’t really true.

Choice theory teaches that the only person we can control is ourselves.

It also teaches that we intentionally behave in a way that will either bring us what we want, especially when it comes to the way others, like our spouse, treats us, or in a way that at least brings us a feeling of control.

It is this willingness to settle for a little feeling of control, rather than lovingly, humbly, and energetically going for deeper levels of intimacy that creates and maintains a “cold war” home atmosphere, a distance between partners, and even a coping numbness. Consider the following scenario –

I have a quality world picture in my head about how I would like my wife to treat me when I arrive at home after work. Upon my walking through the door, this picture involves her jumping up, doing two back handsprings toward me, and then kissing me deeply and passionately. Alas, this picture doesn’t take place. Instead, she says hi and asks me how my day has gone. I am hurt and frustrated that once again my pictures aren’t being matched. She is watching a program on TV, but seems interested in me, even asking me to come join her. I politely decline, trying to sound friendly, grab some food from the kitchen, and head to the back of the house to watch a program of my choosing. I have not come across with a major silent treatment behavior, yet I have had what I refer to as a mini-withdrawal, a seemingly small decision to just do my thing. However, much more has happened here than a small withdrawal. I yearned for what I thought was a major connection, an intimate moment, but I settled for something much less. I withdrew into aloneness. You are probably thinking that my quality world picture involving handsprings and wet kisses was ridiculous to begin with. To that I would say you are right. It was ridiculous. Unfortunately, even ridiculous pictures exert a powerful influence on our behavior. Fortunately, though, we choose and shape the pictures that go into our quality world. Appropriate, realistic pictures help a lot. Another thing to consider, too, is this: If I wanted my wife to welcome me with two back handsprings and a kiss, what prevents me from greeting her with handsprings and a kiss? Oh, I might say to that suggestion, she has to make the first move. She is the one that needs to change, I reason. Keeping in mind what she desires, why can’t I be the person that I would like her to be? It is scenarios like these that play in a million variations every day. We settle for roommate status instead of going for an intimate partnership.

Our children see this dance of control play out in front of their eyes day after day. It is true that a good marriage is good for the mental health of the spouses. Having good relationships, especially one as significant as marriage, is incredibly important to us. It is also true, though, that a good marriage is good for the mental health of kids. They root for their parents to be happy and to treat each other well. The energy of the home environment is palpable and obvious, regardless of adult efforts to hide the anger and protect their kids from the dysfunction. A happy, healthy energy in the home is good for everyone. Kids do not begrudge appropriate and loving attention that their parents give to one another. Instead, they feed off of it; they learn from it. Someday they will have a home of their own and it will, for good or for bad, for happiness or for unhappiness, tend to mirror the homes of their childhood.

A recent article, Marriage Is Not a 24/7 Sleepover Party, in The Atlantic underscored the effect of the challenges of marriage –

“Marriage is in trouble. According to a 2011 Pew study, barely half of American adults are married, a record low. Nearly a quarter of Americans believe marriage is becoming obsolete. Many members of the millennial generation (18- to 29-year-olds) believe being a parent is more important than being married.”

Of all the relationships we form, marriage is the hardest one to maintain. Divorce rates are grim enough (hovering around 50% for decades); when you factor in how many more couples stay together in unhappy marriages it becomes downright discouraging. Entire families are affected by this dysfunction. Whether partners split and go their separate ways or stay together as lonely roommates, children are caught in the unhappy crossfire. Let’s do what we can (words like love, acceptance, trust, and humility come to mind) and stop the crossfire.

3. Push your child into too many activities.

4. Ignore your emotional or spiritual life.

5. Be your child’s best friend.

6. Fail to give your child structure.

7. Expect your child to fulfill your dreams.

Friel, J. and Friel, L. (1999). The 7 worst things good parents do. New York: Barnes & Noble.

