Alternatives to Guilt

I think I took myself down a rabbit hole

I was just confused by the fact that you would take a stand against emotional appeal/moralization by utilizing emotional appeal (the poor helpless kids...)

Another potential communication pitfall: I was focusing on social adult context, work for instance, where you may have to draw boundaries for the common good, where each and everyone should have the right to breath, exist, express themselves. School is another context were common good should be taken into consideration. As opposed to one one one (therapeutic) setting.

The question though has merit, how much of a therapeutic tool is moralization (in the sense I outlined)?

Based on my readings, it depends on the therapist: some NPD therapists call their patients out, some don't. It also depends on the patient and how far they are in the therapeutic process.

I find that the truth usually comes out eventually - sometimes just a little too late.

Yes.

Let me know if you discover any tips for being outspoken in these types situations that are effective. Lol.

Just my experience, but it depends on the leadership. If the leadership is insecure, you're in for a Don Quixotesque fight, if the leadership is strong, they can bring people together regardless of deep individual issues.

How do you mean by "I don't necessarily trust the expression of anger itself"?

Exactly what you said above: in the past, when people have been intent on misunderstanding me, my anger just gave them an additional reason to cast me in a bad light or create a diversion.

As a result, I had mixed results expressing anger.

I'm not going to pretend I do a great job of any of this anymore.

Not necessarily your fault...

Too much guilt can paralyze and drown people, or harden into indifference, making them not able to utilize it. People often mistake the latter (the indifference) as there being a need to increase sensitization, but oddly enough, I've found it's often the opposite.
^
In those instances, you actually need to bring it down enough for them (without cosigning it obviously) to even be able to face the situation(s) / behavior(s) that they want to address.
It's easier when it's more transactional than emotional.
*Also, if it is to happen, they "thaw out" at their own pace.

This makes sense to me.

Overall, everything you wrote made sense, just a caveat.

People don't need guilt or empathy to correct their behaviors because corrective measures are necessary to protect their recovery.

Ideally, we always want guilt, emotions or empathy, because those are tools to help navigate life, achieve goals or ward off dangers.

It's just sometimes we don't have them or we miss some.

The AA process, like CBT, is behavior based, as opposed to psychotherapy, that is going to address the underlying reasons behind the behavior.

I am not saying that you can't mixed methods or achieve great results with AA steps or CBT alone, but they're just not designed to help you acquire new tools.

Therefore, if my goal is to be functional, I may not need psychotherapy, to understand my emotions or increase my range of empathy. But if my goal is to eliminate all discomfort, cognitive dissonances etc., I have to delve a bit further.

I forgot to add, that I also don't bother trying to clarify very often because I tend not to believe people to be honest which makes me assume others think the same thing of me so there's no point.

Interesting. Unironically, I find that this is a great method to avoid disappointment.

-- Wed May 20, 2020 5:21 pm --

justonemoreperson wrote:Guilt is just social conditioning.

Punish a kid for being naughty and they'll associate a bad feeling with that behaviour for the rest of their lives. That's your conscience.

If a kid has been taught to share (within reason), they will feel guilty when they behave selfishly as adult. No need to punish them.

^^ Agreed, I think people confuse inappropriate guilt or emotions and think all negative emotions are bad when in fact they are the framework for how people know how to go through life and how to conduct themselves. Having an overly guilty conscience or shame is where the problem is. Normal healthy people with normal feelings of guilt and other emotions are able to maintain healthy boundaries which is something disordered people struggle with. The goal in my humble opinion is to learn to use these and not try and deny them or devalue their purpose. Even Anxiety can Be a powerful motivator as long as it doesn’t escalate into irrational levels

ViniStonemoss wrote:

I think I took myself down a rabbit hole

I was just confused by the fact that you would take a stand against emotional appeal/moralization by utilizing emotional appeal (the poor helpless kids...)

Except, I never said they were poor or helpless, so not only do I disagree, but I'm still in the rabbit hole in understanding what you mean.

