Current Articles | Categories | Search | Syndication
by guest blogger Melissa Kirk, co-author of Depression 101
I remember the moment I realized my rumination was contributing to my chronic low mood and sense of frustration with life. I lived about a mile away from my job, and in nice weather I would walk to work through neighborhoods of beautiful homes and lush gardens. People in Berkeley love their gardens! On my walk, though, I tended to ruminate - to obsess over what was wrong in my life, to replay difficult incidents and conversations, to worry about what I was missing: the right relationship, the perfect body, the "right" personality. By the time I got to work, I would often feel more tense or distracted than when I had started out, and often I would have missed the beauty of the homes and gardens along the way.
I always thought there was something inherently wrong with me that I got depressed and sad; I figured that somewhere, way back when, I hadn’t learned some vital lesson that others - the ones who didn’t get depressed - had learned. In the back of my mind I always figured I was flawed in a deep, core way that meant that I would never have the things that others had: marriage, successful career, physical beauty, the ability to connect easily with others. This is what I would ruminate over on my walk: why can I never seem to be able to do the things others do? What was wrong with me?
ACT gets a lot simpler once you can get your head around case conceptualization. To download the quick 'n simple case conceptualization sheet from ACT Made Simple, click here.
Recently, on an ACT listserve for therapists, someone asked for advice on dealing with elite professional athletes who insist "that their particular gift (sport) is a value. They do not agree that it is a goal in the service of values."
My suggestion was simply to provide some examples for clarity. For example, possible Sport-related GOALS: win the game/ win the race/ win the tournament/ break the record/ win the gold medal/ achieve my personal best/ do better than last time/ make the grade/ get selected for the team.
These can all be achieved, completed, ticked off the list – therefore they are goals.
From time to time I get asked at workshops, "What if my client has anti-social or destructive values?" I have personally never encountered this, nor have I ever heard of it. Destructive/antisocial rules and beliefs, yes; but destructive/antisocial values, no. This is a vitally important distinction, best illustrated with an example.
The next few posts are going to focus on values, as this is a concept that confuses many ACT newcomers.
The simplest definition of values in ACT is "desired qualities of ongoing action". (There are much more complex, and scientifically-accurate definitions, but this one will serve our purposes.) So, loosely speaking, values are how we want to act on an ongoing basis, whereas goals are what we want to get or have. Values are ongoing; goals can be completed and "ticked off the list".
ACT is ultimately about empowering human beings to get the most out of life. As I wrote in The Happiness Trap, “Life gives most to those who make the most of what life gives”. Through mindfully acting on our values, we can maximize the richness and fullness in our life, while accepting the pain that inevitably goes with it.
Last week, we considered how clients may object to the word ‘mind’. They may also object to the term ‘thoughts’. Typically this happens when the client insists that their thoughts are true. Therapist: "So what happens when you get all caught up in those thoughts about how lazy your husband is?" Client: "They’re not thoughts. They’re facts. He really is lazy. He never lifts a finger around the house. He’s a slob." Therapist: "Okay, so there’s a real issue here, isn’t there? Your husband does not do anything like the amount of housework you want." Client: "He does nothing. He’s a lazy slob." Therapist: "Okay. I can see this is a really important issue for you. This obviously really pushes your buttons. So we’ll go a bit deeper into it in just a moment, but first I think we need to reach an agreement on the words we use in session. A moment ago when I used the word ‘thoughts’ you objected; you said they’re not thoughts they’re facts." Client: "That’s right. They’re facts. He’s a lazy slob. That’s a fact." Therapist: "So here’s the thing – there are many different types of thoughts. Thoughts that state the truth we call 'facts'. But “facts” are only one type of thought. Do you know any other types of thought?" Client: "Errmm. I’m not sure." Therapist: ‘Well, here are a few other types of thought: plans, comparisons, judgments, criticisms, values, memories, predictions, opinions, attitudes, desires and so on. So 'facts' make up a very small percentage of the thoughts that we have each day. So I wonder, is it okay if we use the word 'thoughts' in these sessions, to mean all of your thoughts, not just the ones that are 'facts'? And if not, is there some other word – for example, if you prefer, we could use the technical term for thoughts – 'cognitions'?"
One of the simplest ways to create a context of defusion is to talk about ‘the mind’ in session as if it’s a separate entity. For example, we might say things like:
Russ Harris, MD, is an internationally acclaimed acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) trainer and author of The Happiness Trap, now published in over fifteen languages and twenty countries. He is widely renowned for his ability to train therapists in ACT in a way that is clear, accessible, and fun. ACT With Love: Stop Struggling, Reconcile Differences, and Strengthen Your Relationship with Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and his most recent book, ACT made Simple: An Easy-to-Read Primer on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, are published by New Harbinger Publications. His website is http://actmadesimple.com.
Books by Russ Harris