There is a good discussion going on the excellent http://closetstutterer.blogspot.com/ about the causes of stammering.
My contribution to the comments is the request for an update on Sophie's progress. The posts then get a bit out of sync.
Rather than joining that discussion I thought to let you know of it and add my own view here.
When I was 6yrs old I copied a boy in my class who stammered. My mother told me to speak properly and that was the end of that. The point is I copied one of my peer group. The lad was popular in the class and we were friends. I copied his way of speaking and we all do that.
I live in a town where there are a lot of parents with English accents and their children have Scottish accents. Who have the children modelled? When I was small I went on holiday to Ireland every year for 4-5 weeks and came back with an Irish accent.
Children unconsciously copy other people. It is worthwhile being clear about the difference between learning, copying or modelling, and teaching. Children copy others: parents, peer group - this is often passive learning. They are also taught actively and both mechanisms result in learning.
As a teenager I deliberately copied a stammering TV character for a few months till the benefit of not stammering was made clear to me. We emulate TV personalities in terms of other behaviours, language and dress: so why not how they speak - stammering?
I am not convinced that stammering that 'runs in families' cannot be explained by children copying adults. Copying others is what children and adults do.
Just watch people at a cafe and look how one mirrors the others' behaviour. This isn't deliberate. It is part of the cybernetics of rapport . Drop an unusual but sensible word into a conversation at a meeting and notice how long it takes someone to take it up and how often it is repeated. Rapport again. Subconscious. Why should stammering be different?
This is not to say that stammering is always a result of copying or modelling others' behaviour. I think stammering emerges as a behaviour and will have multiple ingredients that will be specific to the PWS. But copying can be one of the ingredients.
From the previous posts you will realise that I don't believe in cause-effect: so I would speculate that habit, self perception, shame and guilt, self consciousness and feelings of victimisation will eventually be added to the mix. All of this directs the PWSs attention back onto herself - just the state of affairs that perpetuates the problem ie the attempt at the solution becomes the problem - see previous posts.
And a Happy Christmas to all my Readers!
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Friday, December 14, 2007
What stops me
If speech has to be effortless, what is the prior effort about and how are you making the effort?
Reading the articles on stammering sites it is clear that attention is focussed on fear of stammering. So investigating these fears is a good way of starting, and writing the findings down is the only way of separating the ingredients if you are working by yourself.
Having identified them are the fears reasonable or are they fears that have no real substance? Do other people actually care about your stammer as much as you think? What is your evidence?
However, concerns about stammering don't actually deal with the original situation from which the stammer emerged and how the ingredients are being brought together ie The 'why me?' question. What was going on in your life when you started stammering. If you were at school or before hand could you have copied someone elses stammer? What were the school or family circumstances going on when you began stammering?
Other suggested questions:
What am I thinking when I stammer?
What is the effort attempting to solve?
Am I making the effort as a child would or as an adult?
Am I seeing the world, in terms of speaking, as a child or adult?
Pick a single episode where you stammered and investigate that, otherwise it is too easy to theorise or rely on myth to explain your thinking. The theory and the myth will have major errors. It is your actual thinking that is important and if you can't be clear about that then try to guess but be clear that you are guessing and treat the result tentatively.
The judgment should follow the description and don't be in too much of a hurry to converge on the answers.
If you don't write the answers out you will be doing yourself a disservice.
Reading the articles on stammering sites it is clear that attention is focussed on fear of stammering. So investigating these fears is a good way of starting, and writing the findings down is the only way of separating the ingredients if you are working by yourself.
Having identified them are the fears reasonable or are they fears that have no real substance? Do other people actually care about your stammer as much as you think? What is your evidence?
However, concerns about stammering don't actually deal with the original situation from which the stammer emerged and how the ingredients are being brought together ie The 'why me?' question. What was going on in your life when you started stammering. If you were at school or before hand could you have copied someone elses stammer? What were the school or family circumstances going on when you began stammering?
Other suggested questions:
What am I thinking when I stammer?
What is the effort attempting to solve?
Am I making the effort as a child would or as an adult?
Am I seeing the world, in terms of speaking, as a child or adult?
Pick a single episode where you stammered and investigate that, otherwise it is too easy to theorise or rely on myth to explain your thinking. The theory and the myth will have major errors. It is your actual thinking that is important and if you can't be clear about that then try to guess but be clear that you are guessing and treat the result tentatively.
The judgment should follow the description and don't be in too much of a hurry to converge on the answers.
If you don't write the answers out you will be doing yourself a disservice.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Effortless speech
What did I learn from my visit to the Glasgow group?
That stammering is unbelievably effortful and that speaking is effortless.
Why?
Because the PWS is doing a great many things in their head, and when pushed and given no time to think the internal dialogue has to stop and so, like the rest of us, the PWS speaks effortlessly to get his point across.
I have also noticed this before with PWS. When not given the luxury of time to plan and second guess and go internal: speaking becomes effortless. When the attention is directed beyond, to the topic or the other person or group, speech becomes effortless.
I think we should stop talking about fluency or ‘normal’ speech and instead look to EFFORTLESSLY SPEAK. You have to work to be fluent but you can speak effortlessly - toddlers do and so did most PWS did before they didn't.
As with blushing: we can’t effortfully not blush, it has to be effortless and when we don’t make an effort we don’t blush!!
That stammering is unbelievably effortful and that speaking is effortless.
Why?
Because the PWS is doing a great many things in their head, and when pushed and given no time to think the internal dialogue has to stop and so, like the rest of us, the PWS speaks effortlessly to get his point across.
I have also noticed this before with PWS. When not given the luxury of time to plan and second guess and go internal: speaking becomes effortless. When the attention is directed beyond, to the topic or the other person or group, speech becomes effortless.
I think we should stop talking about fluency or ‘normal’ speech and instead look to EFFORTLESSLY SPEAK. You have to work to be fluent but you can speak effortlessly - toddlers do and so did most PWS did before they didn't.
As with blushing: we can’t effortfully not blush, it has to be effortless and when we don’t make an effort we don’t blush!!
Friday, November 30, 2007
Identity
I have just come across a very interesting article at http://www.stammering.org/heidi4.html and Heidi who has had some success with the SpeechEasy device says, 'therapy support has been vital for me, in order to explore who I am now that I don't stammer so much'.
This supports my last post, I think.
But use anything that helps apart from drugs.
As for the rest of the article: I have reservations about how people interpret brain imaging - I do it for a living. The main thing to remember is that evidence of association is not evidence of causation. What comes first: the function or the structure? And imaging may show which structures are associated, or not, with a behaviour. Occasionally there is a structural abnormality which is clearly seen: as in some cases of epilepsy and tumours.
Shyness, anger and depression may show changes in in imaging but does that mean there is a 'causal' relationship? Very rarely.
This supports my last post, I think.
But use anything that helps apart from drugs.
