Independence. There are so many experts out there telling us how important it is to be independent. Babies should be independent and able to self-soothe. School aged children should be independent and able to do their schoolwork on their own. Teens should be independent and able to make decisions about their health on their own. Twenty-somethings should be able to be financially independent and live on their own. The elderly should be able to live independently (alone), with as little help as possible for as long as possible. Independence, referring to the ability to take care of oneself, is certainly a desirable quality, and is linked to high self-esteem. We feel good about ourselves when we can do something on our own. However, it seems to me that we have, as we do in so many things, taken this to an extreme. There is so much talk about the need for independence that we seem to have forgotten that we are mammals, and by our very nature we are social animals who depend on the group for our survival.

Independence is defined as freedom from outside control or support. The question is, from a human perspective, is this independence truly possible? If it is, is it desirable? Complete freedom from outside control is a frightening concept to me. Could society function without traffic rules, health codes, sanitation codes, monetary regulations, car safety regulations? Would we really be better off without the Bill of Rights? We might argue regarding the degree of regulation needed, but (hopefully) no one is arguing that all laws should be abolished. Control, including self-control, is an important part of happiness. With each step towards self-sufficiency we take, a certain sense of accomplishment and contentment follows. Yet, very often, hidden behind that step toward self-sufficiency is the physical or emotional support from someone else that enabled that step to be taken. When a toddler takes a first step, the support of a hand is welcomed. A young adult recovering from an accident welcomes the support of a physical therapist. An elderly person welcomes the offer of an arm to hold to cross a street.

On a daily basis, I see the power of emotional support. A word of encouragement, a shoulder to cry on, a person to laugh with – all of these make a huge difference in our lives. With emotional support, people get through unimaginable tragedies – the death of a child, the devastation of war. They get through more common tragedies – the loss of a job, the end of a relationship, the loss of health. People who go through such things will often say that friends and family members enabled them to do so “just by being there.” When I see the power of such support, I question this movement toward the idealization of independence. Why would we want to encourage people to opt for independence, from freedom from support, when support is so powerful? Complete freedom from outside support separates us from each other and from our humanity and only adds to our pain.

So why is independence held out as such an important quality to achieve? I think, in part, it comes from a misunderstanding of the word dependence.   Dependence refers to a quality or state of being influenced by another. Somehow influence has come to mean that we are not independent thinkers; that we do not think for ourselves. But being open to what others have to say is important; it allows us to grow. It allows new ideas to be introduced to us. The other “problem” with dependence is that it often refers to addiction and the overreliance on someone or something. So, people will encourage us to “never need anybody” and “you have to be able to take care of yourself”. We say these things but never ask why this needs to be so. We rarely question why it is considered better to be independent than to be able to live in the comfort of being dependent – of being able to rely on or trust in someone other than ourselves. Why is it considered unhealthy to know that we can count on someone else? We have created an ideal of independence and self-sufficiency that is both unrealistic and, in my opinion, unhealthy. We have come to think that any sign of needing others is a weakness to be avoided at all cost.

It seems to me that we need to recognize the importance of both independence and dependence. And we need to recognize that depending on someone, being able to depend on someone, is very different from being dependent on someone or something in a weak, needy, “crutch-like” way. Knowing we can count on each other is fundamental to our strongest relationships, and is part of the very essence of friendship and love. We need to recognize what we can do, and enjoy doing, for ourselves. We need to embrace the joy of doing for others. We need to appreciate the gift we give someone when we accept their support. We need to recognize that we cannot truly survive without the support of others. In reality, having someone we can depend on, count on, is the most important source of stress reduction that exists. Knowing we can call that friend to tell us what the homework is because we lost our planner, or give us a ride to school/work because we missed the bus or our car won’t start, or to share a joy, a heartache, a wish, a dream – these are the moments that matter to us. Isolation is not the goal, sharing is. I prefer striving for interdependence, which means “mutual dependence.” This phrase reflects a healthy balance between independence and dependence. It signifies a state of mind where two emotionally healthy people know they can take care of themselves, but choose to take care of each other as well. Mutual dependence reflects the ability to function with limited outside control or support along with a willingness to be open to the influence of another and a trust that you can rely on them. It takes courage to admit we depend on someone. It means we have to let down our guard, show our vulnerability. Mutual dependence means the other person does the same. No one holds back, attempting to gain power or control.