Click on the following link to access the article in The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/marriage-is-not-a-24-7-sleepover-party/272684/
January 31, 2013 3 Comments

Influence vs Control

Your comments regarding the 7 Worst Things Good Parents Do got me to thinking. I was drawn to #7 – Expect your child to fulfill your dreams as an important one on which to comment, but now I see that each of them might be instructive under the choice theory microscope. We’ll do one at a time so that it won’t take (Tom) so long to read. Add your comments to fill in ideas that I leave out. Let’s start with #1 – Baby your child.

The 7 Worst Things Good Parents Do

1. Baby your child.

Providing support and guidance, and certainly exerting supervision and control when it comes to safety issues, is necessary and appropriate. We wouldn’t let a three year old cross a busy street on his own, even if he pulled his hand away from ours and insisted that we leave him alone. We would grab his hand right back and keep him from running into traffic. There is a difference, though, between appropriate supervision and overprotective babying.

Often the difference has more to do with our need for control than it does with the needs of our children or students. Choice theory is based on the idea that every human being is guided by an internal control mechanism. We were created with free will, an incredible attribute that God has gone to incredible lengths to preserve, and, by extension, have been given the power, and the responsibility, to make choices. God values our freedom a great deal.

With this in mind it becomes clear that children need to learn about this freedom and, as soon as possible, learn to make good choices. The teacher or parent who understands choice theory will want to wean children from their control, rather than seek to perpetuate their control. Our goal is to fit our children for healthy lives, not because we are controlling their decisions, but because they are making good choices even when supervision is not around. We want them to be self-supervisors, right? (Think of Jochabed preparing Moses to leave home at 12 years of age.)

The paradox here is noteworthy. The important thing is influence. To have influence with our students or children is what we really want. Yet the more we attempt to control children, the less influence we have with them. There are too many well-meaning parents who have literally fought to control their children, to supervise at every turn, to oversee every event, threatening and punishing all the way, only to lose the thing they want most – influence. (When I visited my mother when she was living in a retirement center, I would hear stories from her about how some of the residents’ children – the children being 50 and 60 years of age – would have nothing to do with them, would never come to visit them, still angry about how they are continuing to be treated by their, by now, aged parents. A controlling spirit can last a long time.) The important thing is to stay connected. No matter what – stay connected. Because as long as you are connected to your kids, you have influence.

2. Put your marriage last.

3. Push your child into too many activities.

4. Ignore your emotional or spiritual life.

5. Be your child’s best friend.

6. Fail to give your child structure.

7. Expect your child to fulfill your dreams.

Friel, J. and Friel, L. (1999). The 7 worst things good parents do. New York: Barnes & Noble.
January 29, 2013 4 Comments

The 7 Worst Things Good Parents Do

The-7-Worst-Things-Good-Parents-Do-9781558746688

Going through a file cabinet recently I rediscovered some notes I took a number of years ago on a book that looked interesting to me. The book was entitled The 7 Worst Things Good Parents Do. Those seven worst things are listed below.

I think it is a fascinating list that invites personal reflection and that can serve as an excellent springboard for discussion. Of course, a list this good also invites us to think about it through the lens of choice theory. What elements of choice theory come to mind as you read the statements on the list? Which statements stand out to you as especially relating to choice theory? Does choice theory help us to better understand any of these statement?

I would very much like to hear your thoughts on this.

The 7 Worst Things Good Parents Do

1. Baby your child.

2. Put your marriage last.

3. Push your child into too many activities.

4. Ignore your emotional or spiritual life.

5. Be your child’s best friend.

6. Fail to give your child structure.

7. Expect your child to fulfill your dreams.

Friel, J. and Friel, L. (1999). The 7 worst things good parents do. New York: Barnes & Noble.
January 26, 2013 7 Comments

Choice Theory in a Spiritual Jacket

Last summer (2012) I presented a breakout session on choice theory during the NAD convention in Nashville. In preparation for that breakout I got to thinking about the key beliefs of choice theory and how those beliefs jibed with key beliefs of Christian faith. Glasser developed what he referred to as the 10 axioms of choice theory, belief statements that, to him, were self-evident bedrock foundation points of his approach. I came up with the following belief statements to serve as a springboard for discussion during the convention breakout. I don’t think the list is comprehensive, so I invite you to help me complete it. I am also open to any questions you may have. Here goes —

Choice Theory in a Spiritual Jacket

God created us in His image – with free will being the most impressive of our attributes.