As for the rest of the article: I have reservations about how people interpret brain imaging - I do it for a living. The main thing to remember is that evidence of association is not evidence of causation. What comes first: the function or the structure? And imaging may show which structures are associated, or not, with a behaviour. Occasionally there is a structural abnormality which is clearly seen: as in some cases of epilepsy and tumours.
Shyness, anger and depression may show changes in in imaging but does that mean there is a 'causal' relationship? Very rarely.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
What is there to lose?
If you could speak without stammering what would you have to lose?
Seems a daft question but please take it seriously.
You might think in terms of regret about the missed opportunities, the fear of losing the excuses you have had not to do things, of not knowing who you would be - a biggy! or many other things - all legitimate.
How much of your identity is involved in your stammering or vice versa?
At first you may think you have nothing to lose but remember your stammering is part of your behaviour and our behaviour is our evidence for who we think we are. And it is a cybernetic relationship. We are what we do.
I am a smoker ( I actually wouldn't be seen dead smoking) therefore if I smoke I confirm my identity as a smoker. I may be a non-smoker and occasionally smoke, or a smoker who doesn't smoke. The latter is very hard work. Easier not to smoke if a non-smoker but this requires an identity change - not impossible if recognised but can be a big hurdle if unconscious.
The hard work of the covert PWS comes to mind.
Good book INFLUENCE by Robert Cialdini. How do we influence ourselves? Our behaviour is our feedback.
So, what do you have to lose?
Seems a daft question but please take it seriously.
You might think in terms of regret about the missed opportunities, the fear of losing the excuses you have had not to do things, of not knowing who you would be - a biggy! or many other things - all legitimate.
How much of your identity is involved in your stammering or vice versa?
At first you may think you have nothing to lose but remember your stammering is part of your behaviour and our behaviour is our evidence for who we think we are. And it is a cybernetic relationship. We are what we do.
I am a smoker ( I actually wouldn't be seen dead smoking) therefore if I smoke I confirm my identity as a smoker. I may be a non-smoker and occasionally smoke, or a smoker who doesn't smoke. The latter is very hard work. Easier not to smoke if a non-smoker but this requires an identity change - not impossible if recognised but can be a big hurdle if unconscious.
The hard work of the covert PWS comes to mind.
Good book INFLUENCE by Robert Cialdini. How do we influence ourselves? Our behaviour is our feedback.
So, what do you have to lose?
Sunday, November 25, 2007
safety in stumblers
Safety in Stumblers has kindly given me an opportunity to attend the meeting on 3rd December.
I don't know yet what I will do at the meeeting. The last time I spoke to them, 2 years ago, I gave an overview of modelling which might be applied to stammering.
What kind of folk do I hope will be there?
One of the things I have found dealing with academics and others who have thought deeply and long about their condition, whether it be stammering or dyslexia or fear of flying, is that the more baggage they bring to the table the harder it is to convince them of any change. I worked with a dyslexic girl who could spell long words easily when I showed her how but remained unconvinced that it was how she was doing spelling that was the problem and so didn't practice or improve. It was too simple. I only had one session with her so a convincer session was missing!
One of the things thinking about a problem over a period of time does is build up a myth about it. My problem is special and complex and meaningful and so it should be impossible to change easily. I have had PWS tell me that they can see what I am getting at but not actually doing what I ask them to do. Yes, theory is interesting but if I don't taste a food no amount of description will substitute.
I am a practical chap. If I try something and it works then I don't second guess it. I try to use it and think about it later not at the time. I want to do the whatever it is as well as I can, at the time of the work. I don't want to be distracted by extraneous thoughts.
I might look for a volunteer to work with or talk about my working with PWS. Depends what they want on the night, I suppose. It will be sharing rather than preaching. The stuff on this blog is about life in general and I use stammering as an application. But the models and ways of thinking have universal applications.
I don't know yet what I will do at the meeeting. The last time I spoke to them, 2 years ago, I gave an overview of modelling which might be applied to stammering.
What kind of folk do I hope will be there?
One of the things I have found dealing with academics and others who have thought deeply and long about their condition, whether it be stammering or dyslexia or fear of flying, is that the more baggage they bring to the table the harder it is to convince them of any change. I worked with a dyslexic girl who could spell long words easily when I showed her how but remained unconvinced that it was how she was doing spelling that was the problem and so didn't practice or improve. It was too simple. I only had one session with her so a convincer session was missing!
One of the things thinking about a problem over a period of time does is build up a myth about it. My problem is special and complex and meaningful and so it should be impossible to change easily. I have had PWS tell me that they can see what I am getting at but not actually doing what I ask them to do. Yes, theory is interesting but if I don't taste a food no amount of description will substitute.
I am a practical chap. If I try something and it works then I don't second guess it. I try to use it and think about it later not at the time. I want to do the whatever it is as well as I can, at the time of the work. I don't want to be distracted by extraneous thoughts.
I might look for a volunteer to work with or talk about my working with PWS. Depends what they want on the night, I suppose. It will be sharing rather than preaching. The stuff on this blog is about life in general and I use stammering as an application. But the models and ways of thinking have universal applications.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Some meanderings about what makes PWS try therapy?
Most of the PWS I have met have been very intelligent and getting on with their lives and successfully too. They may feel that stammering has held them back but doing something about it is a challenge and requires disruption to the way they have organised their lives.
My ideas about stammering have only been tested once and that was successful in that after 5 sessions the client could speak his name, answer the phone and hold a conversation without stammering. A situation which has held for over a year now. He tells me that when he has the occasional lapse he knows how to deal with the situation. The sessions cost him nothing apart from time and there was no homework, just insight.
I have worked with several PWS who felt in enough crisis to do something about it . They seemed to gain insights into their thinking and how they stammered but life caught up with them and after 3 or 4 times the sessions lapsed.
There is a world of difference between someone who doesn't want to be poor and one who wants to be rich. They will stop trying at different points on the continuum of making money. Keeping a sense of crisis is difficult and can be exhausting especially when there is no immediate improvement in speech.
Starting again is not actually restarting because the person will start from a different point of view or context. It is renewing the re-learing of speech. To see things as a journey is a useful metaphor and it is worth noting how far one has come.
Stammering emerges and so does normal speech. To change the way things emerge the necessary conditions need to be assembled and organised and this takes time. I tend to give mayself 5 sessions to make some impact.
And there is no one approach: if one is in the cat skinning business one should at least know a few ways of approaching the job. Change often takes effort but the journey can be interesting and fun.
As I read in one article in the BSA site: anyone can help a PWS to stop stammering for a week. My cred is that, given the chance, that week, 18 months ago, has lasted till now. Fast cures like NLP ( I have a practitioner cert. ) are very unlikely to provide long lasting change in a session: good for recent onset phobias, not generalised fears where the person has built up a structure to explain the problem.
