Chapter Three: Inside-Out

 
To go to the Introduction Click Here
   
Hang on to your belief system—you are about to challenge deeply held core beliefs! Even if you initially resist these ideas, objectively compare them to your own life experiences. As humans, we tend towards projecting meaning onto things. While this, in and of itself, is not bad, when carried to an extreme, it leads to highly undesirable consequences. At worst, we tend to advance our interpretation of events to the level of “that’s the way it is for everyone.”


Three common false beliefs illustrate the depth of our deception. Reread these beliefs several times. One pass through the brain is not enough!

Lie One: Poverty Causes Crime

Often, this contention is repeated with an air of authority. At a press conference, the then U.S. Surgeon General announced that poverty is the root cause of crime. Excuses supporting this assumption include:

“Their background, environment, unfortunate experiences, lack of education, lack of opportunity...are the causes of…”

This flawed belief is easily disputed. If poverty causes crime, everyone brought up in less than desirable financial conditions would eventually engage in criminal activity. This just isn’t so.

Years ago, the Canadian Government relocated an Indian reservation, but some families refused to move. My father, an ordained minister, traveled by rail to conduct services and provide what help he could, including distributing donated clothing. I can still hear him telling me:

“David, if you give this clothing away at no price, you rob people of their self-respect. These are proud individuals who deserve to be treated with dignity.” People exchanged work or small amounts of money for the clothing, retaining their precious self-respect.

Wearing ribbons, spending a night sleeping on the streets etc. may help the person performing these acts feel good about themselves (a suspiciously familiar concept) but these symbolic acts do little to solve real problems. Sadly, such “symbolism over substance” actions tend to disrespect those they are designed to “help.”

Underprivileged individuals can, and do, rise above their circumstances. Poverty, in and of itself, is not the root cause of criminal behavior.

Poverty does not cause crime— criminals do!

Lie Two: He/She Makes Me Angry

I know you recognize this one. A person says or does something and you get angry insisting they are the cause of your distress. Thank goodness this isn’t true. Your feelings are related to their behavior, but they are not automatic, involuntary responses.

What if, in a personal relationship, one partner suggests the relationship would work better if the spouse would just change one tiny annoying characteristic? How might the other respond? Here’s an all too common reaction:

“If you don’t love (like, accept) me for who I am—forget it! This is me. If you don’t like it, there’s the door!”

Here’s another common scenario. A boss verbally attacks an employee, who then storms out of the room. Obviously, the angry outburst caused this reaction—right? No. Under similar circumstances, some people retaliate verbally or physically, while others file formal complaints. These distinctly different reactions indicate there is no direct cause-effect connection between anger and another person’s inappropriate behavior.

Many people believe strong emotions are normal biological body responses of varying intensity experienced by everyone. Your reaction is your responsibility. Blowing off steam may help you feel better, but it doesn’t change your perception that the world (and the people in it) must act as you demand. Wallowing in anger’s mud bath leaves you vulnerable. Changing your beliefs about anger frees you from the Inner-Horse’s childish nonsense. (“He/she shouldn’t do/say that!”) Yes, they should – because they did! Later we’ll expand on this somewhat controversial contention.

Lie Three: You Hurt My Feelings

Can people really hurt your feelings? No. If you doubt this, study the lives of those imprisoned, beaten, or tortured. Search out and read Viktor Frankl’s powerful Man’s Search For Meaning. In Nazi concentration camps, despite unbelievable treatment, many people including Frankl, retained their precious self-respect. Surely we can live by the axiom: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.

Here’s a sample of Frankl’s insight:

“In the concentration camp every circumstance conspires to make the prisoner lose his hold. All the familiar goals in life are snatched away. What alone remains is ‘the last of human freedoms’—the ability to ‘choose’ one’s attitude in a given set of circumstances.” 16

In a free society, others have the right and freedom to speak their mind, but you don’t have to accept their opinion. Feedback from others is useful, but be careful of its source. If you’ve been involved in an event reported by the press, you know the importance of evaluating the source of information. In spite of reporters’ attempts at objectivity, they do have a point of view (Private Logic.) I worked in several newsrooms and found most newscasters sincere in their efforts to be objective, but they had strong personal feelings, and this background showed up in their work.

An attendee at one of my seminars blamed her lack of enthusiasm on her father. (He died ten years before.) There is no doubt he influenced her, but, since he is unable to reconsider his actions, don’t you think its time she took over?

