Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy (20 page)

I strongly suggest you practice this with a friend. The role-playing format will help you master the necessary skills needed when a real situation arises. If there is no one you feel comfortable with who could role-play with you effectively, a good alternative would be to write out imaginary dialogues between you and a hostile critic, similar to the ones you’ve been reading. After each harangue write down how you might answer using the empathy and disarming
technique. It may seem difficult at first, but I think you’ll catch on quite readily. It’s really quite easy once you get the gist of it.

You will notice you have a profound, almost irresistible tendency to
defend
yourself when you are unjustly accused. This is a MAJOR mistake! If you give in to this tendency, you will find that the intensity of your opponent’s attack
increases
! You will paradoxically be adding bullets to that person’s arsenal every time you defend yourself. For example, you be the critic again, and this time I’ll
defend
myself against your absurd accusations. You’ll see how quickly our interaction will escalate to full-scale warfare.

In contrast, if I respond with empathy and disarm your hostility, more often than not you will feel I am
listening
to you and
respecting
you. As a result you lose your ardor to do battle and quiet down. This paves the way for step three—feedback and negotiation.

You may find initially that in spite of your determination to apply these techniques, when a real situation arises in which you are criticized, you will be caught up by your emotions and your old behavior patterns. You may find yourself sulking, arguing, defending yourself vehemently, etc. This is understandable. You’re not expected to learn it all overnight, and you don’t have to win every battle. It is important, however, to analyze your mistakes afterward so that you can review how you might have handled the situation
differently along the lines suggested. It can be immensely helpful to find a friend to role-play the difficult situation with you afterward so that you can practice a variety of responses until you have mastered an approach you are comfortable with.

Step Three
—
Feedback and Negotiation
. Once you have
listened
to your critic, using the empathy method, and
disarmed
him by finding some way to agree with him, you will then be in a position to explain your position and emotions
tactfully
but
assertively
, and to negotiate any real differences.

Let’s assume that the critic is just plain wrong. How can you express this in a nondestructive manner? This is simple: You can express your point of view objectively with an acknowledgment you
might
be wrong. Make the conflict one based on fact rather than personality or pride. Avoid directing destructive labels at your critic. Remember, his error does
not
make him stupid, worthless, or inferior.

For example, a patient recently claimed that I sent a bill for a session for which she had already paid. She assaulted me with “Why don’t you get your bookkeeping straight!” Knowing she was in error, I responded, “My records may indeed be wrong. I seem to recall that you forgot your checkbook that day, but I might be confused on this point. I hope you’ll allow for the possibility that you or I
will
make errors at times. Then we can be more relaxed with each other. Why not see if you have a canceled check? That way we can find out the truth and make appropriate adjustments.”

In this case my nonpolarizing response allowed her to save face and avoided a confrontation in which her self-respect was at risk. Although it turned out she was wrong, she later expressed relief that I acknowledged I do make mistakes. This helped her feel better about me, as she was afraid I would be as perfectionistic and demanding with her as she was with herself.

Sometimes you and the critic will differ not on a matter
of fact but of taste. Once again, you will be a winner if you present your point of view with diplomacy. For example, I have found that no matter how I dress, some patients respond favorably and some negatively. I feel most comfortable in a suit and tie, or in a sports coat and tie. Suppose a patient criticizes me because my clothes are too formal and this is iritating because it makes me appear to be part of the ‘‘Establishment.” After eliciting further specific information about other things this person might dislike about me, I could then respond, “I can certainly agree with you that suits are a bit formal. You
would
be more comfortable with me if I dressed more casually. I’m sure you’ll understand that after dressing in a variety of ways, I have found that a nice suit or sports coat is most acceptable to the majority of the people I work with, and that’s why I’ve decided to stick with this style of dressing. I’m hopeful you won’t let this interfere with our continued work together.”

You have a number of options when you negotiate with the critic. If he or she continues to harangue you, making the same point again and again, you can simply repeat your assertive response politely but firmly over and over until the person tires out. For example, if my critic continued to insist I stop wearing suits, I might continue to say each time, “I understand your point entirely, and there
is
some truth to it. Nevertheless, I’ve decided to stick with more formal attire at this time.”