I make time to work with PWS because stammering interests me. One problem I have is that apart from the client mentioned above I have no continual history of success and folk don't want to waste their time. I cannot promise to resolve anyones speech difficulties. I do expect to have a significant impact on how speech emerges, in a reasonable time and to provide some personal insights along the way.
Maybe I should call what I do insight therapy.
My ideas about stammering have only been tested once and that was successful in that after 5 sessions the client could speak his name, answer the phone and hold a conversation without stammering. A situation which has held for over a year now. He tells me that when he has the occasional lapse he knows how to deal with the situation. The sessions cost him nothing apart from time and there was no homework, just insight.
I have worked with several PWS who felt in enough crisis to do something about it . They seemed to gain insights into their thinking and how they stammered but life caught up with them and after 3 or 4 times the sessions lapsed.
There is a world of difference between someone who doesn't want to be poor and one who wants to be rich. They will stop trying at different points on the continuum of making money. Keeping a sense of crisis is difficult and can be exhausting especially when there is no immediate improvement in speech.
Starting again is not actually restarting because the person will start from a different point of view or context. It is renewing the re-learing of speech. To see things as a journey is a useful metaphor and it is worth noting how far one has come.
Stammering emerges and so does normal speech. To change the way things emerge the necessary conditions need to be assembled and organised and this takes time. I tend to give mayself 5 sessions to make some impact.
And there is no one approach: if one is in the cat skinning business one should at least know a few ways of approaching the job. Change often takes effort but the journey can be interesting and fun.
As I read in one article in the BSA site: anyone can help a PWS to stop stammering for a week. My cred is that, given the chance, that week, 18 months ago, has lasted till now. Fast cures like NLP ( I have a practitioner cert. ) are very unlikely to provide long lasting change in a session: good for recent onset phobias, not generalised fears where the person has built up a structure to explain the problem.
I make time to work with PWS because stammering interests me. One problem I have is that apart from the client mentioned above I have no continual history of success and folk don't want to waste their time. I cannot promise to resolve anyones speech difficulties. I do expect to have a significant impact on how speech emerges, in a reasonable time and to provide some personal insights along the way.
Maybe I should call what I do insight therapy.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Standards
We operate out of our standards in almost everything we do: what we should do or be, what other people should do, what the world should be like.
We apply our standards in an ‘either / or’ way or in a ‘more or less way’ and some things may be one and some the other. Or we apply them as a mature adult or a young kid! And we do it unconsciously.
It is very useful to know what standards we are operating from and how we are using them. A good way to find out is to ask ourselves what makes us angry or uncomfortable.
If someone cuts me up on the motorway I can either get angry or move back to let him in and the judgment about the driver will depend on what standards of courtesy I apply to myself or expect from other road users. How I am feeling in general will affect my judgment too: sometimes I am easy with such behaviour sometimes very judgmental. When I start to judge other drivers negatively I ask myself what else is bothering me because often there is something that needs attention and this helps to shine the spotlight on it.
Rather than wanting a bad feeling to go away it is more useful to ask ourselves which of our standards are being violated and how. Use a notebook to grab the moment and reflect on it later.
If stammering is an expression of what is going on in us then looking at our standards is a useful way of finding out the unconscious judgments about ourselves and the world that provide a back story for the stammer i.e. our behaviour.
Some of the standards may be out of date and need reassessed and some are ok but being applied in a less than useful way.
Ask yourself would you want a young kid to grow up with the particular standard and if so how would you want him to apply the standard and when.
Think 'useful' rather than 'right or wrong'. Remember many of our standards are formed when we were 5 or 6 years old.
We apply our standards in an ‘either / or’ way or in a ‘more or less way’ and some things may be one and some the other. Or we apply them as a mature adult or a young kid! And we do it unconsciously.
It is very useful to know what standards we are operating from and how we are using them. A good way to find out is to ask ourselves what makes us angry or uncomfortable.
If someone cuts me up on the motorway I can either get angry or move back to let him in and the judgment about the driver will depend on what standards of courtesy I apply to myself or expect from other road users. How I am feeling in general will affect my judgment too: sometimes I am easy with such behaviour sometimes very judgmental. When I start to judge other drivers negatively I ask myself what else is bothering me because often there is something that needs attention and this helps to shine the spotlight on it.
Rather than wanting a bad feeling to go away it is more useful to ask ourselves which of our standards are being violated and how. Use a notebook to grab the moment and reflect on it later.
If stammering is an expression of what is going on in us then looking at our standards is a useful way of finding out the unconscious judgments about ourselves and the world that provide a back story for the stammer i.e. our behaviour.
Some of the standards may be out of date and need reassessed and some are ok but being applied in a less than useful way.
Ask yourself would you want a young kid to grow up with the particular standard and if so how would you want him to apply the standard and when.
Think 'useful' rather than 'right or wrong'. Remember many of our standards are formed when we were 5 or 6 years old.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Performance Anxiety
Stage Fright is a startling description of what is now called Performance Anxiety. We can be anxious about anything we do and usually it is about looking bad to ourselves or others, fear of failure to achieve what we want and we don't like the feeling we get so we fight, fly or freeze.
We can alter the feeling with relaxation or distraction techniques.
We can examine our disaster scenarios and see how mythical they are.
We can attend to the bigger picture and move the spotlight away from ourseves while still keeping in the conversation.
What is ideal and what is realistic?
To use this stuff a diary or journal or notebook is really essential to objectify the content.
We can alter the feeling with relaxation or distraction techniques.
We can examine our disaster scenarios and see how mythical they are.
We can attend to the bigger picture and move the spotlight away from ourseves while still keeping in the conversation.
What is ideal and what is realistic?
To use this stuff a diary or journal or notebook is really essential to objectify the content.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Stage Fright
Speaking in public is one of the commonest fears we have.
We are on show and vulnerable. Our self-esteem can be dented and we will never recover! We may blush and look childish. Our uncertainty may show and we will look silly. But tomorrow the sun will shine!
We may be second guessing ourselves and attend to the detail of the conversation rather than the whole thing: getting the overall point across and having the odd reminder to associate to gets lost in the detail.
A bit like trying to pay attention to every point of paint in an impressionist painting while looking at each figure and shape and the whole composition at the same time – can’t be done.
But we can sequence the attention and allow our unconscious to enrich each part for us.
The stage-frightened actor tries to watch himself and all the detail of his role, rehearse each word immediately before it is uttered, the overall script and to second guess the audience judgment rather than just doing the play and seeing how it works out afterwards and making any adjustments for the next performance.
We are on show and vulnerable. Our self-esteem can be dented and we will never recover! We may blush and look childish. Our uncertainty may show and we will look silly. But tomorrow the sun will shine!
We may be second guessing ourselves and attend to the detail of the conversation rather than the whole thing: getting the overall point across and having the odd reminder to associate to gets lost in the detail.
A bit like trying to pay attention to every point of paint in an impressionist painting while looking at each figure and shape and the whole composition at the same time – can’t be done.