We are designed to create, to think, and to choose.

He created us to be in connection and harmony with Him.

He created us to be in connection and harmony with each other.

Every individual is designed to control himself.

We were not designed to control others.

Neither were we designed to be controlled by someone else.

Since God created us with free will, this would indicate that even God Himself will not control us.

Humans constantly behave.

All behavior is purposeful.

Our actions represent what we think will best meet our needs at that moment.

The only person we can control is our self.

The world of Choice Theory is a responsible world where individuals understand how and why they make choices and then own the results of those choices.

We choose our state of mind, including the misery we feel.

Instead of adults seeking ways to control the behavior of children, often extending this desire to control even into adulthood, their goal should be to wean children from such control as soon as possible.

(Remember that weaning children from our control does not mean weaning them from our guidance and influence. Our influence actually increases as our control decreases.)

Children need to understand their status as free will beings and the power that comes  with their ability to make choices.

Schools need to be a part of the process that helps students recognize and embrace their choice power.

 

Some of you may be curious about Glasser’s 10 choice theory axioms. Just in case, his axioms are listed below as they appear on his website.

The Ten Axioms of Choice Theory

The only person whose behavior we can control is our own.

All we can give another person is information.

All long-lasting psychological problems are relationship problems.

The problem relationship is always part of our present life.

What happened in the past has everything to do with what we are today, but we can only satisfy our basic needs right now and plan to continue satisfying them in the future.

We can only satisfy our needs by satisfying the pictures in our Quality World.

All we do is behave.

All behavior is Total Behavior and is made up of four components: acting, thinking, feeling and physiology.

All Total Behavior is chosen, but we only have direct control over the acting and thinking components. We can only control our feeling and physiology indirectly through how we choose to act and think.

All Total Behavior is designated by verbs and named by the part that is the most recognizable.
January 22, 2013 11 Comments

Give Me Victory, or Give Me Death

SI cover

It was haunting, stark, in-your-face. The cover of the April 14, 1997, Sports Illustrated, drew your attention to an image that dramatically captured, in one stroke, the state of affairs in athletics, indeed, the state of affairs in society. An arm, a strong arm with bulging bicep, fist clenched, wrist cupped, formed the bulk of the image, yet placed between the cupped wrist and bulging bicep was a syringe, it’s needle plunging into the taunt muscle. That was it, just an arm and a needle, yet you couldn’t look away. Although it appeared 16 years ago I have never forgotten that image.

The lead article, titled Over the Edge, opened with survey results that were, it doesn’t seem possible, even more haunting than the cover image. Quoting the article’s opening statement, it reads –

A scenario, from a 1995 poll of 198 sprinters, swimmers, power lifters and other assorted athletes, most of them U.S. Olympians or aspiring Olympians:
You are offered a banned performance-enhancing substance, with two guarantees: 1) You will not be caught. 2) You will win. Would you take the substance?
One hundred and ninety-five athletes said yes; three said no.
Scenario II: You are offered a banned performance-enhancing substance that comes with two guarantees: 1) You will not be caught. 2) You will win every competition you enter for the next five years, and then you will die from the side effects of the substance. Would you take it?

The survey question hangs for a moment before us, suspended in silence, as we consider just how far someone would go to come in first. Something inside of us roots for these athletes to draw a line at the thought of giving their lives for victory, to say that enough is enough, and to recoil at the suggestion of such a sacrifice. Their response was stunning; at least it should have stunned us. When asked if they would take a drug that would assure them of victory for five years, but also just as assuredly lead to their death –

“More than half of the athletes said yes.”