ViniStonemoss wrote:School is another context were common good should be taken into consideration. As opposed to one one one (therapeutic) setting.

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you because my mind goes straight to the public education system.

Schools are already set up for the "common good" aka mainstream populations.

What they're not set up for, are the kids living in poverty, ones experiencing mental disorders, ones in dysfunctional homes (with caregivers with mental disorders, chronic illness, or family addictions and/or violence and abuse), they're not set up for kids already experiencing mental illness and/or addictions themselves, teenaged mothers, or experiencing any other poor social determinants of health.
They're not set up for kids with behavioral disorders, ADHD,  physical disabilities, autism spectrum, geniuses, intellectually disabilities, kids bullied, alternaterative learners, or anything not "common"

Instead of proper supports in place including necessary "one on one" (including therapeutic supports), specialized learning environments, etc., they're set up to weed out the un-"common" which is good for the common, yet why it's failing miserably.

ViniStonemoss wrote:The question though has merit, how much of a therapeutic tool is moralization (in the sense I outlined)?

Based on my readings, it depends on the therapist: some NPD therapists call their patients out, some don't. It also depends on the patient and how far they are in the therapeutic process.

I agree that it makes sense depending on the client and their rapport / therapeutic relationship. 

ViniStonemoss wrote:Exactly what you said above: in the past, when people have been intent on misunderstanding me, my anger just gave them an additional reason to cast me in a bad light or create a diversion.

As a result, I had mixed results expressing anger.

I wonder if it was the way the anger was expressed rather than the experience of anger itself that caused the issue.

ViniStonemoss wrote:

People don't need guilt or empathy to correct their behaviors because corrective measures are necessary to protect their recovery.

Ideally, we always want guilt, emotions or empathy, because those are tools to help navigate life, achieve goals or ward off dangers.

It's just sometimes we don't have them or we miss some.

For sure. My point was looking for alternatives and gears down for not having (or not having access to) them.

And though I can agree moralization might have merit for some people, I don't think it's necessary to start worrying about things like guilt or empathy from the get go --- or even at all if that's the person's reality (hence searching for ideas for a "gear down" / alternatives).

You start where someone is at - not where you are or where you want them to be.
Turns out, I'm also a strong believer of self-determination meaning the individual doing the work decides what they value focusing on (and to what extent) when it comes to their goals.

However, the more I write, the more I realize I'm thinking of people with addictions and "end of the line" youth with severe behavioral issues in relation to trauma rather than NPD, so perhaps the needs are different.

ViniStonemoss wrote:The AA process, like CBT, is behavior based, as opposed to psychotherapy, that is going to address the underlying reasons behind the behavior.

12 Step programs focus on gaining insight on self and getting down to causes and conditions ---- but then the recommendation is to work through any deeper issues with a professional while you work on improving your behavior and personal relationships with the program.

ViniStonemoss wrote:I am not saying that you can't mixed methods or achieve great results with AA steps or CBT alone, but they're just not designed to help you acquire new tools.

Can't say I've been much for CBT, but the steps are there to help people acquire "beginners" tools or a foundation (if the individual handle the format).

For me, I needed a mixture of psychotherapy and the 12 steps, but like I tried to imply from the get go, I can respect if people who find issue with it.

SMART Recovery seems like a decent idea too. It would be more CBT and with no spiritual requirements, no sponsor/sponsor, no self labeling and there being no refering to clean time necessary.

ViniStonemoss wrote:Therefore, if my goal is to be functional, I may not need psychotherapy, to understand my emotions or increase my range of empathy. But if my goal is to eliminate all discomfort, cognitive dissonances etc., I have to delve a bit further.

I'm interpreting this as you're committed to personal growth - and that, when it comes to the goals that are important to you (such as addressing indepth thought processes, etc), you've found your success and insight through utilizing psychotherapy, as opposed to 12 steps and behavioral therapies.

HSS wrote:

Squaredonutwheels wrote:Guilt is emotional self mutilation. It's a way to split oneself into a victim of emotional violence while simultaneously being the tyrant that inflicts it.