But we can sequence the attention and allow our unconscious to enrich each part for us.
The stage-frightened actor tries to watch himself and all the detail of his role, rehearse each word immediately before it is uttered, the overall script and to second guess the audience judgment rather than just doing the play and seeing how it works out afterwards and making any adjustments for the next performance.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Point of View
We can take a point of view about the world or topics, and we are all used to having a sense of this.
But what is taking a point of view. Where are we thinking from and to? Also, seeing things in a different light adds qualities to the thing, person or idea being considered.
How does this affect stammering? Well, if you re-read Ash's post he shifted his point of view and now thinks from a different position. We have all done this when we change our minds and noticed the shift in our emotions that accompanies the changed viewpoint. If you are into photography you will have a very visual idea of what is going on here.
Ask yourself 'How else can I look at this?' Actors use this kind of thinking to play a particular role in a different way, sympathetic, dizzy blonde, serious parent, fussy batchelor, self-centered, open etc.
Each one of us has different parents because, among other things, our parents see each of us from different point of view.
But what is taking a point of view. Where are we thinking from and to? Also, seeing things in a different light adds qualities to the thing, person or idea being considered.
How does this affect stammering? Well, if you re-read Ash's post he shifted his point of view and now thinks from a different position. We have all done this when we change our minds and noticed the shift in our emotions that accompanies the changed viewpoint. If you are into photography you will have a very visual idea of what is going on here.
Ask yourself 'How else can I look at this?' Actors use this kind of thinking to play a particular role in a different way, sympathetic, dizzy blonde, serious parent, fussy batchelor, self-centered, open etc.
Each one of us has different parents because, among other things, our parents see each of us from different point of view.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Books
I thought it an idea to mention some books that I think are useful for everyone but, I think, particularly for PWS.
I suggest them because they are helpful for appreciating what is going on with other people and ourselves when we are in company and for practicing speaking.
The Book of Tells, Peter Collet. Good for letting you know what other people are thinking. Try using the information in a cafe when people watching. Good fun.
The Quick and Easy Way to Effective Speaking, Dale Carnegie. Loads of hints and tips. Excellent. Style a bit dated but humans have been talking for a lot of years now and nothing changes.
Confident Conversation, Lillian Glass. Lots of tips and there is always something you can use. Buy second hand.
Confident Speaking, Godefroy &Barrat. Really about business presentations but the odd tip is worth the money . Buy second hand.
Also books by Cicily Berry, Sewart Pearce and Patsy Rodenburg and tape by Carol Fleming. Mostly for actors, except the last.
These are about articulation and speaking clearly.
Rodenburg's tapes: 'The right to Speak' are excellent and for everyone not specifically for actors. Might be easier to try the tapes first to hear the exercises.
Won't resolve the stammering but will add to confidence and give the PWS a goal while speaking. I have books and tapes by all of the above and ransacked the bookshelves to find them for this blog. They are for everyone not just PWS. Look them up on Amazon.
Hope you enjoy
Let me, and others, know
I suggest them because they are helpful for appreciating what is going on with other people and ourselves when we are in company and for practicing speaking.
The Book of Tells, Peter Collet. Good for letting you know what other people are thinking. Try using the information in a cafe when people watching. Good fun.
The Quick and Easy Way to Effective Speaking, Dale Carnegie. Loads of hints and tips. Excellent. Style a bit dated but humans have been talking for a lot of years now and nothing changes.
Confident Conversation, Lillian Glass. Lots of tips and there is always something you can use. Buy second hand.
Confident Speaking, Godefroy &Barrat. Really about business presentations but the odd tip is worth the money . Buy second hand.
Also books by Cicily Berry, Sewart Pearce and Patsy Rodenburg and tape by Carol Fleming. Mostly for actors, except the last.
These are about articulation and speaking clearly.
Rodenburg's tapes: 'The right to Speak' are excellent and for everyone not specifically for actors. Might be easier to try the tapes first to hear the exercises.
Won't resolve the stammering but will add to confidence and give the PWS a goal while speaking. I have books and tapes by all of the above and ransacked the bookshelves to find them for this blog. They are for everyone not just PWS. Look them up on Amazon.
Hope you enjoy
Let me, and others, know
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Learning Curve
How do we think we learn to do something, over time? Sometimes it is instant and we know how to do it and at other times we try again and again and sometimes succeed and sometimes fail.
Learning is 3 steps forward and 2 back, or 3 forward and 3 back so need to start over. Or it feels that way.
How we look at learning and the metaphors we use to support ourselves in learning are very important.
When we fail to do as well as we hope, we can feel bad and give up on ourselves, give ourselves a severe talking to, tell ourselves we will never learn, that we are hopeless that trying is too much trouble. So we start again, maybe.
What is the reality? In the past when we learned to write, use a keyboard, walk, run, drive a car, eat with knife and fork, dance formally were we as good at our first attempt as we are now. I doubt it, but we persevered, and now it is like falling off a log.
We tell ourselves we are back at square one and we have a big job to get back to where we were yesterday or this morning. But if we use failure to wonder what was different in the case of failure and success and learn from each and adjust our behaviour earlier – and again it won’t be perfect, but we keep at it then our attitude has improved immeasurably.
George Soros one of the richest traders in the world has a 85% failure rate in his trades but the magnitude of the few successful trades overwhelms the losses on the losers. He expects to lose.
If he didn’t learn from his failures he would be the loser.
Learning is 3 steps forward and 2 back, or 3 forward and 3 back so need to start over. Or it feels that way.
How we look at learning and the metaphors we use to support ourselves in learning are very important.
When we fail to do as well as we hope, we can feel bad and give up on ourselves, give ourselves a severe talking to, tell ourselves we will never learn, that we are hopeless that trying is too much trouble. So we start again, maybe.
What is the reality? In the past when we learned to write, use a keyboard, walk, run, drive a car, eat with knife and fork, dance formally were we as good at our first attempt as we are now. I doubt it, but we persevered, and now it is like falling off a log.
We tell ourselves we are back at square one and we have a big job to get back to where we were yesterday or this morning. But if we use failure to wonder what was different in the case of failure and success and learn from each and adjust our behaviour earlier – and again it won’t be perfect, but we keep at it then our attitude has improved immeasurably.
George Soros one of the richest traders in the world has a 85% failure rate in his trades but the magnitude of the few successful trades overwhelms the losses on the losers. He expects to lose.
If he didn’t learn from his failures he would be the loser.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Former PWS
Ash is an adult and normal speaker now.
He kindly commented on Self Talk:
I used to have an intermittent stammer around ages 11-14. One day (I recall it quite well) I discovered a way to "think over it". It now recurs rarely, in moments of stress where I'm attending to what I'm saying.
It's a little hard to describe what I did... subjectively, part of it was that I moved my centre of consciousness - the point within my body which I think from, measure the world from - from my mouth/throat to higher up my head, behind my eyes. That's where the "over" bit comes from.