In the physical world, we recognize that when one installs a supporting beam, the entire structure is strengthened. Perhaps we would all be happier if we recognized that emotional support strengthens us as individuals and as members of our family and friendship network; it strengthens our humanity.

~ “Being vulnerable is the only way to allow your heart to feel true pleasure”

Bob Marley ~

If you enjoy my posts, please subscribe using the signup box at the bottom of the page. Once you sign up, you will receive a confirming email. When you respond to that email, you will get updates on any new items I post.

When the clock struck twelve, we entered into the New Year, bright-eyed and eager to pursue our New Year’s resolutions. The first few hours, days, and possibly weeks are filled with absolute determination. We chant to ourselves: We will succeed this time. This year will be different. This is the year I maintain the change.

Sadly, for many of us, the determination to keep our New Year’s resolutions fades. As a result, we become disappointed in ourselves, leading to a belief that our intentions were “hopeless” and we feel we will never accomplish the goal we set. We’re often left feeling like trying is a waste of time and effort.

I believe the reason we become discouraged and, ultimately, give up on our resolutions is because we don’t recognize that “slips” are a part of human nature. Every psychological theory has to deal with that fact. If we can accept the fact that slips happen, then we can pick up and begin again. Our determination can be fueled by the idea that every day is a new day to restart our resolution.

Let’s focus on the “slips” for a bit.

In order to understand how Freudians would understand the slips, we have to understand that for them, our behavior is the result of a battle between our id (our pleasure center), our superego (our conscience), and our ego (the mediator who tries to balance those two extremes). Our ego constantly seeks to make resolutions to please both the id and superego. Our id wants pleasure, so it seeks to eliminate our resolutions; our superego wants to minimize, if not eliminate pleasure, so it is the source of our guilt when we break a resolution. When we break a New Year’s resolution (or any goal), we need to defend our ego; we have to justify why our ego could not maintain a proper balance and protect our ego from the “failure” to control the id and expose us to the criticism of our superego (either our own conscience or the criticism we think we will receive from others).

For Freudians, we use ego defense mechanisms to protect us from feeling too badly about our inability to maintain our willpower and about ourselves. Freudians would likely see these slips as regressions, or returns to earlier behaviors that we exhibited in the past that were appropriate for a different age or time or place. For example, a regression may be that a person handles impulses more like a child than the adult he or she is. Freud had another term, retrogression, to refer to a return to less appropriate behaviors that we ourselves never did in the past, but that we are going to try out now. So, if we eat that cake, rather than having one piece, we just binge on it like a child eating out of the cookie jar. If we break our vow to be patient with our loved ones, rather than just yelling, we have a total temper tantrum and, like a child, feel exhausted afterwards. If we want to succeed with our resolutions, we have to embrace our “id” – our childish pleasure center – and recognize that sometimes we will behave that way. We also have to recognize that the superego – our adult conscience – will chastise us and that, eventually, our ego – the balance between the two extremes – will encourage us to return to our path. It will restore our willpower.

For a Humanist, the cause of our “slip” is the incongruity between our real and ideal selves. If the ideal self is very different from who we are at the moment, then our journey to our ideal self is fraught with concern that while we try to get there, we run the risk of losing those we love. We worry that our loved ones will find out that we are not as great as we want to be and stop loving us because who we are falls so short. So, if we vow to lose weight, and then eat that cookie, we think to ourselves, “I should not have done that”, then feel guilty, and then prepare ourselves for the “fact” that others will think less of us because not only “should” we be thinner, but also more determined to get there. Again, if we break our vow to be patient with our loved ones, not only are we certain that our relationship will fail, but also should fail because we are not worthy of being loved. If we want to succeed, we have to recognize that managing this fear takes a considerable amount of energy—energy that is better placed in keeping our resolution, in maintaining our willpower, than in protecting us from the fear of the loss of love.

