Re: Confused about acceptance and rational thoughts

[Guest guest]

Hi Helena,

I like a lot of what you say, for example about making room for

sadness. And I think I know what you mean when you say that with

practice, we can notice that some thoughts are better defused from.

For example, I tend to overreact to situations where I imagine someone

is rejecting me; so if I know this, I can wait out my angry thoughts

until I am a bit cooler. That is just one example; I am sure there are

many more.

However I did want to add that for me at least, judging thoughts as

" rational " or " true " or " based on a false belief " only goes so far.

It's helpful for some situations, but not for others.

For example, it's almost impossible to decide what is " rational " or

" true " in situations where the outcome of any given action is highly

uncertain.

And I also think that for situations in which thoughts arise that have

to do with values & barriers - say, we meet a stranger (to use Sound

of Zen's example) and start worrying about if we are judging them - it

becomes less useful to pick which thoughts to defuse from, and more

useful to focus on the moment & on being present & get some distance

from the noise in our head.

And I think getting some distance from the evaluating mechanism of

" true " or " rational " etc. becomes even more vital when we are

perplexed about a difficult person or situation in our life and

" trying to figure it out. " I often see people I know & care for going

back and forth in their mind, trying to decide which of their many

contradictory thoughts are " true " or " rational " vs. " false " or

" irrational. "

It's a version of the old " polarity " hangup: a thought about something

especially sticky being " true " will often generate a thought that says

the polar opposite - and there we are, caught between the two.

On another point, I agree with you that values provide a beacon to

check in with - yet here too, I think what we are checking in with is

not our thoughts, but our choices & actions.

In other words, from the point of view of values, it is not so much

what we think, but what we choose to do. We can have all sorts of

crazy angry anxious thoughts going on in our head - and yet at the

same time we can move in a valued direction with our hands and feet,

in a way that is not controlled by these thoughts. There is even a

defusion exercise in " Get Out of Your Mind " which consists of

deliberately thinking one thing and doing the opposite!

For me at least, weighing thoughts for their rationality is becoming

less important. Other skills seem more useful to develop.

- Randy

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Hi Sound of Zen,

>

> This sounds to me like a variation on a very common question when

> first learning ACT: " If thoughts are things to be defused from, how

> can I know when I should or shouldn't trust a particular thought? "

>

> The goal in ACT isn't defusion per se, it's psychological flexibility

> in situations where psychological flexibility may be useful.

>

> To take your example of judging a stranger, there are at least a

> couple of ways I can think of that we can get hung up with thoughts

> that don't help us in such a situation.

>

> One problem might be that we see strangers in general as threats.

> Because we are following what is in effect a self-generated rule

> ( " treat strangers as threatening " ) we may not observe actual cues in

> the environment (i.e. how the stranger is behaving) that suggest this

> particular stranger is friendly. Thus we may miss out on many

> opportunities to grow & connect with people.

>

First of, Thank all of you for your answers!

I may have expressed myself a little clumpsy in the first post. I know that one

should only defuse from thoughts one doesnt find helpful. But I think basically

what I have a hard time grasping is the non-judgemental attitude towards one's

thoughts that ACT advocate.

For example:

If I'm first having the thought that I'm not so good at playing drums given that

I have played for 10 years.

What ACT advocates, from my understanding, is at this point to be aware that

this is just a thought, without interfering with it's content( " I'm noticing that

I'm having the thought that I'm not so good at drums " ) and then defuse from it.

What I automatically would do at this point is to first accept the thought, and

then find out whether the content of the thought is rational or irrational e.g

( " Ok, I'm having the thought that I'm not so good at drums given the long time I

have played. The reason why I'm not a pro is because I havent practiced a lot.

In fact, I have only practiced 3 years altogether, so the thought is

irrational. " )

So this rationalizing actually helped me, but it doesn't seem to be what ACT

advocates: a non-judgemental attitude towards all of one's thoughts and not

getting involved in the content of thought, just seeing the thought as a

thought.

I'm not really struggling with knowing which thoughts to trust or not, I often

know which thoughts to be trusted and which one that shouldnt be trusted. Like

in my example above, I trust the latter, rationalizing thought.

But my problem is that I don't know to what extent I should be non-judgemental!

Because if I'm supposed to be non-judgemental towards all my thoughts, I

shouldn't rationalize, because the process of rationalizing includes a judgement

about whether the thought is rational och irrational. And that is not seeing the

thought as just a thought. I'm just confused.