It's a way to feel ones own power while feelings its effects immediately also.

People who feel guilty and make ostentanesious displays of it are flexing

"look at the kind of emotional violence I can both dish out AND take"

Do you mean that through guilt people get a pleasure from their power (as they are sadistic against themselves), or that their power is used to be the "watchdog" of the other's violent request (because they foresee that they will lose the external power war)?

I mean: is this use of one's own power driven by pleasure, by fear or both?

how to get someone to eat theri veggies
You want the brocolli, the carrot or both?

How to overwrite meaning while disguised as a question.

My post never mentions pleasure or fear, yet this is what you have declared power means to you and wish for me to validate, by engaging within the framework you have placed over the top, of an otherwise opened field of ideas.

gives a little insight I guess

do you get turned on..

when you're afraid?

Esmoke wrote:^^ Agreed, I think people confuse inappropriate guilt or emotions and think all negative emotions are bad when in fact they are the framework for how people know how to go through life and how to conduct themselves. Having an overly guilty conscience or shame is where the problem is. Normal healthy people with normal feelings of guilt and other emotions are able to maintain healthy boundaries which is something disordered people struggle with. The goal in my humble opinion is to learn to use these and not try and deny them or devalue their purpose. Even Anxiety can Be a powerful motivator as long as it doesn’t escalate into irrational levels

Amen.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:Except, I never said they were poor or helpless, so not only do I disagree, but I'm still in the rabbit hole in understanding what you mean.

You come across as someone who does not shy away from moral commentaries. In this thread, you made a few.

On my end, I also expressed the opinion that if someone (be them child or adult) bullies you or someone else, it's appropriate to draw a boundary including moral concerns.

To which you replied:

I've cringed when I've seen people try to use moralizing on youth with RAD to try to push them into guilt or showing empathy.

I'm not sure why people think it's appropriate to try to appeal with "how do you think they/I feel when you do that?" to individuals who never (or rarely) experienced people in positions of power to show respect or regard for them - same with any other talk of "right" and "wrong"

Since it's a different topic from the one I was touching upon, I found this answer confusing. So I wondered if you were performing the very behavior you were denouncing: "trying to moralize or trying to force people into internalizing "wrongness".

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you because my mind goes straight to the public education system.

Schools are already set up for the "common good" aka mainstream populations.

What they're not set up for, are the kids living in poverty, ones experiencing mental disorders, ones in dysfunctional homes (with caregivers with mental disorders, chronic illness, or family addictions and/or violence and abuse), they're not set up for kids already experiencing mental illness and/or addictions themselves, teenaged mothers, or experiencing any other poor social determinants of health.
They're not set up for kids with behavioral disorders, ADHD, physical disabilities, autism spectrum, geniuses, intellectually disabilities, kids bullied, alternaterative learners, or anything not "common"

Instead of proper supports in place including necessary "one on one" (including therapeutic supports), specialized learning environments, etc., they're set up to weed out the un-"common" which is good for the common, yet why it's failing miserably.

I could not agree more but it's unclear to me how this ties back to Alternatives to Guilt or drawing boundaries with bullies. It sounds more like a personal rant?

I am not prejudiced against digression and following you there (the topic is interesting), I just want to be clear when it's happening.

I wonder if it was the way the anger was expressed rather than the experience of anger itself that caused the issue.

If you have any further input, I'd be interested to hear it...

I don't think it's necessary to start worrying about things like guilt or empathy from the get go --- or even at all if that's the person's reality (hence searching for ideas for a "gear down" / alternatives).

I never ever said that. I wrote the exact opposite: that there is plenty to work from outside of those.

You start where someone is at - not where you are or where you want them to be.

Is there something I wrote that gave off the impression that I wanted you to be anywhere?

However, the more I write, the more I realize I'm thinking of people with addictions and "end of the line" youth with severe behavioral issues in relation to trauma rather than NPD, so perhaps the needs are different.

That could be part of the miscommunication...