For cognitive theorists, the cause of our “slip” is our irrational thoughts. Irrational thoughts are characterized by extremes, such as “always” and “never”, and cause us to exaggerate the potential consequences of our irrational beliefs. So, if we say, “I always give up” or “I never follow through”, then the slip becomes a “fact” about who we are and about our permanent limitations. So, if we eat that cookie, it is not because we felt like having one at the moment, it is because we always give up and we never have any willpower. If we break our vow to be patient, it is because we never have patience, we never stay calm, we always yell. If we want to succeed, we need to learn to avoid those extreme words and concentrate on the moment – we ate a cookie, we yelled – we can do something different/better/more rational in the next challenging moment. We are not rational or irrational; rather, we are often rational and sometimes irrational.

If we are Behaviorists, we see the “slip” as a spontaneous recovery of an extinguished response. That sounds like a mouthful, but it is a simple and elegant explanation of the setbacks we all experience in our resolutions. For Behaviorists, extinction is when we “stop” responding because a reward is withheld (for example, we do not eat the cookie because cookies are not available). The word stop is in quotes because, for Behaviorists, extinguished responses are never really gone – they just appear to be gone because the response drops to a very, very low level that it simply looks like it is gone. Spontaneous recovery tells us that an extinguished response will return – even if a reward is not offered. For example, we can continuously avoid eating cookies; we can stop ourselves from eating them at the holidays, at parties, at restaurants. When we are in our own home and someone we live with eats cookies in front of us, sooner or later, we will not only want cookies, but we will have them. Once we do and we have a doughy reward, it becomes even more difficult to extinguish our response. Similarly, we can continuously avoid yelling; we can hold our tongue at work, at home, with our friends, but eventually, something will trigger our yelling response; it will spontaneously recover. If it results in our getting something we want (our significant other does what we “asked”, for example), then the yelling will continue to increase and make extinction even more difficult for us. If we want to succeed, Behaviorists would tell us to reduce our behaviors, rather than trying to eliminate them entirely. From the outset of our resolution, they would tell us to manage our willpower by allowing ourselves to have a cookie once a week, or admitting to ourselves that we will yell sometimes. This helps to avoid the extinction–spontaneous recovery cycle and helps us to maintain greater control over our behavior.

When we talk about maintaining our changes, maintaining our determination, we need to recognize that willpower is a valuable resource that must be used effectively. It is not something we have or don’t have. Willpower is something we have, we use up, and we need to replenish. Recent studies reveal thatif we use our willpower to avoid that donut for breakfast, or to avoid answering our boss with attitude, or avoid telling a friend what is bothering us because we know that they have enough of their own “stuff” to deal with, then we are using up our daily allotment of willpower. That is why for so many people, the resolutions made or remade are broken toward the end of the day – there simply isn’t enough willpower left. So, it might be helpful to track where we are using it up and how we might be able to reallocate it for more effective use overall.

I, for one, occasionally enjoy a piece of crumb cake or a jelly donut for breakfast.

If you are interested in the topic, you might enjoy reading the following American Psychological Association fact sheets:

Harnessing Willpower to Meet Your Goals http://apa.org/helpcenter/willpower-fact-sheet.aspx

What You Need to Know About Willpower: The Psychological Science of Self Control http://apa.org/helpcenter/willpower.aspx

If you enjoy my posts, please subscribe using the signup box at the bottom of the page. Once you sign up, you will receive a confirming email. When you respond to that email, you will get updates on any new items I post.

The holiday season is suddenly upon us! As wonderful as this time of year can be, many people suffer from what has come to be known as “holiday stress.”

According to Merriam-Webster Online, a holiday is “a special day of celebration: a day when most people do not have to work.” Stress is defined as “a state of mental tension and worry caused by problems in your life; something that causes strong feelings of worry or anxiety.” Technically, stress is any circumstance that threatens – or we believe threatens – us physically or emotionally. So, why on earth are these two terms paired? They seem like they should be polar opposites. We are not working; we are celebrating, and presumably spending time with people we like and/or love. Where is the threat to our well-being?