I most often feel secure when it comes to which thoughts to be trusted or not,

it is just that I don't know whether I should response to the first thought (the

irrational thought) or let it be. Responsing to it with a rational thought often

helps me, but I'm unsure whether it is in accordance with ACT.

Please don't get to hanged up on the example above, I couldn't come up with

anything else, but I hope you get my point, even though I have a very hard time

getting through. I'm not even sure that this is exactly what I mean!

[Guest guest]

Hi,

I'm raising a question here to see what people think.

What if, instead of trying to pick which thoughts and feelings to defuse from,

we keep it really simple and stand back from the whole internal shebang and

watch it all as it unfolds, moment by fascinating moment?

The obvious answer is that we risk remaining detached from the good things that

happen in our lives and stop ourselves from letting go and experiencing them

fully. Maybe there's such a thing as too much detachment. I don't know.

The big difficulty is that we can't will ourselves to let go and totally

experience the events we want to savour. It's like our mind is saying " let go

and go with the flow " , and it keeps checking to see if we're doing it, with the

result that we don't. Disappointing? You betcha.

SoundOfZen, your tag sounds like a koan, one of those questions that Zen asks

that has no logical answer. All we can do is hold the question in our mind until

an answer presents itself, an answer beyond what your mind can come up with.

What is the sound of Zen? Silence? The sound of everything as it is right now?

The sound of a bird where you are the bird and the bird is you?

Who knows? I sure as Hell don't, but it's a helluva fascinating question!

Cheers,

Stan

>

> I think I may have misinterpreted the whole purpose of defusion..

> Can someone clarify?

>

> Thank you all again! I really appreciate that you're responding!

>

[Guest guest]

That is the sort of thing I do Stan, I keep it simple, and don't really use defusion strategies, but I do use labelling, but most of it for me is standing back, breathing in the present moment, and looking at it all.______________________Signature: Mrs Em Equanimity This is my personal blog where I record my experience applying Acceptance Commitment Therapy to my anxiety and agoraphobia in particular, and my life in general. Feel free to browse. http://eyeofthehurricane-act.blogspot.com/--- El mié, 10/8/11, Stan escribió:De: Stan Asunto: Re: Confused about acceptance and rational thoughtsPara: ACT_for_the_Public Fecha: miércoles, 10 de agosto, 2011 08:51

Hi,

I'm raising a question here to see what people think.

What if, instead of trying to pick which thoughts and feelings to defuse from, we keep it really simple and stand back from the whole internal shebang and watch it all as it unfolds, moment by fascinating moment?

The obvious answer is that we risk remaining detached from the good things that happen in our lives and stop ourselves from letting go and experiencing them fully. Maybe there's such a thing as too much detachment. I don't know.

The big difficulty is that we can't will ourselves to let go and totally experience the events we want to savour. It's like our mind is saying "let go and go with the flow", and it keeps checking to see if we're doing it, with the result that we don't. Disappointing? You betcha.

SoundOfZen, your tag sounds like a koan, one of those questions that Zen asks that has no logical answer. All we can do is hold the question in our mind until an answer presents itself, an answer beyond what your mind can come up with. What is the sound of Zen? Silence? The sound of everything as it is right now? The sound of a bird where you are the bird and the bird is you?

Who knows? I sure as Hell don't, but it's a helluva fascinating question!

Cheers,

Stan

>

> I think I may have misinterpreted the whole purpose of defusion..

> Can someone clarify?

>

> Thank you all again! I really appreciate that you're responding!

>

[Guest guest]

Hi all,

I feel somewhat responsible for the sense of confusion I'm picking up

on this thread, since I posted two long messages that were apparently

not helpful but ... well, confusing. That's what I get for using

words! I will try one more time - if nothing else, maybe I will

provoke someone who really knows this stuff to step in and clarify.

Defusion in a way is really very simple. It refers only to " seeing

that a thought is not to be taken literally. " But because we spend so

much of our time doing exactly that - taking thoughts literally -

defusion can seem weird at first. And naturally questions arise.

Defusion is not about being " detached " from what we feel. It is in

fact the opposite - if you do some defusion & it succeeds, you are

likely to feel *more* not less. Why? Because you will no longer be

running away from whatever thoughts & feelings it was that you were

running away from.

Another way to put it is that defusion works on thoughts more than on

feelings - and yet because of the work with thoughts, feelings can be

more readily felt.

E.g. when we are fused, a thought like " This anxiety is unbearable "

gets taken literally, such that " anxiety " seems like something that

cannot be endured & must be gotten rid of or something really dire

will happen. And so we shrink our life to try & avoid this seemingly

terrible threat.