And I can bring it back at will (not that I often want to). Mostly by reversing the process described above, plus a bit of body tension, and directing my attention to my speaking/hearing.
I wanted to bring this to your attention rather than let it languish in a comment.
He kindly commented on Self Talk:
I used to have an intermittent stammer around ages 11-14. One day (I recall it quite well) I discovered a way to "think over it". It now recurs rarely, in moments of stress where I'm attending to what I'm saying.
It's a little hard to describe what I did... subjectively, part of it was that I moved my centre of consciousness - the point within my body which I think from, measure the world from - from my mouth/throat to higher up my head, behind my eyes. That's where the "over" bit comes from.
And I can bring it back at will (not that I often want to). Mostly by reversing the process described above, plus a bit of body tension, and directing my attention to my speaking/hearing.
I wanted to bring this to your attention rather than let it languish in a comment.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Self Talk
How do I set myself up to speak?
Take each of the words and emphasise them in turn so:
HOW do I set myself up to speak?
How DO I set myself up to speak? etc.
Different meaning eh?
Now do it with the rest.
What did you learn?
What we say is important but how we say it is very important and I wonder if that is an element in actors who don't stammer on stage eg Bruce Willis and Rowan Atkinson.
Take each of the words and emphasise them in turn so:
HOW do I set myself up to speak?
How DO I set myself up to speak? etc.
Different meaning eh?
Now do it with the rest.
What did you learn?
What we say is important but how we say it is very important and I wonder if that is an element in actors who don't stammer on stage eg Bruce Willis and Rowan Atkinson.
Friday, August 31, 2007
EMERGENCE
In her excellent site http://closetstutterer.blogspot.com/ ; Closet stutterer Sophie mentions working on what doesn’t immediately seem to be her stammering but to work on other issues. An excellent idea. It gets away from the chicken and egg situation I wrote of earlier.
Think of a cake, I like a rich fruitcake like a Christmas cake. What is the cause of the cake?
Not the baker who only brings the ingredients together in a time and tested way to allow the cake to emerge. Not the ingredients as each stands. There is no cause in raisins where the effect is a cake, and so on. The ingredients are brought together and mixed in a bowl. Now try to get the sugar out or the eggs; can’t be done. The mix is different to the sum of each ingredient. Not more than, just different – it can be an unwanted result!!
Also, to think of each ingredient: how fresh is it; how much is needed – we don’t want too much of any single part; what is the balance between the parts – we don’t want it overcooked.
Sometimes only one ingredient is overdone, sometimes they can be overdone in different proportions but the result is often unwanted and we can change what we employ and how we use it.
We can't look at the ingredients and say what they will cause; only a coming together of ingredients will allow a cake to emerge.
You get the idea.
To think that any behaviour is simple is to miss a lot and if we don’t look we wont see.
Stammering isn't curable any more than blushing is curable, we need to think differently and then it isn’t an issue and doesn’t emerge. But I agree with Sophie it is easier said than done.
In her excellent site http://closetstutterer.blogspot.com/ ; Closet stutterer Sophie mentions working on what doesn’t immediately seem to be her stammering but to work on other issues. An excellent idea. It gets away from the chicken and egg situation I wrote of earlier.
Think of a cake, I like a rich fruitcake like a Christmas cake. What is the cause of the cake?
Not the baker who only brings the ingredients together in a time and tested way to allow the cake to emerge. Not the ingredients as each stands. There is no cause in raisins where the effect is a cake, and so on. The ingredients are brought together and mixed in a bowl. Now try to get the sugar out or the eggs; can’t be done. The mix is different to the sum of each ingredient. Not more than, just different – it can be an unwanted result!!
Also, to think of each ingredient: how fresh is it; how much is needed – we don’t want too much of any single part; what is the balance between the parts – we don’t want it overcooked.
Sometimes only one ingredient is overdone, sometimes they can be overdone in different proportions but the result is often unwanted and we can change what we employ and how we use it.
We can't look at the ingredients and say what they will cause; only a coming together of ingredients will allow a cake to emerge.
You get the idea.
To think that any behaviour is simple is to miss a lot and if we don’t look we wont see.
Stammering isn't curable any more than blushing is curable, we need to think differently and then it isn’t an issue and doesn’t emerge. But I agree with Sophie it is easier said than done.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Chicken or Egg
Stammering is interesting because the performance of the speech seems to cause the nervousness that accompanies the stammer. Or being nervous causes the stammer; or knowing that one might stammer causes the nervousness that causes the stammer.
If we take the view that there is no such thing as cause-effect then what?
The stammering speech is the nervousness. Neither causes the other. They are the same thing. The nervousness is the stammering speech. Is it not?
If we take the view that there is no such thing as cause-effect then what?
The stammering speech is the nervousness. Neither causes the other. They are the same thing. The nervousness is the stammering speech. Is it not?
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Comfortable rather than fluent?
What do I mean by comfortable? Well, to be unaware of discomfort.
Do you feel comfortable when looking in the mirror?
Can you comfortably speak out loud when you are looking in the mirror?
Can you speak comfortably when alone?
If that is the case and you speak comfortably and not stammeringly then is your response to other people the big issue?
Do you feel comfortable when looking in the mirror?
Can you comfortably speak out loud when you are looking in the mirror?
Can you speak comfortably when alone?
If that is the case and you speak comfortably and not stammeringly then is your response to other people the big issue?
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Hesitation
My mother used to describe PWS as people having a hesitation and I wondered if mothers’ wisdom might be worth looking into.
The wonderful www.onelook.com online dictionary (add the link to your favourites) describes hesitation as:
noun: the act of pausing uncertainly
noun: indecision in speech or action
noun: a certain degree of unwillingness
and
to hesitate as:
verb: pause or hold back in uncertainty or unwillingness
verb: interrupt temporarily an activity before continuing
Uncertainty, indecision, unwillingness and interruption: all of these suggest being in two minds or changing what is being thought about, at least.
Watch people speaking in a non-scripted program on TV or listen on the radio. Do they speak their minds literally or do they mentally rehearse the sentence before they say it?
No, they don’t have time for rehearsal they just say what comes to mind. When they think they simultaneously speak. They speak their thoughts and don’t second guess themselves or what is going on. There is a place for second guessing but it isn’t while speaking.
Our brains works too fast for our bodies so just doing one thing at a time allows us to keep up. I am typing this and if I start to think of where the letters are on the typewriter and at the same time wonder if I am getting them right even before I touch them, not to mention keeping to my train of thought, my failure rate rockets and I hesitate repeatedly!
If we attempt to rehearse each sentence before we speak we will speak in the same way as we think - all over the place - after all, when will we know that the rehearsal is complete.
When alone try looking in the mirror and speak about your feelings to the person looking back.
I could try to polish this post till I thought it was perfect for purpose but good enough for purpose will have to do. And I can always come back to the topic and clarify anything I think needs it. Similarities for speech?