Of the close to 200 athletes surveyed, over 100 of them were willing to trade their lives for fleeting notoriety. Over half. The SI article was like an Old Testament prophet talking into the wind. It deserved more attention. My purpose, though, isn’t to review this article or a host of others that have documented athletic cheating. Instead, I want us to think about the personal decision that so many athletes make, at the risk of their lives, to gain an advantage. The media and the “schizophrenic” public may be calling for more testing and harsher penalties, but these strategies will do little to address behaviors that value winning over life itself. As Gabor Mate reminds us, “We keep trying to change people’s behaviors without a full understanding of how and why those behaviors arise.”1

Lance Armstrong recently confessed to Oprah and the world that he used performance-enhancing drugs to win his many titles, including his seven Tour de France championships. His years of ferocious, lawsuit-filled denials came to a crashing halt under the weight of overwhelming evidence. Now we know that Armstrong and his teammates injected EPO, a substance that had already killed other athletes, including five Dutch cyclists in 1987. Future rules, policies, and punishments must take this level of commitment into account if we are even going to begin to solve this challenge. Telling someone who is willing to give his life to win titles that he will be suspended for using drugs is like telling a suicide bomber that if he is discovered he won’t be able to ride any busses for a year. Policies and punishments aside, what is going on in the heads of these athletes? Choice theory may help us answer this question.

Choice theory, a theory of human motivation and behavior created and refined by William Glasser, presents several key points or axioms, as he refers to them, on which to begin the discussion. These points include –

All we do is behave; and

All behavior is purposeful; which means that

Our behavior represents what we think will best meet our needs at that moment. Further

Every human being is striving to meet a uniquely personal set of basic needs. We are born with these needs and throughout our lives we respond to their urgings to be met.

Beginning at birth, since we do not arrive like other mammals with instinctual knowledge and skills to survive, we begin to learn how to meet our basic needs.

I believe there are six basic needs, one physiological need – the need for survival, and five psychological needs – 1) the spirit need for purpose and meaning, 2) love and belonging, 3) power or achievement, 4) freedom, and 5) joy or fun. Some of these needs may not be so strong in us, while others can be very strong. The greater the need strength, the greater the pressure to make sure that need is met.

From birth and through childhood and beyond we identify those things that meet a need or that bring us a greater feeling of control. Much like a scrap booker, we collect visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, and taste “pictures” of the people, things, places, activities, ideas, etc. that are need-satisfying to us. These pictures, because they are so important to us, form the targets we aim for in our lives.

This all sounds fine so far, except that these personal scrap books, these mental store houses in our brains, are not so good at judging whether some one or some thing is good for us. Our scrap books simply identify if a person or thing is need-satisfying. Thus, we might put a person in our mental scrap book who brings us a little sense of belonging, even though that person is ultimately bad for us. Or we might, like I did when I was newly married, put the deadly habit of distancing in our scrap books and give our partner the silent treatment because it gives us, even if only slightly, a feeling of control over the situation.

In the same way that a person sets the thermostat in a room to control the temperature, when we place a need-satisfying picture in our mental scrap book it sets the target we want our lives and circumstances to match. Good pictures in our scrap books are healthy and helpful; bad pictures not so much.

Until athletes, and the rest of us for that matter, understand the concept of the basic needs and the scrap book process of meeting those needs, our rules and punishments will have very marginal success at best, and actually be counterproductive at worst. We need to understand that people are always acting in what they think is their best interest at the moment. Whether a recreational cyclist who drinks water before heading out on a ride to get in better shape or a professional cyclist who dopes before heading out on the next leg of the competition, both are doing what they think is best. Based on the pictures they pre-determined in their mental scrap books, their behavior is rational. Maybe not right or ethical, but rational.