And yet anxiety is not the problem; and thoughts are not the problem.

The problem is not noticing that a thought is a thought and instead

sucking in the content " This anxiety is unbearable " and treating it

literally. That is fusion & that alone is what defusion targets.

Many different techniques can promote defusion. When Miss Equanimity

says she " steps back, " it is likely that there is some defusion going

on in the " stepping back " - the metaphor implicitly suggests we are

putting a little distance between us and whatever experience it was

that may have momentarily hooked us. Labeling is definitely a defusion

technique. Allowing yourself to feel sensations in your body directly

(e.g. where in your body " anxiety " lives) can be defusion - you are

deliberately unpacking the combination of sensation +

evaluation/thought about sensation, so as to feel the sensation

directly and notice that it is not a threat the way the thought says

it is a threat.

There are enough defusion techniques in the books that you can find

those you like & just use them. You can make up your own too.

Also, defusion works alongside acceptance, but it is not quite the

same thing as acceptance. It works alongside mindfulness of the

present moment, but it is not quite mindfulness. I wish we had Bill C.

around here to give us his ACT toolkit talk again & show why these are

different tools in the kit.

Now, because the idea of not taking thoughts literally seems to attack

the very role of thought in our lives, questions often come up as

they have in this thread: " Are thoughts still useful, and if so, when?

Which thoughts ought I to defuse from and which not? Can I question my

thoughts, or is that against the rules? " Etc.

I think the best answers to such questions are not literal answers,

but process answers - i.e. learn what life feels like when you learn

some skills and begin applying them. That's a much more fruitful

strategy than getting wrapped up in an endless debate with your mind.

The sklls are all are in the books - e.g. page 86 of " Get Out of Your

Mind " has a very short list of suggestions for " When to Use Defusion. "

Also, Steve has often posted useful answers to this sort of

question - if you search the list via Yahoo you can find many of these

posts. One I like is here:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/message/1074

Lastly, for a beautiful description of what it is like when defusion &

acceptance & willingess work, see p. 129 of " Get Out of Your Mind, "

where a client who had struggled with anxiety is quoted about how

defusion, mindfulness, willingness, etc. have helped him open up to

his full range of feelings. Here is just an excerpt to give the

flavor:

" It's like I've been given color. I was seeing black and white my

whole life, and it's like I see rainbows now and stuff. A lot of the

emotions I thought I couldn't have and wasn't willing to have ... I

get as much enjoyment out of those now as anything else. "

I'm not saying we should all be seeing rainbows or enjoying our

suffering or whatever. Sometimes life is painful & pain feels like

pain. And everyone is different & at a different stage. We don't need

to compare ourselves. But I think the idea expressed here that

defusion and other ACT skills are meant to open us up & get us engaged

is a good one. No detachment required!

- Randy

[Guest guest]

>

> It's just that I don't know whether I should response to the first thought

(the

> irrational thought) or let it be. Responding to it with a rational thought

often

> helps me, but I'm unsure whether it is in accordance with ACT.

See also my other (long) post of today about this sort of arm-wrestling

with thoughts. It is like arm-wrestling against yourself - very hard to

win.

Beyond that, you might be able to get more help from the list if you

give a little more context as to why you want to learn ACT.

Let me make up an example of why this might be so. Say that you

are anxious or self-critical a lot about not being a good enough

drummer yet, and somehow the anxiety or the self-critical thoughts

seem related to not practicing enough. (Remember, this is a made-up

example!) That would be a very rich context for asking about how

ACT might help with skills of defusion, acceptance, valuing, etc.

In other words, put the techniques into the context of your life rather

than isolating them. Isolated and abstract questions such as " Are rational

thoughts OK " are harder for folks here to respond to - it can wind up

being the equivalent of " How many angels can dance on the head of

a pin. "

- Randy

[Guest guest]

This lends so much clarity - no confusion here! I needed this refresher (even with a couple of years in ACT under my belt). Thanks, Randy.