Sometimes the solution will be in between. In this case negotiation and compromise are indicated. You may have to settle for
part
of what you want. But if you have conscientiously applied the
empathy
and
disarming techniques
first, you will probably get
more
of what you want.

In many cases you will be just plain wrong, and the critic will be right. In such a situation your critic’s respect for you will probably increase by an orbital jump if you assertively
agree with the criticism
, thank the person for providing you with the information, and apologize for any hurt you might have caused. It sounds like old-fashioned common sense (and it is), but it can be amazingly effective.

By now you may be saying, “But don’t I have a
right
to defend myself when someone criticizes me? Why should I always have to empathize with the other person? After all,
he
may be the ninny, not I. Isn’t it
human
just to get angry and blow your stack? Why should I always have to
smooth
things out?”

Well, there is considerable truth in what you say. You
do
have the right to defend yourself vigorously from criticism and to get angry at anyone you choose whenever you like. And you are right on target when you point out that it is often your critic, and not you, whose thinking is fouled up. And there is more than a grain of truth behind the slogan “Better mad than sad.” After all, if you’re going to conclude that someone is “no damn good,” why not let it be the other fellow? And furthermore, sometimes it
does
feel so much better to be mad at the other person.

Many psychotherapists would agree with you on this point. Freud felt that depression was “anger turned inward.” In other words he believed depressed individuals direct their rage against themselves. In keeping with this view, many therapists urge their patients to get in touch with their anger and to express it more frequently to others. They might even say that some of the methods described in this section amount to a repressive cop-out.

This is a false issue. The crucial point is not whether or not you express your feelings, but the manner in which you do it. If your message is “I’m angry because you’re criticizing me and you’re no damn good,” you will poison your relationship with that person. If you defend yourself from negative feedback in a defensive and vengeful way, you will reduce the prospect for productive interaction in the future. Thus, while your angry outburst momentarily
feels good
, you may defeat yourself in the long run by burning your bridges. You have polarized the situation prematurely and unnecessarily, and eliminated your chance to learn what the critic was trying to convey. And what is worse, you may experience a depressive backlash and punish yourself inordinately for your burst of temper.

Antiheckler Technique
. A specialized application of the techniques discussed in this chapter might be particularly helpful for those of you who are involved in lecturing or teaching. I developed the “antiheckler technique” when I began lecturing to university and professional groups on current depression research. Although my lectures are usually well received, I occasionally find there is a single heckler in the audience. The heckler’s comments usually have several characteristics: (1) They are intensely critical, but seem inaccurate or irrelevant to the material presented; (2) they often come from a person who is not well accepted or regarded among his or her local peers; and (3) they are expressed in a haranguing, abusive style.

I therefore had to develop an antiheckler technique which I could use to silence such a person in an inoffensive manner so that the rest of the audience could have an equal opportunity to ask questions. I find that the following method is highly effective: (1) I immediately
thank
the person for his or her comments; (2) acknowledge that the points brought up
are indeed
important; and (3) I emphasize that there is a
need for more knowledge
about the points raised, and I encourage my critic to pursue meaningful research and investigation of the topic. Finally, I invite the heckler to share his or her views with me further after the close of the session.

Although no verbal technique is guaranteed to bring a particular result, I have rarely failed to achieve a favorable effect when using this upbeat approach. In fact, these heckling individuals have frequently approached me after the lecture to compliment and thank me for my kind comments. It is sometimes the heckler who turns out to be most demonstrative and appreciative of my lecture!

Summary
. The various cognitive and verbal principles for coping with criticism are summarized in the accompanying diagram (see Figure 6–2, page 146). As a general rule, when someone insults you, you will immediately go down one of three pathways—the
sad
route, the
mad
route, or the
glad
route. Whichever option you choose will be a total experience, and will involve your thinking, your feelings, your behavior, and even the way your body functions.

Figure 6–2.
The three ways that you might react to criticism. Depending on how you think about the situation, you will feel sad, mad, or glad. Your behavior and the outcome will also be greatly influenced by your mental set.