I referred to the public earlier as being schizophrenic because one moment we want the home run to go 600 feet, offensive linemen to be 320 pounds with less than 10% body fat, and cyclists to win multiple Tours de France, while the next moment we vilify the outfielder or the football player or the cyclist for chemically trying to gain an advantage. Their lives, at our urging and our worshipping, have been dedicated to gaining an advantage. As much as we might want to blame and vilify, could it be that we, as spectators, are part of the problem?

1 Mate, G. (2010). In the realm of hungry ghosts: Close encounters with addiction. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books.
January 14, 2013 1 Comment

Flummoxed in Scandinavia

I recently received this letter from a teacher in Scandinavia. Before you read my response, think about how you would respond to her challenge.

Jim,
I am this year working in a class with children who are 11-12 years old. The boy I want to help now has the diagnose ADHD. We experience a boy who struggles to find out how to master his school days. I wonder if I have taught him anything so far this school year. He has been to our school for about 2 years, and they say it has helped him to come to us.
In my heart I feel that this is a boy with a very low self-esteem. He talks loud and makes a lot out of himself almost whenever he is in the classroom. He can talk calmly about his own problems and behavior when we have meetings with his parents or when he is one/one with a teacher. But in the classroom he reacts at once if anyone has a comment or he doesn’t find the work satisfying. I think this is the easiest way for him to satisfy his need for power and to be seen. He argues a lot and in my lessons this happens almost at once after I have started. We are lucky to have more grown-ups in the classroom who can help and take him outside so he doesn’t disturb the class. But this makes him feel like a failure again, I am sure. He think he really wants to stay although he sometimes leaves on his own because he knows that he finds the situation difficult.
My main problem now is that my way of dealing with him seems to annoy him tremendously. He tells me he hates me, that he doesn’t like me, that I am evil. He tells his mother and the other teacher that he doesn’t like me because I am too kind, not strict enough. But when I have become strict, as I have been driven to my wits end, he laughs. (in an insecure way).
I have been searching myself to see if I could be more strict, or maybe more clear (I know he needs that), but it made me use all the deadly habits on him and myself and was of no use. I now feel that trying to stick to choice theory, as much as I can, makes me feel like I am doing the right thing, although it doesn’t seem to give the results I had hoped. The problem is – how to reach him.
Just before Christmas he showed me interest and I thought maybe, maybe something good was on its way. I was asked to look after a precious “toy” he had. He is also very intelligent and often says “I’m sorry,” and we start anew. But it doesn’t last for more than 10-30 minutes and after Christmas I am again his “enemy”. I believe that when I do not get angry with him he feels insecure. When I give him responsibility he seems to feel lost, and has to turn it back over to me to feel ok. That’s what he is used to, and that seems to help him to control himself. Does he want me to feel insecure to get his own helplessness away? I so much wish he could know that he is a wonderful boy. Does a low self-esteem keep someone from being able to receive kindness? Should I just continue in the way I have been trying or should he have another teacher, because his diagnose needs it, I am sure? Sometimes I wonder if I give him more chaos than I should by not responding the way he “demands.”
Flummoxed in Scandinavia

Dear Flummoxed,

In some ways I think Erik (I will refer to him as Erik) is an outlier, a case that is more difficult and, hopefully, rare. In other ways, though, his behaviors are all too familiar to a lot of us. The way you have described the situation in detail will allow me and other readers to make attempts, along with you, at analyzing the situation.

First, let’s all be reminded that choice theory helps us to understand behavior, it doesn’t guarantee success. I think that tapping into choice theory principles puts me and others in the best position to succeed, but free will is always present. Sometimes people will do what they want to do, even when a gun is being pointed at them to stop them from doing it; and sometimes people will do what they want to do, even when choice theory is “being pointed at them.”