The wonderful www.onelook.com online dictionary (add the link to your favourites) describes hesitation as:
noun: the act of pausing uncertainly
noun: indecision in speech or action
noun: a certain degree of unwillingness
and
to hesitate as:
verb: pause or hold back in uncertainty or unwillingness
verb: interrupt temporarily an activity before continuing
Uncertainty, indecision, unwillingness and interruption: all of these suggest being in two minds or changing what is being thought about, at least.
Watch people speaking in a non-scripted program on TV or listen on the radio. Do they speak their minds literally or do they mentally rehearse the sentence before they say it?
No, they don’t have time for rehearsal they just say what comes to mind. When they think they simultaneously speak. They speak their thoughts and don’t second guess themselves or what is going on. There is a place for second guessing but it isn’t while speaking.
Our brains works too fast for our bodies so just doing one thing at a time allows us to keep up. I am typing this and if I start to think of where the letters are on the typewriter and at the same time wonder if I am getting them right even before I touch them, not to mention keeping to my train of thought, my failure rate rockets and I hesitate repeatedly!
If we attempt to rehearse each sentence before we speak we will speak in the same way as we think - all over the place - after all, when will we know that the rehearsal is complete.
When alone try looking in the mirror and speak about your feelings to the person looking back.
I could try to polish this post till I thought it was perfect for purpose but good enough for purpose will have to do. And I can always come back to the topic and clarify anything I think needs it. Similarities for speech?
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Pagoclone
The BSA site http://www.stammering.org/pagoclone.html
tells us, ‘Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. announced results from a phase II trial of pagoclone in 132 adults with persistent developmental stuttering, with 44 receiving the active compound at low doses, 44 at high doses, and 44 receiving a placebo. Objective fluency improved (videotaped and scored by independent raters blinded) and so did subjective assessment scores (made by the participants in the trial). They were measured twice before the start of the trial, after 4 weeks and again after 8 weeks of treatment. 55% of the pagoclone treated patients had improved at week 8 compared to 36% of placebo treated patients’.
Now, if this is accurate: of 100 PWS who take pagoclone 55 will improve overall but 36 would have improved anyway ( placebo response ) leaving 19 who will benefit from pagoclone. This means that it is half as good as a placebo 19/36.
Bear in mind the placebo doesn’t have side effects.
Am I missing something? Or how do people get lauded for bad science, never mind arithmetic?
tells us, ‘Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. announced results from a phase II trial of pagoclone in 132 adults with persistent developmental stuttering, with 44 receiving the active compound at low doses, 44 at high doses, and 44 receiving a placebo. Objective fluency improved (videotaped and scored by independent raters blinded) and so did subjective assessment scores (made by the participants in the trial). They were measured twice before the start of the trial, after 4 weeks and again after 8 weeks of treatment. 55% of the pagoclone treated patients had improved at week 8 compared to 36% of placebo treated patients’.
Now, if this is accurate: of 100 PWS who take pagoclone 55 will improve overall but 36 would have improved anyway ( placebo response ) leaving 19 who will benefit from pagoclone. This means that it is half as good as a placebo 19/36.
Bear in mind the placebo doesn’t have side effects.
Am I missing something? Or how do people get lauded for bad science, never mind arithmetic?
Monday, July 30, 2007
Old Joke
The last post was obviously a poor retelling of an old joke.
But as with many jokes it harbours an uncomfortable truth: how we set ourselves up determines to a large extent how we interpret what happens to us and how we behave in those states of affairs we meet continually each day.
The meaning and significance we give to events makes a difference and the fact that we give them their meaning means we can reinterpret events - not change how we remember what happened but re-evaluate, not through rose-tinted spectacles.
Bad things and bad people are just that: what matters is that their influence on us is appropriate to a particular time in our life and doesn't continue to dominate our thinking.
How did we learn to keep away from open flames when we were young and how do we think about fire now?
But as with many jokes it harbours an uncomfortable truth: how we set ourselves up determines to a large extent how we interpret what happens to us and how we behave in those states of affairs we meet continually each day.
The meaning and significance we give to events makes a difference and the fact that we give them their meaning means we can reinterpret events - not change how we remember what happened but re-evaluate, not through rose-tinted spectacles.
Bad things and bad people are just that: what matters is that their influence on us is appropriate to a particular time in our life and doesn't continue to dominate our thinking.
How did we learn to keep away from open flames when we were young and how do we think about fire now?
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Hammer
The other night I had a particular job to do in the house which needed a hammer. I thought of my neighbour, whom I get on well with: I know he has a hammer of just the right size. But I put off going round as I don’t really like borrowing things. Time moved on and eventually came to the point when I just couldn’t put it off any longer.
As I walked around to his door I thought:
I’m sure he will let me have the hammer after all I loaned him things before.
But he didn’t get round to giving me back the spanner I loaned him and he might feel bad about that now.
But I only want the hammer for a short time.
But he might think I won’t bring the hammer back just after I’ve finished with it.
But it is a new hammer and he might not have used it himself yet.
But he might want to use the hammer and I will feel stupid if he says ‘No’.
He will feel embarrassed if he has to say ‘No’
But I will have made him embarrassed and he will resent me for it.
We have been good neighbours but this might end it
And so on……………………
As you can imagine I was becoming more and more emotional, embarrassed, anxious and ashamed that I had to ask to borrow something and didn't have it myself. Self righteousness came into it too.
So, when I got to his house he opened the door and said a smiling ‘Hi!’
I told him he could keep his damned hammer and where to put it.
As I walked around to his door I thought:
I’m sure he will let me have the hammer after all I loaned him things before.
But he didn’t get round to giving me back the spanner I loaned him and he might feel bad about that now.
But I only want the hammer for a short time.
But he might think I won’t bring the hammer back just after I’ve finished with it.
But it is a new hammer and he might not have used it himself yet.
But he might want to use the hammer and I will feel stupid if he says ‘No’.
He will feel embarrassed if he has to say ‘No’
But I will have made him embarrassed and he will resent me for it.
We have been good neighbours but this might end it
And so on……………………
As you can imagine I was becoming more and more emotional, embarrassed, anxious and ashamed that I had to ask to borrow something and didn't have it myself. Self righteousness came into it too.
So, when I got to his house he opened the door and said a smiling ‘Hi!’
I told him he could keep his damned hammer and where to put it.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Speech Devices
What do these things do? Well it seems they delay us hearing the sound of our voices and so interrupt the feedback we normally expect. This upsets the applecart and we speak differently. I say we speak differently because although they disrupt the PWS and so make it harder to keep up the self monitoring that goes with stammering, DAF machines also lead those who don’t stammer to speak stammeringly.
I know someone who took part in an undergraduate experiment with a DAF machine. He saw how others stammered and decided to ignore the feedback and keep talking. He didn’t stammer. The lecturer was upset.
We attend to novelty because the world becomes more interesting or less safe.