For me, I needed a mixture of psychotherapy and the 12 steps, but like I tried to imply from the get go, I can respect if people who find issue with it.

I'm interpreting this as you're committed to personal growth - and that, when it comes to the goals that are important to you (such as addressing indepth thought processes, etc), you've found your success and insight through utilizing psychotherapy, as opposed to 12 steps and behavioral therapies.

Your interpretation is correct, but I am not so much a purist as you may think. I found some CBT useful and had I come across AA steps, I probably would have as well. I genuinely believe in mixing methods. As of now, I'm finding indeed analytic as well as meditation techniques useful.

ViniStonemoss wrote:On my end, I also expressed the opinion that if someone (be them child or adult) bullies you or someone else, it's appropriate to draw a boundary including moral concerns.

To which you replied:

I've cringed when I've seen people try to use moralizing on youth with RAD to try to push them into guilt or showing empathy.

I'm not sure why people think it's appropriate to try to appeal with "how do you think they/I feel when you do that?" to individuals who never (or rarely) experienced people in positions of power to show respect or regard for them - same with any other talk of "right" and "wrong"

Since it's a different topic from the one I was touching upon, I found this answer confusing.

I have a habit of adding tangents in relation to the topic that interests me. I do it everywhere - though normally I state that I'm doing it.

ViniStonemoss wrote:So I wondered if you were performing the very behavior you were denouncing: "trying to moralize or trying to force people into internalizing "wrongness".

I might be, I've realized more than once that I have some of my own double standards for things.
I'm ok with that for the most part, but I might want to be more aware of when I'm doing it.

I don't moralize the people I'm working with though or people dear to me.

I added tangents that shifted the context which I'm thinking led me down the rabbit hole.

ViniStonemoss wrote:

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you because my mind goes straight to the public education system.

Schools are already set up for the "common good" aka mainstream populations.

What they're not set up for, are the kids living in poverty, ones experiencing mental disorders, ones in dysfunctional homes (with caregivers with mental disorders, chronic illness, or family addictions and/or violence and abuse), they're not set up for kids already experiencing mental illness and/or addictions themselves, teenaged mothers, or experiencing any other poor social determinants of health.
They're not set up for kids with behavioral disorders, ADHD,  physical disabilities, autism spectrum, geniuses, intellectually disabilities, kids bullied, alternaterative learners, or anything not "common"

Instead of proper supports in place including necessary "one on one" (including therapeutic supports), specialized learning environments, etc., they're set up to weed out the un-"common" which is good for the common, yet why it's failing miserably.

I could not agree more but it's unclear to me how this ties back to Alternatives to Guilt or drawing boundaries with bullies. It sounds more like a personal rant?

I am not prejudiced against digression and following you there (the topic is interesting), I just want to be clear when it's happening

Possibly a personal rant and tangent although I thought I was on topic to your school comment "School is another context where common good should be taken into consideration. As opposed to one one one (therapeutic) setting"
^
I interpreted this as saying that rather than taking personalized measures (I connect alternatives to guilt as personalized measures), one should disregard them for the mainstream school population.

I did acknowledge that I may have been misunderstanding you - and even more so when I realized I have been filtering everything for working with addicts and behavioral disorders.

ViniStonemoss wrote:

I don't think it's necessary to start worrying about things like guilt or empathy from the get go --- or even at all if that's the person's reality (hence searching for ideas for a "gear down" / alternatives).

I never ever said that. I wrote the exact opposite: that there is plenty to work from outside of those.

You start where someone is at - not where you are or where you want them to be.

Is there something I wrote that gave off the impression that I wanted you to be anywhere?

I definitely misunderstood you there because I thought you've been saying you have to feel guilt to make progress rather than that there's "plenty to work with from outside of these."

ViniStonemoss wrote:

However, the more I write, the more I realize I'm thinking of people with addictions and "end of the line" youth with severe behavioral issues in relation to trauma rather than NPD, so perhaps the needs are different.

That could be part of the miscommunication...