Does this contention sound familiar?

“It’s not my fault. He/she made me so mad that I just couldn’t concentrate. I was so stressed out that I got this terrific headache and couldn’t think clearly.”

Claiming this kind of helplessness is an easier position to take than fully accepting personal responsibility. Some workers even negotiate stress days taking time off from the pressures of their jobs. Rest and relaxation makes sense, but allowing people to label workload as the cause of their anxiety deflects them from fully accepting personal responsibility. Workload does not cause stress. (This is an important distinction.)

Freedom to take risk and suffer the consequences of our behavior is the cornerstone of a free society. Unfortunately there are those who advocate feeling good about themselves—even if it means giving up their freedom to succeed and/or fail. Some self-esteem advocates go so far as to blame imaginary villains for clearly self-inflicted problems. Their favorite is the inner child.

Dr. Ellis says it best: “The only person with an inner child is a pregnant woman!” No one but you can hurt your feelings; therefore the wounded child is a masochist! I like the inner child concept as an analogy but not as an excuse for inappropriate behavior.

During the VE-Day 50th anniversary commemoration, one veteran said: “Years ago we didn’t know we had an inner child and if we did, we’d send it to bed without supper.”

Some people get themselves upset at this kind of talk, but I contend that we are not helpless victims of the past. Today’s behavior is the result of today’s decisions, even if we are strongly influenced by the past.

Some professional football players have fallen victim to self-esteem’s seductive blame game. The day before a game where the Miami Dolphins played the Buffalo Bills, linebacker Bryan Cox commented on his hatred for Buffalo fans setting him up as a target. Cox filed suit against the National Football League, claiming racial discrimination prompted him to drink heavily and lose his intensity. Quoted in the Palm Beach Post he said: “For the first nine games you saw Bryan Cox playing with emotion and kicking butt. But for the last five games you saw a person who was just out there.” The NFL fined Cox $10,000 for using obscene gestures, but his attorneys contended the NFL forced Cox to play in a “racially hostile” environment. (Later, the commissioner reduced the fine to $3,000.) This and many similar stories, illustrate the ramifications of self-esteem’s dirty tricks. Cox is entitled to exercise his legal right to hold others accountable for their behavior, but it seems excessive to blame the Buffalo fans for his “loss of intensity and focus.”

Fifty years ago in Escape From Freedom, Erich Fromm wrote:

“Escape From Freedom is an analysis of the phenomenon of man’s anxiety...After centuries of struggles, man succeeded in building an undreamed-of wealth of material goods; he built democratic societies in parts of the world, and recently was victorious in defending himself against new totalitarian schemes, yet,...modern man still is anxious and tempted to surrender his freedom to dictators of all kinds, or to lose it by transforming himself into a small cog in the machine, well fed, and well clothed, yet not free but an automaton.”

Fromm clearly describes today’s world:

“In recent decades ‘conscience’ has lost much of its significance. It seems as though neither external nor internal authorities play any prominent role in the individual’s life. Everybody is completely ‘free,’ if only he does not interfere with other people’s legitimate claims. But what we find is rather that instead of disappearing, authority has made itself invisible. Instead of overt authority, ‘anonymous’ authority reins. It is disguised as common sense, science, normality, public opinion...It is like being fired at by an invisible enemy. There is nobody and nothing to fight back against.” 17

Fromm’s insight is eerie since much of today’s conventional wisdom is based on self-esteem’s flawed assumptions.

Don’t blame yourself for things over which you have no control. You are not responsible for other people’s feelings or reactions—just your own.

In case you assume I am endorsing insensitive behavior, consider this: In Saved By The Light, Dannion Brinkley describes how, after being struck by lightning, he was declared clinically dead. He vividly relived his life in an instant (a common phenomenon) with an unusual twist. He viewed it from the other person’s point of view, feeling their pain in response to his behavior. Whether his experience was “real” is not my point. He certainly offers a chilling perspective.

Contending we are not responsible for other people’s feelings doesn’t give us the right to ignore the impact our behavior has on them. Confucius said: “The best people foster the good in others, not the bad. The worst people foster the bad in others, not the good.”

Treating each person as if our actions make them feel bad or good is fine as long as we avoid the arrogant position that we are responsible for their feelings. This may seem like a minor distinction, but it keeps us from inadvertently treating others with disrespect.

Chapter Four: Click Here

Introduction: Click Here