“I endorse endorsing X” is a sign of a really promising topic for therapy (or your preferred modality of psychological growth).
If I can simply say “X”, then I’m internally coherent enough on that point.
If I can only say “I endorse X”, then not-X is psychologically load-bearing for me, but often in a way that is opaque to my conscious reasoning, so working on that conflict can be slippery.
But if I can only say “I endorse endorsing X”, then not only is not-X load-bearing for me, but there’s a clear feeling of resistance to X that I can consciously hone in on, connect with, and learn about.
I’d understand this better (and perhaps even agree) if there were a few examples and a few counter-examples to find the boundaries of when this is effective.
For myself, without more words like “I endorse endorsing X under Y conditions because X is good for those who are hearing the endorsement and not necessarily for the endorser”, I don’t see how it works. The direct, unconditional form just makes me notice my dissonance and worry at it until I either endorse X or not-X (or neither—I’m allowed to be uncertain or ambivalent or just “context-dependent”).
Ah, I’m talking about introspection in a therapy context and not about exhorting others.
For example:
Internal coherence: “I forgive myself for doing that stupid thing”.
Load-bearing but opaque: “It makes sense to forgive myself, and I want to, but for some reason I just can’t”.
Load-bearing and clear resistance: “I want other people to forgive themselves for things like that, but when I think about forgiving myself, I get a big NOPE NOPE NOPE”.
P.S. Maybe forgiving oneself isn’t actually the right thing to do at the moment! But it will also be easier to learn that in the third case than in the second.
“I endorse endorsing X” is a sign of a really promising topic for therapy (or your preferred modality of psychological growth).
If I can simply say “X”, then I’m internally coherent enough on that point.
If I can only say “I endorse X”, then not-X is psychologically load-bearing for me, but often in a way that is opaque to my conscious reasoning, so working on that conflict can be slippery.
But if I can only say “I endorse endorsing X”, then not only is not-X load-bearing for me, but there’s a clear feeling of resistance to X that I can consciously hone in on, connect with, and learn about.
I’d understand this better (and perhaps even agree) if there were a few examples and a few counter-examples to find the boundaries of when this is effective.
For myself, without more words like “I endorse endorsing X under Y conditions because X is good for those who are hearing the endorsement and not necessarily for the endorser”, I don’t see how it works. The direct, unconditional form just makes me notice my dissonance and worry at it until I either endorse X or not-X (or neither—I’m allowed to be uncertain or ambivalent or just “context-dependent”).
Ah, I’m talking about introspection in a therapy context and not about exhorting others.
For example:
Internal coherence: “I forgive myself for doing that stupid thing”.
Load-bearing but opaque: “It makes sense to forgive myself, and I want to, but for some reason I just can’t”.
Load-bearing and clear resistance: “I want other people to forgive themselves for things like that, but when I think about forgiving myself, I get a big NOPE NOPE NOPE”.
P.S. Maybe forgiving oneself isn’t actually the right thing to do at the moment! But it will also be easier to learn that in the third case than in the second.