Helena

To: "ACT for the Public" <ACT_for_the_Public >Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:52:41 AMSubject: Re: Confused about acceptance and rational thoughts

Hi all,I feel somewhat responsible for the sense of confusion I'm picking upon this thread, since I posted two long messages that were apparentlynot helpful but ... well, confusing. That's what I get for usingwords! I will try one more time - if nothing else, maybe I willprovoke someone who really knows this stuff to step in and clarify.Defusion in a way is really very simple. It refers only to "seeingthat a thought is not to be taken literally." But because we spend somuch of our time doing exactly that - taking thoughts literally -defusion can seem weird at first. And naturally questions arise.Defusion is not about being "detached" from what we feel. It is infact the opposite - if you do some defusion & it succeeds, you arelikely to feel *more* not less. Why? Because you will no longer berunning away from whatever thoughts & feelings it was that you wererunning away from.Another way to put it is that defusion works on thoughts more than onfeelings - and yet because of the work with thoughts, feelings can bemore readily felt.E.g. when we are fused, a thought like "This anxiety is unbearable"gets taken literally, such that "anxiety" seems like something thatcannot be endured & must be gotten rid of or something really direwill happen. And so we shrink our life to try & avoid this seeminglyterrible threat.And yet anxiety is not the problem; and thoughts are not the problem.The problem is not noticing that a thought is a thought and insteadsucking in the content "This anxiety is unbearable" and treating itliterally. That is fusion & that alone is what defusion targets.Many different techniques can promote defusion. When Miss Equanimitysays she "steps back," it is likely that there is some defusion goingon in the "stepping back" - the metaphor implicitly suggests we areputting a little distance between us and whatever experience it wasthat may have momentarily hooked us. Labeling is definitely a defusiontechnique. Allowing yourself to feel sensations in your body directly(e.g. where in your body "anxiety" lives) can be defusion - you aredeliberately unpacking the combination of sensation +evaluation/thought about sensation, so as to feel the sensationdirectly and notice that it is not a threat the way the thought saysit is a threat.There are enough defusion techniques in the books that you can findthose you like & just use them. You can make up your own too.Also, defusion works alongside acceptance, but it is not quite thesame thing as acceptance. It works alongside mindfulness of thepresent moment, but it is not quite mindfulness. I wish we had Bill C.around here to give us his ACT toolkit talk again & show why these aredifferent tools in the kit.Now, because the idea of not taking thoughts literally seems to attackthe very role of thought in our lives, questions often come up asthey have in this thread: "Are thoughts still useful, and if so, when?Which thoughts ought I to defuse from and which not? Can I question mythoughts, or is that against the rules?" Etc.I think the best answers to such questions are not literal answers,but process answers - i.e. learn what life feels like when you learnsome skills and begin applying them. That's a much more fruitfulstrategy than getting wrapped up in an endless debate with your mind.The sklls are all are in the books - e.g. page 86 of "Get Out of YourMind" has a very short list of suggestions for "When to Use Defusion."Also, Steve has often posted useful answers to this sort ofquestion - if you search the list via Yahoo you can find many of theseposts. One I like is here:http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ACT_for_the_Public/message/1074Lastly, for a beautiful description of what it is like when defusion & acceptance & willingess work, see p. 129 of "Get Out of Your Mind,"where a client who had struggled with anxiety is quoted about howdefusion, mindfulness, willingness, etc. have helped him open up tohis full range of feelings. Here is just an excerpt to give theflavor:"It's like I've been given color. I was seeing black and white mywhole life, and it's like I see rainbows now and stuff. A lot of theemotions I thought I couldn't have and wasn't willing to have ... Iget as much enjoyment out of those now as anything else."I'm not saying we should all be seeing rainbows or enjoying oursuffering or whatever. Sometimes life is painful & pain feels likepain. And everyone is different & at a different stage. We don't needto compare ourselves. But I think the idea expressed here thatdefusion and other ACT skills are meant to open us up & get us engagedis a good one. No detachment required!- Randy

[Guest guest]

Hi Soundofzen - The purpose of defusion, acceptance and the other core processes

of ACT is to help us live a valued life rather than struggle with thoughts,

feelings, emotions, etc that can get in the way. I find it helpful to look at

these things with curiosity - just observe them without fear, dread, anger, etc.

Doing so reduces the struggle.

I'm going to send you a PowerPoint presentation offline about the ACT hexaflex

that will explain psychological flexibility, mentioned by a previous poster.

Watch it like a slide show for the most benefit. If you do not have powerpoint

just google " powerpoint reader " for software that is compatible with your

computer.

Think of ACT as a three-legged stool. The first leg is SHOW UP and consists of

" self as context/observing self " and " contact with the present. " The second leg

is LET GO and consists of " defusion " and " acceptance. " The third leg is GET

MOVING and consists of " values " and " committed action. " ACT works best when you

use all six core processes rather than depending on just one or two of them.

Your observation about values in your first post is important. ACT works best if

you have a good idea of your values so you can figure out what thoughts are

helpful.

Bill

>

> I think I may have misinterpreted the whole purpose of defusion..

> Can someone clarify?

>

> Thank you all again! I really appreciate that you're responding!

>