In large part, it is really about the “extra” things that must be accomplished before the holiday arrives, such as shopping for food, getting gifts, deciding which events one can attend, determining which people to invite to our own events. The sheer volume of decisions that must be made taxes our ability to cope. We often feel like we are just managing – we wish we had a little more time, fewer obligations – and then the holidays near and we feel that we simply cannot put even one more obligation, large or small, on our list.

Ah, and therein lies a big part of the problem. Holidays become obligations and not celebrations. They become things we “have to” do, people we “have to” see/invite, gifts we “have to” buy, even if our finances say we cannot. They become times of tremendous guilt.

Each “school” of psychology would provide a slightly different view of what is happening. The Behaviorists would say we are doing these things because we have been rewarded for them in the past. We make a meal and our guests tell us it is delicious and we are wonderful. We buy a gift and someone says, “I love it” and the praise encourages us to repeat the behavior in the future. A Freudian would say our superego, our conscience, is guiding us and we have frustrated our id who simply wants us to have fun. The Cognitive theorist would say that we are doing these things because we have irrational thoughts, such as “If I do not invite the family, then no one will, and we will lose touch with each other and never be like a real family again” or “I have to get the ‘right’ gift. Gifts are a way of showing someone how much we love them.” The Humanist would say we are far too focused on the “should” and not on the want. “I should invite everyone for dinner”, but the “want” may be “I want to sit and talk to everyone instead of serving”.

Each psychological school would also give us some advice for overcoming – or at least reducing – our stress:

The Behaviorists would tell us to reward others for behaviors we want to see in them. Give them a gift, or food, or any reward when they are doing/saying something you want them to do more often. For example, give them a gift when they have said, “Oh, I’m so happy to see you!” This rewards them for seeing you. (As opposed to giving a gift after they say, “What did you get me?” which rewards them for seeking gifts from you).

Freudians would tell us to examine the conflict between our superego and our id, examine its source from our childhood, and allow our ego (our mediator) to engage in a solution that balances obligations with desires. For example, perhaps when we were children, our id wanted to stay home and play with our toys, but our parents (now embedded in our superego) “forced” us to go out to see family and friends. This early conflict resurfaces as holiday stress, based on the anxiety surrounding the guilt of wanting pleasure (to stay home and do what we want) and the fear of displeasing others (represented as our superego in the form of doing what others ask of us).

Cognitive theorists would tell us, as would Humanists, to examine the scripts (the stories) that are part of our thoughts and shoulds. They would encourage us to examine the source of our stress by examining the assumptions that are inherent in the scripts. This requires a bit more explanation. For example, we think we need to invite everyone, and the script includes doing all the cooking ourselves. This feels overwhelming. The stress increases. (1) Is it a person, place or thing stress? Is it the people? Is it the fact that our home is too small to comfortably fit the growing group? Is it financial? Is it due to time constraints? (2) Recognize that each of these questions indicates a different source of stress and, therefore, has a different solution. (3) Be honest with yourself and others so that the stress can be addressed. If we want to see the people, then other options do present themselves. We can say, “We would love to have everyone over, but (insert your reason), does anyone else want to host this year?”, or “How about we go to a restaurant this year?”, or “How about everyone makes some part of the meal this year?” This can be applied to any aspect of the holiday stressors. We can say similar things about gifts: “I would love to get gifts for everyone, but I can’t this year, so how about we do a Secret Santa?”, or “How about we give the gift of spending time together?”, or “Let’s make gifts this year instead of buying them.” If we are stressed about a negative person who we feel we need to include, the one who seems to criticize everyone and everything, we can invoke what I call the “Thumper Rule”. It comes from the Disney movie, Bambi. Thumper tells us, “If you ain’t got something nice to say, don’t say nothing at all.” It seems like wonderful holiday (actually wonderful everyday) advice to me!