By attending to something other than what we normally attend to we behave differently.
If we don't want what we have always got then we have to behave differently.
I know someone who took part in an undergraduate experiment with a DAF machine. He saw how others stammered and decided to ignore the feedback and keep talking. He didn’t stammer. The lecturer was upset.
We attend to novelty because the world becomes more interesting or less safe.
By attending to something other than what we normally attend to we behave differently.
If we don't want what we have always got then we have to behave differently.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Feelings
We use our feelings to monitor how we are in the world.
Usually uncomfortable feelings are the ones we attend to and think about more. Because we associate discomfort with being unsafe the feeling remains until it is replaced by a sense of safety. And feelings arise instantly.
We use our feelings to supervise what and how we are doing and we pay attention to them rather than ask, ‘Ah, what is that feeling about?’ and then respond in the world to that state of affairs.
If we think of our feelings as feedback then we can use them to explore our thinking on what is going on for us more objectively. But if we get lost in the intensity of our feelings then they become overwhelming and the world becomes unsafe, we get to the flight, fright or freeze reaction. The feeling becomes the issue not the state of affairs and distracts us from the world as it is and puts our focus on ourselves.
We cannot trust our feelings. If you think you can: then remember the people you met that you liked and later came to know better and disliked. Did you trust your feelings, or intuitions at the time? Were they trustworthy. What about the opposite scenario?
Using a journal to explore our feelings is good because it objectifies the issues.
Usually uncomfortable feelings are the ones we attend to and think about more. Because we associate discomfort with being unsafe the feeling remains until it is replaced by a sense of safety. And feelings arise instantly.
We use our feelings to supervise what and how we are doing and we pay attention to them rather than ask, ‘Ah, what is that feeling about?’ and then respond in the world to that state of affairs.
If we think of our feelings as feedback then we can use them to explore our thinking on what is going on for us more objectively. But if we get lost in the intensity of our feelings then they become overwhelming and the world becomes unsafe, we get to the flight, fright or freeze reaction. The feeling becomes the issue not the state of affairs and distracts us from the world as it is and puts our focus on ourselves.
We cannot trust our feelings. If you think you can: then remember the people you met that you liked and later came to know better and disliked. Did you trust your feelings, or intuitions at the time? Were they trustworthy. What about the opposite scenario?
Using a journal to explore our feelings is good because it objectifies the issues.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
The Listener
Folk who speak stammeringly also listen and as listeners we need some attention too.
When someone is speaking to me:
I need him to speak in short simple sentences that I can relate to easily. Out with longwinded complicated sentences with lots of subclauses. It is hard enough in print but very difficult to keep up with in speech. Simple past present and future tenses will do nicely.
I need him to speak at a rate that allows me to put my thoughts about what he is saying in some sort of context. When people are nervous they often speak too fast.
I need a little thinking time between sentences.
I need to hear clearly what the person is saying and for him not to mumble. Most people mumble when they are not sure of themselves.
I need to see the speaker’s mouth moving. We lip read more than we think. I also need him to keep his hands, cup or drinking glass away from his mouth. We tend to cover our mouths when we are nervous.
I need him to face me, otherwise I can’t hear him and may be unaware that he is speaking to me.
I need him to articulate as clearly as they can manage so that I can distinguish words and sentences.
Now, I know that someone stammering might be doing all of the above and, if that is so, I will be able to make out what he is saying. I won’t have to feel I need to ask for a repeat: ‘Sorry. I didn’t catch that?’
Don’t take my word for it. Ask yourself what you need as a listener. Use the news or interviews to investigate what you need: not what they are giving you – not the content but the delivery. Good newsreaders will be trained to think in terms of the audience’s needs and to find ways to meet them.
When I am trying to listen to what someone is saying and he mumbles, the first thing I think is that I have missed something. I want to hear him and I can’t. I am confused: and being confused feels very uncomfortable.
Deep or quiet voices can be particularly difficult for me to make out.
Now, I know that real people, rather than actors, don’t choose to stammer but we are all listeners and although PWS will know the difficulties of speaking, as listeners they can appreciate the hearer’s needs too.
When someone is speaking to me:
I need him to speak in short simple sentences that I can relate to easily. Out with longwinded complicated sentences with lots of subclauses. It is hard enough in print but very difficult to keep up with in speech. Simple past present and future tenses will do nicely.
I need him to speak at a rate that allows me to put my thoughts about what he is saying in some sort of context. When people are nervous they often speak too fast.
I need a little thinking time between sentences.
I need to hear clearly what the person is saying and for him not to mumble. Most people mumble when they are not sure of themselves.
I need to see the speaker’s mouth moving. We lip read more than we think. I also need him to keep his hands, cup or drinking glass away from his mouth. We tend to cover our mouths when we are nervous.
I need him to face me, otherwise I can’t hear him and may be unaware that he is speaking to me.
I need him to articulate as clearly as they can manage so that I can distinguish words and sentences.
Now, I know that someone stammering might be doing all of the above and, if that is so, I will be able to make out what he is saying. I won’t have to feel I need to ask for a repeat: ‘Sorry. I didn’t catch that?’
Don’t take my word for it. Ask yourself what you need as a listener. Use the news or interviews to investigate what you need: not what they are giving you – not the content but the delivery. Good newsreaders will be trained to think in terms of the audience’s needs and to find ways to meet them.
When I am trying to listen to what someone is saying and he mumbles, the first thing I think is that I have missed something. I want to hear him and I can’t. I am confused: and being confused feels very uncomfortable.
Deep or quiet voices can be particularly difficult for me to make out.
Now, I know that real people, rather than actors, don’t choose to stammer but we are all listeners and although PWS will know the difficulties of speaking, as listeners they can appreciate the hearer’s needs too.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Digital or Analogue
With digital processing the controlling switch is on or off, either–or, with analogue processing the communication which the switch controls can be on a little or a lot. Which is best to use depends on the circumstances. But there is more flexibility with the analogue switch: just like a dimmer.
You are only as good as the last time you spoke. You either get it right or wrong. People are either good or bad. There is no second chance. Either it will go well or it will be a disaster. Unless you speak like a politician on TV or a newsreader you are not good enough. All of the above discount a complex life for one incident, which is often trivial in the scale of things.
These are among the daftest types of judgments we can make. And they are digital.
People might make much or little of a lapse depending on whether they think digitally or not. Better to see things in a wider framework, it comes with a different feeling.
When we are small the world is digital and too often we keep the feeling and the way of judging for an unhappy lifetime.
We present the world digitally to our kids and we were those kids once upon a time. Fairy tales and stories, films and cartoons have good guys and bad guys - clear distinctions.
Not so in adult life. Folk are a mixture, both good and bad: analogue.
There is a continuum and we can be anywhere along it depending on the circumstances and how we feel.
What we remember and how we remember it depends on our feelings at the time of enquiry, so false memories are an everyday occurrence. We really shouldn’t be so sure of ourselves.
Thinking: both ...and... is better than either......or........ usually.
Are you a black and white sort of person; or a shades of gray sort of person?
You are only as good as the last time you spoke. You either get it right or wrong. People are either good or bad. There is no second chance. Either it will go well or it will be a disaster. Unless you speak like a politician on TV or a newsreader you are not good enough. All of the above discount a complex life for one incident, which is often trivial in the scale of things.
These are among the daftest types of judgments we can make. And they are digital.
People might make much or little of a lapse depending on whether they think digitally or not. Better to see things in a wider framework, it comes with a different feeling.
When we are small the world is digital and too often we keep the feeling and the way of judging for an unhappy lifetime.
We present the world digitally to our kids and we were those kids once upon a time. Fairy tales and stories, films and cartoons have good guys and bad guys - clear distinctions.
Not so in adult life. Folk are a mixture, both good and bad: analogue.
There is a continuum and we can be anywhere along it depending on the circumstances and how we feel.
What we remember and how we remember it depends on our feelings at the time of enquiry, so false memories are an everyday occurrence. We really shouldn’t be so sure of ourselves.
Thinking: both ...and... is better than either......or........ usually.
Are you a black and white sort of person; or a shades of gray sort of person?
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Distraction
Distraction isn’t enough. When I want to distract myself, at the back of my mind there is a kind of supervisory function goes on which keeps gnawing away and won’t let me forget the thing I would rather put off. So deliberate distraction won’t do. But when I am at work and am torn between several things of equal importance that I want to get done, it is easy to forget one or two, in all honesty.
Are there lessons here? I think so.
Rather than thinking of distraction, which actually turns my attention on me, I look for interest and ask myself, ‘I wonder what I can find interesting about this person?’ and concentrate on investigating them, at some level. It is a bit like looking at a painting and being satisfied with whether I like it or not, or looking at it and wondering about the composition, technique, colours used, the artists use of colour, genre, the frame, the setting of the work in the room, the history of the work itself, the artist and her history. If I don't like it that doesn’t mean I can’t find something of interest in it.
When I have got to know people or paintings I have sometimes changed my first impressions, for better or worse, and I’m sure you have too.
Importantly, if I am think about someone asking me if I like a painting or need to justify my judgments about it then the investigation becomes focused on me not the painting, and I lose my calm.
There is a difference between worrying about not failing an exam and wanting the best mark I can get. Wanting not to be poor is different from wanting to be rich. Wanting not to look unfashionable is different from wanting to be dressed fashionably.
So we can travel in a different direction. Allowing ourselves to be distracted by what interests us is easy: so, rather than making it a chore, make other people the focus of your interest and attention. I like watching people: what shapes they are, how they are dressed, what they look as if they are doing, wondering what they do for a living, whether they are harassed, and how I might be totally wrong about my assessment of them, do they look scary and I wonder why I think that. One thing can lead to another and the light the picture is seen in changes.
When my attention is on me I get flustered. But I am flattered to have someone give me their whole attention.
These suggestions have to be acted on to explore and ultimately change habits through practice. Try them and see what happens.
Are there lessons here? I think so.
Rather than thinking of distraction, which actually turns my attention on me, I look for interest and ask myself, ‘I wonder what I can find interesting about this person?’ and concentrate on investigating them, at some level. It is a bit like looking at a painting and being satisfied with whether I like it or not, or looking at it and wondering about the composition, technique, colours used, the artists use of colour, genre, the frame, the setting of the work in the room, the history of the work itself, the artist and her history. If I don't like it that doesn’t mean I can’t find something of interest in it.
When I have got to know people or paintings I have sometimes changed my first impressions, for better or worse, and I’m sure you have too.
Importantly, if I am think about someone asking me if I like a painting or need to justify my judgments about it then the investigation becomes focused on me not the painting, and I lose my calm.
There is a difference between worrying about not failing an exam and wanting the best mark I can get. Wanting not to be poor is different from wanting to be rich. Wanting not to look unfashionable is different from wanting to be dressed fashionably.
So we can travel in a different direction. Allowing ourselves to be distracted by what interests us is easy: so, rather than making it a chore, make other people the focus of your interest and attention. I like watching people: what shapes they are, how they are dressed, what they look as if they are doing, wondering what they do for a living, whether they are harassed, and how I might be totally wrong about my assessment of them, do they look scary and I wonder why I think that. One thing can lead to another and the light the picture is seen in changes.
When my attention is on me I get flustered. But I am flattered to have someone give me their whole attention.
These suggestions have to be acted on to explore and ultimately change habits through practice. Try them and see what happens.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Obsession
St Paul tells us in Romans 7,19: For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Substitute for St Paul’s dilemma: The way that I would like to speak I don’t and the way I don’t want to speak is how my speech comes out.
Why is this the case? St Paul attributes it to sinful nature, but psychology has given us some useful insights into this particular phenomenon
In his excellent book The Happiness Hypothesis, Jonathan Haidt reports Dan Wegner’s work suggesting that when we want to avoid something we set up unconscious monitoring for what we want not to happen. When we have tried to suppress these thoughts and have failed, they become intrusive and obsessive. Test it for yourself: try not to think of chocolate for 3 hours and see what happens. Or, as you are reading this, try not to think of a pink elephant with blue polka dots and don’t let that image come to mind for the rest of the day. Milton Erickson, the great medical hypnotist, used negative commands frequently, because they worked.
Have you ever read Dale Carnegie’s books? Well worth reading for folk who stammer. One of his points is to attend to other people and what they are saying, particularly before speaking. He says, ‘ it is especially important to keep attention off yourself just before it is your turn to speak’.
Constant monitoring for specific behaviours sensitises the PWS to situations and issues associated with speaking. When one fails again the situation becomes all encompassing.
PM
Substitute for St Paul’s dilemma: The way that I would like to speak I don’t and the way I don’t want to speak is how my speech comes out.
Why is this the case? St Paul attributes it to sinful nature, but psychology has given us some useful insights into this particular phenomenon
In his excellent book The Happiness Hypothesis, Jonathan Haidt reports Dan Wegner’s work suggesting that when we want to avoid something we set up unconscious monitoring for what we want not to happen. When we have tried to suppress these thoughts and have failed, they become intrusive and obsessive. Test it for yourself: try not to think of chocolate for 3 hours and see what happens. Or, as you are reading this, try not to think of a pink elephant with blue polka dots and don’t let that image come to mind for the rest of the day. Milton Erickson, the great medical hypnotist, used negative commands frequently, because they worked.
Have you ever read Dale Carnegie’s books? Well worth reading for folk who stammer. One of his points is to attend to other people and what they are saying, particularly before speaking. He says, ‘ it is especially important to keep attention off yourself just before it is your turn to speak’.
Constant monitoring for specific behaviours sensitises the PWS to situations and issues associated with speaking. When one fails again the situation becomes all encompassing.
PM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)