Another approach that works for some people is to develop the habit of being aware of oneself entering the spiral, and pay close attention to the process… to what my body is doing, what kinds of thoughts are entering my mind, what those thoughts are connected to, what external events are triggering them, what feelings they are eliciting, what memories/fantasies those feelings are evoking, and so forth.
For some people, that kind of introspection is not only a good way of causing the spiral to evaporate in the short term, but of causing the habit of spiraling to gradually subside.
(This is importantly distinct from identifying with and reinforcing the depressive thoughts and feelings themselves. That is, it’s not “Everything sucks… I’m stupid and worthless… I can’t get project X done… it’s going to suck and everyone’s going to yell at me… etc.”, rather it’s “I am feeling sad… I’m curling up in my chair… I’m judging myself… I’m thinking about project X… I’m fantasizing about failing at project X… I’m fantasizing about people treating me badly because I failed at project X… etc.”)
That’s an interesting technique; it sounds rather zen-inspired. Did you invent it, or where did you come across it?
As I understand it, Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (“CBT”) suggests arguing with your (sometimes negative) inner voice using all the rational-argumentation techniques at your disposal.
For example: “Everything Sucks” ⇒ “That would be an example of overgeneralization; if everything did suck, then like fish in water, we would have no word for it. The world is how it is, and there are positive aspects and negative ones. The features of the world that prompted my thinking ‘Everything Sucks’ may well be negative, but the world is big.”
“I’m stupid and worthless” ⇒ “That’s an example of emotional reasoning—believing something because I feel it, rather than because I have evidence, and possibly also fundamental attribution error. There are people, even relatively disinterested, professional people, who have described me as bright. Other people have described me as hard-working, which may be even more important to long-term success and capabilities than innate gifts. Fundamental attribution puts characteristics on people as if they were simple and unchanging from context to context and from one time to another. Actually, people are generally richly faceted, very situation-dependent and capable of growth.”
I didn’t invent it, and it is in fact inspired by the mindfulness meditation that is part of certain kinds of Zen practice (caveat: I am not even a plausible approximation of a Zen scholar; I just take what suits me and leave the rest behind).
As I understand it, there are lots of schools of CBT out there; what they share in common is a focus on addressing the thoughts that underlie our emotional reactions to events. The argue-with-yourself approach you describe here seems consistent with that, though I’d be surprised if it were endorsed by all CBT schools.
Another approach that works for some people is to develop the habit of being aware of oneself entering the spiral, and pay close attention to the process… to what my body is doing, what kinds of thoughts are entering my mind, what those thoughts are connected to, what external events are triggering them, what feelings they are eliciting, what memories/fantasies those feelings are evoking, and so forth.
For some people, that kind of introspection is not only a good way of causing the spiral to evaporate in the short term, but of causing the habit of spiraling to gradually subside.
(This is importantly distinct from identifying with and reinforcing the depressive thoughts and feelings themselves. That is, it’s not “Everything sucks… I’m stupid and worthless… I can’t get project X done… it’s going to suck and everyone’s going to yell at me… etc.”, rather it’s “I am feeling sad… I’m curling up in my chair… I’m judging myself… I’m thinking about project X… I’m fantasizing about failing at project X… I’m fantasizing about people treating me badly because I failed at project X… etc.”)
That’s an interesting technique; it sounds rather zen-inspired. Did you invent it, or where did you come across it?
As I understand it, Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (“CBT”) suggests arguing with your (sometimes negative) inner voice using all the rational-argumentation techniques at your disposal.
For example: “Everything Sucks” ⇒ “That would be an example of overgeneralization; if everything did suck, then like fish in water, we would have no word for it. The world is how it is, and there are positive aspects and negative ones. The features of the world that prompted my thinking ‘Everything Sucks’ may well be negative, but the world is big.”
“I’m stupid and worthless” ⇒ “That’s an example of emotional reasoning—believing something because I feel it, rather than because I have evidence, and possibly also fundamental attribution error. There are people, even relatively disinterested, professional people, who have described me as bright. Other people have described me as hard-working, which may be even more important to long-term success and capabilities than innate gifts. Fundamental attribution puts characteristics on people as if they were simple and unchanging from context to context and from one time to another. Actually, people are generally richly faceted, very situation-dependent and capable of growth.”
And so on.
I didn’t invent it, and it is in fact inspired by the mindfulness meditation that is part of certain kinds of Zen practice (caveat: I am not even a plausible approximation of a Zen scholar; I just take what suits me and leave the rest behind).
As I understand it, there are lots of schools of CBT out there; what they share in common is a focus on addressing the thoughts that underlie our emotional reactions to events. The argue-with-yourself approach you describe here seems consistent with that, though I’d be surprised if it were endorsed by all CBT schools.