We cannot overlook that for some, the stress of the holidays rests in the fact that the holidays exacerbate their loneliness. The holidays lead them to ask such questions as, “What is wrong with me that I never get invited to parties? Why don’t I have a place to go for dinner?” Again, each theory would give us different advice for handling this. Behaviorists would say you should reward someone for including you. A Freudian would encourage you to examine your childhood issues of abandonment. Cognitive theorists would encourage you to examine those irrational thoughts characterized by extremes such as “never”; it is likely that every adult has been invited to at least one party in their lifetime. The Humanist would encourage you to examine your choices and consider options such as choosing to volunteer at a shelter rather than being alone.

But perhaps the best holiday advice I have ever heard came from my grandmother. Every time I visited her, she would exclaim, “Every time I see you it is a holiday!” Wow, suddenly holiday stress was gone; one did not have to see her on the holiday itself. She made every visit a holiday visit. By doing so, she enriched every moment spent with family, a very valuable lesson indeed.

 Diane Urban, PhD

 If you enjoy my posts, please subscribe using the sign-up box at the bottom of the page. Once you sign up, you will receive a confirmation email from WordPress. Only when you respond to that email will you be subscribed.  You will then receive updates on any new items/post. Thank you for your support!

I love talking about love. I love listening to stories of how people met, what attracted them to each other, how they knew this person was “the one.”

The process begins, of course, with a simple interaction that occurs online or in person. Online we read the “resume” and decide to click that we are interested. We decide that based on whether they have a profile picture. If they don’t have one, why don’t they? If they do, who is in it with them? Do they have friends? Where are they (on a beach, in a bar, in their living room)? In person, our chat grows out of the venue where we meet. This may not seem important, but it does have huge implications. In a Marriage and Family class I taught, I had the students “speed introduce” themselves in pairs. I rang a bell and they had to move to the next spot. Afterwards we discussed what we had found out about each other – we found out about college majors, schedules, and jobs. We then discussed what we might have asked each other at a bar that we did not ask here (what kind of drinks we like, who else we were with, other bars we regularly go to). So, the venue has an impact on our first impressions and first impressions can determine if we will get the opportunity to get to know someone better.

What is interesting is that when we discuss our search for love, we generally begin with the list of qualities we are looking for in another person. It is, in part, a process of comparing the person we are getting to know with the idealized person we are looking for. We have a list of sorts: “They have to be established – they have to have a career.” “They have to be physically fit.” “They have to enjoy traveling.” “They have to be a Democrat/Republican.” “They have to love animals.” “They have to love sports.” “They have to be into Metal.”

Similarity is certainly an important part of our friendship with others; it is an important component of love. As intimacy progresses, we begin to discuss our likes and dislikes – of sports, music, animals, activities, and foods. It feels “right” when we enjoy similar things, when we are in sync with each other. It is also nice when differences emerge and then become similarities. We begin to like something just because the other person does. We enjoy seeing them happy and know our presence at some event or activity makes them even happier. They enjoy it more because we are there. This is also part of love. It is nice if they introduce us to some sport, music, theater, physical activity we never participated in before and we find we like it. This is part of being similar, of being in love. If our partner finds they do not enjoy some activity we like, we may find we start to do it less because we choose to do something that we can both enjoy. This is love too.

These adaptations to each other make us understand the importance of flexibility, of being able to change. When these changes make us happy, when we are making each other feel better about ourselves, making each other better people, then change is wonderful. This type of change is reflected in statements like, “I didn’t ski until we started dating, now I love it!” “I hated football, now I don’t mind watching it.” “I didn’t know I liked going to Broadway shows. I’m glad I went to one with you.” The key factor here is that these changes are “peripheral” – they add to who we are, what we like, what we know.

What does any of this have to do with deal breakers? Well, when couples come in complaining that one or the other or both “refuse to change” the issue is generally one that revolves around core values.   The couple, having grown in intimacy and enjoyment of each other’s company, has come to believe that a willingness to make peripheral changes is an indication that core changes are not only possible, they are probable and necessary.   The changes they now seek rattle to the core.