A continent away it appears to me that Erik has been brought up within a distant, yet controlling environment. He is desperate for consistent acceptance, yet unable to relate to freedom and insecure (I think you used the right word here) at the thought of responsibility. The system that he has learned, which appears to be a toxic stimulus-response environment, doesn’t apply at school and it is troubling for him, to say the least. The ground is moving under his feet and it is hard to maintain balance. Erik probably does have a fairly strong need for power, but I think he also may have a stronger than average need for love and belonging. Throughout his young life he has probably received mixed messages when it comes to control and love. When these two needs are mixed in a toxic way it can become a terrible thing to have to work through later in life. His behavior, going back and forth between showing affection toward you one minute and then pushing you away the next minute, reveals what he has probably been experiencing at home.

When I first read the description of Erik’s behavior I became very concerned about what his options were and what he faced in life. I think I may have felt like Joseph when he realized what he needed to tell the king’s baker after the baker’s dream (Genesis 40). But after reading your description several more times, I feel less like that for some reason. Erik has some real issues, but the sooner he begins to really see what his options are, the better.

Your efforts on his behalf will take strength, the kind of strength that in love moves ahead without needing to be liked in return. That is where he thinks his power lies. When things become uncomfortable for him, he retreats into various forms of threats and punishments. “I will hate you” he emphasizes, or “you can’t have me,” he threatens. Yet it is clear that deep inside he doesn’t want to hate you. It will take strength to show up positively, dispassionately, and compassionately in the face of his moods.

You asked if a low self-esteem could keep someone from being able to receive kindness. I think the answer to this is Yes, most definitely. When we do not value ourselves it is hard to believe that anyone else values us either. It truly is a secure person that can graciously accept the favor and love of another person. This is one of Erik’s burdens that you, and the Spirit, want to remove from him. Erik is in a situation that needs an intervention. When I say that, I mean that someone, another person, may need to show him acceptance, modeling it to him in word and deed, for him to begin to become convinced of his worth. I am reminded, too, of the disciples having a problem healing a boy and coming to Jesus afterward, inquiring of Him why they couldn’t heal him, and Jesus replying that “this kind can only be dealt with through prayer.” (Mark 9:29) Erik’s issues are very real and we need to seek the Spirit’s help on his behalf. We need to pray that he and/or his parents will become open to seeing things differently. It may be that you will be given an opportunity to talk with Erik or talk with his parents in a way you thought would never be possible.

You described how you felt better using choice theory, but that it wasn’t having the results you wanted. It actually is having results as Erik is acting out in a way that he hopes will restore the set-up he is used to. The steps you are taking, however uncomfortable they may be, are necessary before a breakthrough can occur.

I, and others, will be praying for this situation.

Jim
January 13, 2013 8 Comments

On Obedience

I wrote something five years ago and I want to run it by you. I know it was five years ago because I referred to my wife, Maggie, and I being married for 30 years, and now we’ve been married for 35 years. I’m good at Math. We no longer have that second Saturn, although we had it for 11 years before trading it in on another car, a Scion xB, if you must know. It’s sad that GM seemed to intentionally let their Saturn branch die like it did. That story might be for another blog, since that story is really about corporate managers wanting more external control. Anyway, here’s some thoughts on obedience.

On Obedience

What is the antonym of arbitrary? What word or phrase captures its opposite? Over the next few minutes, as you read the following ideas, I invite you to answer these questions..

I was recently reading from the small devotional book, As Bill Sees It. This particular Bill isn’t Bill Glasser, whose ideas I also like to read. No, this Bill is Bill Wilson, co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous. Over a twenty-five year period he wrote books and articles about the A. A. way of life and As Bill Sees It (Wilson, 1967) contains short excerpts from this literature. The following passage really got me to thinking.

We of A. A. obey spiritual principles, at first because we must, then because we ought to, and ultimately because we love the kind of life such obedience brings. Great suffering and great love are A. A.’s disciplinarians; we need no others (p.27).