I believe I've done this very thing in more personal conversations with others which led to frustration on their end (probably because they thought I was changing my answers or "digressing") which made me offended at the accusation of dishonesty in what I was saying, etc. which led to frustration on both ends and ending of dialogues.

I don't think my tangents tie into disorganized thinking, but they might.
I like them, but maybe I might try to add more "tangent" warnings.

ViniStonemoss wrote:

For me, I needed a mixture of psychotherapy and the 12 steps, but like I tried to imply from the get go, I can respect if people who find issue with it.

I'm interpreting this as you're committed to personal growth - and that, when it comes to the goals that are important to you (such as addressing indepth thought processes, etc), you've found your success and insight through utilizing psychotherapy, as opposed to 12 steps and behavioral therapies.

Your interpretation is correct, but I am not so much a purist as you may think. I found some CBT useful and had I come across AA steps, I probably would have as well. I genuinely believe in mixing methods. As of now, I'm finding indeed analytic as well as meditation techniques useful.

Meditation techniques are nice.

Squaredonutwheels wrote:
do you get turned on..

when you're afraid?

in the vast majority of cases I turn off when I am afraid, my energy freezes.

I perceive the thrill just if I esteem that the risk is manageable/not serious, and if the situation lasts just some moments. I turn on most frequently other ways.

If a cat $#%^ on the sofa, you put its nose close to it, then put the cat in the litter.
Usually works on the first or second try.
People work the same.

On a large scale, shame is what is used, but it seems "psych 101" is clueless about what it is or how it works. If something bad happens, you take someone innocent that the culprits know is innocent and blame that person for the deed. It usually gets people in line, whether they are part of a conspiracy or not.

Guilt is the Christian spin on shame, but you have no real scapegoat, only one that is eternal and resurrects after killing. And he loves you. It also works for parental figures when they are disappointed, which assumes a loving relationship on both sides.

That's to make other people change. For personal change, it is simply about excellence and do what is right, learn from your mistakes. Develop principles and apply them, or emulate a role model. It takes efforts, discipline and punishment, as well as the ability to reason.

The problem is with weak people that want to change, or would like to change, but don't. That's where something like therapists can come in, figuring out what is stopping the change. Of course it does not work for dishonest people, so there is at least that requirement, and it also takes efforts and discipline and punishment, same as above, because nothing's free. But it can help with the reasoning part.

I think that's about it.

1PolarBear wrote:
That's to make other people change. For personal change, it is simply about excellence and do what is right, learn from your mistakes. Develop principles and apply them, or emulate a role model. It takes efforts, discipline and punishment, as well as the ability to reason.

In addition, it takes an internal motivator to personalise the issue. We all have personal behaviours that we know are damaging and we all know they're damaging and we all know how to change them. However, most don't.

Trying to change behaviours on their own isn't going to work, no matter how much discipline a person has, as they are the symptom of a mindset. People need a principle, so that their change can be justified to themselves.

For example. Someone tries to lose weight. They know they're a greedy twat and that they need to replace donuts with vegetables, but they don't. There's no mental reward for their behaviour change.

However, give them a principle to guide them, that they can be the proponent of, and everything changes.

People join Weight Watchers, get involved with some new super-food-slop-in-a-cup, become obsessed with toxin cleansing diets etc.

They need a personal paradigm to create a shift in mentality; something to share with others, to be the expert of.

We're told that faith can move mountains. But if you look at that phrase the other way around, what it tells us is that if people believe something then it doesn't matter what that is, it will create a whole set of behaviours in themselves that can cause them to change the way they see the world. And, they'll be obsessed with everyone else seeing their "truth. "You see it in prisoners "finding Jesus".

A fat girl I used to work with joined some slimming club, lost half a sheep in weight and walked around with a badge saying "ask me why I'm slim." She ended up being the regional supervisor for them, left work and did it full time. She didn't need to do that; she just needed to stop eating cake all day.

It's never about the behaviour; it's always about what we choose to believe as a guiding principle. We want society to reward us for our change in behaviour.