In part, this happens because while they had a list of qualities they were seeking, they did not have a list of “deal breakers.” So, their partner had the qualities on their checklist such as intelligence, humor, or ambition – they were allowed into their heart. Once there, the “deal breakers” begin to emerge but the evidence is pushed aside. This is reflected in statements such as “If he loved me, he would want to have children.” “If she loved me, she would understand that I want to move across the country. Leaving her family wouldn’t matter.”   In such cases, the change “required” doesn’t feel right and it doesn’t feel right because it involves a core value. Core values are such a part of who we are that changing them rattles us; we are suddenly in a conflict over loving someone but not wanting to change something in ourselves. So, we ask the other person to change.

The idea of deal breakers makes us seem rigid and unaccepting of differences. How can we reject someone because they disagree with us about something? Well, when that something is core to us, what we need to recognize is that we are not rejecting someone; we are seeking someone who is a better fit.

Let us explore the idea more: What are some potential deal breakers? For most of us it would be a deal breaker if someone were in prison on death row, but that is not true for everyone; some people write to prisoners on death row and do indeed marry them. This exemplifies how deal breakers are individualistic; we have to develop our own.

A more common deal breaker is one already mentioned – a disagreement over whether or not to have children. There is no compromise possible. Children are permanent; they cannot be given back. The one who wants children cannot say “If you loved me you would” anymore than the other can say “If you loved me you would agree to not have children.” It is a deal breaker, a difference in the core values one possesses. Another example I can give was a couple who came for counseling. One was an Atheist, the other a Born Again Christian. They bonded as they debated about morality. They respected the ethical lifestyle each lived. They loved each other. They wanted to marry, but were unable to agree on a marriage ceremony or on how to raise children. No compromise was possible. To be married in church was to go against everything an Atheist believes in; to get married without clergy would send a Born Again Christian to Hell. This stark difference in core values was a deal breaker for them.

Other deal breakers might be wanting to live in the artic zone while the other wants to live in the tropics, wanting adventure when the other wants stability, wanting material possessions when the other wants to live minimally and share with the poor, or wanting to have pets when the other is highly allergic, afraid or disinterested. It might be one enjoying spending time with family and the other viewing such time as intrusive on “their” time. It might be one believing that alcohol is a necessary component of having fun and the other believing it is not, one thinking of drug use as typical and the other as deviant. It may be one seeing the world from an optimistic point of view and the other from a pessimistic one.

Pursuing a relationship thinking the other person will change his/her mind is often counterproductive – a recipe for heartache. Yes, people can change but changing core values is unlikely. Our core values define us and the desire to change such values is minimal even if we love someone. Both parties often believe the other will change and heartache follows when the realization that this is not going to be the case emerges. A key indicator of this kind of problem is the phrase, “If (s)he loved me, (s)he would change”. This needs to be replaced with the question, “Would I be willing to change this about myself for him/her?” If the answer is no, then the change is not likely to be easy for either of you. It is best to move on; it is even better to check that “deal breaker” list before the heartache is too intense.

Differences are fun. Being able to introduce someone to something they didn’t even know they liked is fun. Growing together as individuals and as a couple is fun. The key is in knowing what we are willing to change in ourselves, not in someone else.

“There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that’s your own self.”         ― Aldous Huxley

Should.

What did you think of when you read that word? How did it make you feel? Before you read on, jot down the “shoulds” that popped into your mind.

Most of us can generate a long list of “shoulds” and most of the time, the list makes us feel guilty or inadequate. For many years, I have asked students to record the “shoulds” that they say to themselves, to others, or that they hear from others and then reflect on the experience. Here is a sample of some of the “shoulds” I have heard:

• I should be more organized
• I should get a car
• I should help out more
• I should be slimmer
• I should have more money in my bank account
• I should be nicer
• I should exercise
• I should answer my emails

• You should listen to mommy
• You should go to college
• You should major in business
• You should break up with him/her
• You should try online dating

• You should stop being so anxious
• You should stop smoking
• I should not eat so much candy
• You should quit your job and find a new one

The opportunity to view the “shoulds” all at once allow us to see the impact they have on us. Many times the “shoulds” we tell ourselves represent regret for past actions. We are disappointed in the choices we have made or how we have treated others. We are using today’s information to evaluate the appropriateness of yesterday’s decisions. Rather than reflecting on how those past decisions were lessons learned, lessons that have helped us become this better person who is sorry for how we once acted, we focus on the regret.

This often leads to the next impact of “shoulds,” they often lead to self-deprecation. We begin to look at how “bad” or “useless” we are, how much worse we are than other people. When we say “I should be slimmer” we are criticizing who we are and how we look. We are not focusing on what might make us happier (like feeling healthier), we are focusing on what is wrong with us. We are often so much harder on ourselves than we are at others. If someone else exercises for ten minutes we encourage them and praise them; when we do it, the criticism often kicks in and the “I should have done more” comments discourage our efforts. Very often “shoulds” cause guilt and discouragement, not necessarily productive action. Rather than acting as a red flag that tells us change is needed, it acts as a way of keeping us stagnant.

To understand the importance of this, we need a bit of background on Humanistic psychology (Carl Rogers). Humanists contend that “shoulds” signify the incongruity between our real selves (who we truly are) and our idealized selves (who we think we need to be in order to be loved). “Should”, in essence, represents conditions of our worth. We think we “should” do more/less/different things in order to be loved by others. If we were thinner, smarter, taller, funnier, then we would be more popular.

This brings me to the second part of the assignment that I give to my students. I ask them to change the word “should” to “need” or “want” and reflect if it makes any difference in how they feel. Review your own should list and give it a try yourself before you continue reading.

When we change the phrase from “I should be more organized” to “I want to be more organized” the focus shifts slightly to a consideration of an action that must be taken in order to accomplish this. If the phrase is “I need to be more organized” the motivation becomes more internalized. The word “want” changes the way the task is viewed and how it is prioritized. The word “need” requires us to answer the question “why?” – “Why do I need to?” Sometimes that eliminates an item from our list, sometimes it increases our sense of purpose and urgency and intensifies the desire to do something about it. The result is more likely to be an action than a feeling of guilt or discouragement. The focus is back on our real self, the person we are – the person who wants to improve in some area – not because we are unlovable as we are but because we will be happier with this change in our behavior. It is a change in what we do, not who we are.

If we consider the “shoulds” we hear from others, it becomes evident that we often hear these as considerations of our worth, of what we need to do/improve upon/change in order to be loved. “You should listen to mommy/daddy/me (your friend or lover).” We hear “You should take my advice because I’m smarter/more experienced/more logical than you are.” We hear only what is wrong with us and we usually, again, feel discouragement. Sometimes we feel sadness. Sometimes it is anger.

If we consider, instead, what the statement means to the other person – what it means about their ideal self – it sounds very different. Now it would sound like “An ideal mom has children who listen so please listen.” If the statement is “You should go to college” the person may be saying “If I were an ideal parent, I would have gone to college and been able to provide more while working less.” If we hear the communication this way, our response to them might be very different. We might respond to the latter statement with, “I don’t want to go to college now, but I really appreciate that you are looking out for my best interest. I know you worked hard to give me all you have given me and I appreciate it. So, I will go to college when I am ready to take full advantage of what it has to offer.”

I have had many students tell me that this assignment has really changed their perspective. It has helped them accomplish things on their list rather than talking about it or worrying about it or feeling bad about it. I have had others say it has caused them to change their list. I had one student say that when she changed what she said to her brother (from “I really should see your kids more” to “I want to see your kids more”), it completely changed her relationship with him. He told her he had always assumed she didn’t really want to visit, but felt obliged to visit. When she said she wanted to visit, he asked what was stopping her and how he could help her overcome those obstacles. Big changes from small changes.

Maybe you should give it a try.

Wait, what I meant to say was, “I want you to try” or maybe “An ideal psychologist would have been able to convince you to give it a try.”

Should. I hope you will never hear it the same way again.