It was the phrase we love the kind of life such obedience brings that caught my attention. Christian choice theorists don’t know exactly what to do with the word obedience. Obedience, as either a word or a concept, is found throughout scripture. Jesus himself used the word to describe the standard for our behavior. Yet the word conveys the idea of the control of one person over another. It conveys the idea of compliance. Words like control and compliance raise caution flags in the eyes of a choice theorist.

During one of my interviews with Dr. Glasser, I asked him to do a word association exercise with me. He agreed to the exercise and I said the word obedience. He replied, “Well, I don’t really like that word.” I then said the word forgiveness. “Oh,” he said, “I like that word a lot.” Is he so different from us when it comes to our gut reactions to these words?

But again, I am joyfully confronted by the A. A. principle that we love the kind of life such obedience brings. As the words wove their way through my brain cells a picture came to me.

Twice in our thirty years of marriage, Maggie and I have owned a new car. The first time was in 1996 when we bought a gold-colored Saturn SL2. The second time was when we traded that Saturn in for another new Saturn in 2000, which we still drive to this day. I don’t know if they still do this or not, but when we purchased these new cars the people at the Saturn dealership made a big deal out of it. They all gather around and congratulate you and sing to you and take your picture. It’s like you’ve now become part of a special community. I thought back about how I felt as we drove away from the showroom. It was a need-satisfying moment, to be sure. I felt joyful and powerful and free. As Maggie drove us home to the friendly, waiting garage, I looked in the glove box and pulled out a crisp, new car manual for the model we had just purchased. It contained all kinds of helpful information. It described little details on how you could custom program the automatic door locks; or on how the posi-traction worked; or on how to make the change your oil light go off after you changed your own oil; or on the kind of oil you should put in the car; or on how much oil should go in the car. And on and on the information went.

So think about this for a moment—If I put the kind of motor oil in the car that Saturn recommended in the manual, was I obeying Saturn? When I change my oil every 3,000 to 5,000 miles, am I complying with a Saturn demand? It seems silly to view it this way. We don’t view Saturn as an arbitrary car company out to make our lives difficult. We figure they built the car and they probably know best how to keep it running well. Obeying Saturn, if you will, rather than being restrictive, simply makes sense. Further it leads to a more joyful car experience now and in the future.

With my Saturn experience in mind, the A. A. principle that we love the kind of life such obedience brings begins to appear in its true light. Such obedience is really not like the obedience we usually think of. If the A. A. passage above is accurate, and I for one think the passage is on the right track, then there are different levels of obedience. Level one is based on I must, probably for reasons of survival. Level two is based on I ought to, which reveals a growing sense of personal responsibility to one’s self and to others. Level three is based on the idea that we love the kind of life such obedience brings, which is the highest and most secure level of obedience, where we obey because it makes sense and is for our best good.

I can see how God would have a challenge on his hands when working with the human race. At times during our earth’s history our very survival has been at stake. When the Hebrews were rescued by the mighty arm of God from Egyptian captivity they formed a massive group, probably approaching two million in number. Although impressive in numbers, they had almost no knowledge of their Rescuer God, had minimal knowledge on how to create and preserve effective relationships, and no knowledge on principles of health. It indeed was a situation calling for God to be extremely clear about who He was and what His expectations were. The boundaries for behavior had to be very specific. For instance, without modern medicine an illness could easily wipe out every one of them. Therefore, cleanliness procedures were vital, not because God was arbitrary, but because their very lives depended on it. It truly was an obey and live moment in time. If they weren’t ready for level two or level three obedience, God was willing to work with them at level one, even if it meant being misunderstood, even if it meant later generations might struggle with the word obedience.

And so we come back to the question that started us off—what is the antonym of arbitrary? Because I think Christian choice theorists would be very interested in those words or phrases. Could it be that God is more like the Saturn car company than we realize?

Wilson, B. (1967). As Bill sees it: The A.A. way of life (selected writings of A.A.’s co-founder). New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc.