somerandomguy
Sponsor
Trying out the "Question" function instead of the usual "Discussion."
Radical Acceptance just seems like a bunch of bullshit to me, but apparently it really helps some people. The way I understand it, it's just taking something unchangeable in your life and saying It Is What It Is and then magically feeling zero emotions about it from them on.
The typical example is being caught in traffic. You can rage against the traffic, which won't make the traffic move any faster and will just rile you up for no reason. Just turn on the radio and sing along instead. If you're late for that important interview, you're just gonna be late. T.S. Got it. I can do that.
What I cannot do is Radically Accept events in my life that actually mean something to me. I'm supposed to approach these events that royally f*cked me up until I die without emotion. Somehow, magically, immediately and always.
I understand it's related to the Buddhist concept of equanimity. But the Buddha acknowledged equanimity was horribly difficult to achieve. Marsha Linehan appears to think that we should all do this magically, automatically about whatever bothers us. No one talking about Radical Acceptance seems to say that it's difficult in any way.
Also, from what I understand, Radical Acceptance means cutting off our emotions about the worst things that have happened to us. But I thought we were supposed to try to feel our emotions? I certainly seem to have accidentally practiced Radical Acceptance during the 15 years I stuffed down all of the things I felt about being abused. Radical Acceptance tells me I should stuff my feelings back down again?
Supposedly there's a difference between resignation and acceptance. Seems like a lot of bullshit. If you can't change something, you're resigned to the fact that it happened. Radical Acceptance tells me, no, that's the wrong way to feel about it. I should Accept, not Be Resigned. If there's a difference, I'm not understanding it.
Explain to me how Radical Acceptance isn't bullshit, please. Explain to me how it's even possible.
Radical Acceptance just seems like a bunch of bullshit to me, but apparently it really helps some people. The way I understand it, it's just taking something unchangeable in your life and saying It Is What It Is and then magically feeling zero emotions about it from them on.
The typical example is being caught in traffic. You can rage against the traffic, which won't make the traffic move any faster and will just rile you up for no reason. Just turn on the radio and sing along instead. If you're late for that important interview, you're just gonna be late. T.S. Got it. I can do that.
What I cannot do is Radically Accept events in my life that actually mean something to me. I'm supposed to approach these events that royally f*cked me up until I die without emotion. Somehow, magically, immediately and always.
I understand it's related to the Buddhist concept of equanimity. But the Buddha acknowledged equanimity was horribly difficult to achieve. Marsha Linehan appears to think that we should all do this magically, automatically about whatever bothers us. No one talking about Radical Acceptance seems to say that it's difficult in any way.
Also, from what I understand, Radical Acceptance means cutting off our emotions about the worst things that have happened to us. But I thought we were supposed to try to feel our emotions? I certainly seem to have accidentally practiced Radical Acceptance during the 15 years I stuffed down all of the things I felt about being abused. Radical Acceptance tells me I should stuff my feelings back down again?
Supposedly there's a difference between resignation and acceptance. Seems like a lot of bullshit. If you can't change something, you're resigned to the fact that it happened. Radical Acceptance tells me, no, that's the wrong way to feel about it. I should Accept, not Be Resigned. If there's a difference, I'm not understanding it.
Explain to me how Radical Acceptance isn't bullshit, please. Explain to me how it's even possible.