Pity Parties

[Meadowsweet]

Albatross, my comments at #102 were to this:

I can't believe it but you finally got it "You are responsible for your own choices and how they make you feel." Your perception that someone is slighting you is not a reason for you to be drawn in.

I havn't finally got it, it's something I've understood for a long time and was using right from the beginning of this thread. You misjudged what I needed to learn and yet, despite me saying so very politely in the first page of this thread, you are still imagining that you know what I'm getting and what I'm not 5 pages on.

I believe you still do not see such a comment as helpful but to me it has its place and purpose and sometimes is.

Nicollette, below are some quotes from six different posts. Each one of them is saying that I can now see that the expression is helpful in some circumstances. It is frustrating because you're listening to a perception of what's in my mind, you're not hearing me.

Perhaps I might view it in a more positive light if it was something that was said directly to me, and at a time when it was an appropriate kick up the butt.

Having taken in the replies, I think there maybe is a place for it, if it is suitable for a specific individual.

when somebody is at the point of giving up, anger and defensiveness can have a positive effect. It can help someone find the energy to start fighting back. I guess using derogetory terms in those extreme situations could work.

I think if you only use the term to individuals and in those extremes of circumstances, then its ok.

I think the meaning of pity party is clearer now. What has come across to me, is that the context that people use the phrase can make the difference to whether it is the most appropriate wording, or whether the user could find a more appropriate expression.

It can have a positive effect on a person who has given up on themselves. I think, when we can't fight the demons inside, it can help to fight for a cause, or to fight it out (in discussion only) with another person.
From what I read here, that's how I imagine al-anon to use it as part of a therapeutic process.

I need to be the speaker of my mind, not others speak it for me.

 

[doc leda]

Hay Meadowsweet,

I thought I might try to explain my perspective about the and emotions around the term ‘pity party’ in a structured way, and hopefully we can move forward to understanding the left wing (emotional), the right wing (mathematical) which have been presented to you in this thread and then talk about the in-between, which I like to call the social consciousness grey area. I start a new post for each of the three sections, it is long as I am attempting to be very explanatory, I hope you can bare with me.

To do this, I need to take a step back first to explain the right and left responses. I am going to use this thread and the opinions within as the example to help explain because that exists and everyone can view its contents. I mean no offence to anyone on this thread, and if you are getting agitated and worked up by the thread, then please take a break and come back when you are in a better frame of mind. It may spark some self reflection, if people are willing to grow and develop beyond where they are. It may not, and may infuriate people, if individuals’ ideas are more rigidly set in stone – a fixed mental model makes growth difficult and becomes more fixed with age.

Unhelpful thinking styles

There are ten primary unhelpful thinking styles and these provide and insight into people’s histories and the assumptions everyone makes. As we grow up and get older, we develop a body of knowledge and experiences that gives us a perspective on ourselves, others and the world. This body of knowledge is influenced by our primary environments – family, school and work. When ever we are faced with any situation, we automatically draw on this knowledge and experiences and make assumptions. I think you can pick the ‘assumptions’ people have made on this thread, but can you pick the unhelpful thinking styles or states of mind these people are in when they wrote this post?

The ten ‘unhelpful thinking styles’ are attached.

The reason I have asked if you can spot these unhelpful thinking styles, is because that can help you to discern between whether one or a group of people are creating a negative mood on your thread and are being unhelpful to you (or themselves). It will also help you to identify those who make assumptions based on their own experiences that are critical and unhelpful for the discussion. Remember, everyone makes assumptions based on their own unique perspective. Whether continuing to discuss with them is helpful in a way where you can both grow, develop and exchange ideas in a conversation is more about whether others thinking styles are ‘unhelpful’ based on the above ten unwanted thinking styles existing.

Where there is repetition of these ‘unhelpful thinking styles’ (in this thread and in others), it could indicate a deeper set mind-set and a lack of self reflection on those peoples’ part. If the experience that created this mindset is ‘significant’ then it could indicate that a person has used ‘unhelpful thinking styles’ to provide a proof that their assumptions are correct. That is, people look for proofs to support their own assumptions rather than expanding their thinking beyond with other proofs that may exist in self, others and the world.

Next section...

 

[doc leda]

Roles in Relational Games

There are three primary roles of participants in any conversation. These are the ‘persecutor’, the ‘protector’ and the ‘victim’. These are intertwined with left brain (emotional) and right brained (mathematical) thinking and can be combined with the ‘unhelpful thinking styles’ which influence the three primary ‘game’ roles of participants in a conversation.

It is easier to spot the ‘persecutors’ in a conversation because of their negativity, criticism, use of assumptions, and unhelpful thinking styles. They also tend to be more dominating, finger pointing and frustrating to engage with. These types could provoke argument by making assumptions that ‘protectors’ are on the opposing side of a discussion and use ‘assumptions’ and ‘unhelpful thinking styles’ to try to force ‘protectors’ to fit with their own assumptions and on the opposite side of the discussion.

The ‘protectors’ can be less easy to spot in the thread, because they take a more open-minded and exploratory approach using relational communication methods. That is, they talk from a perspective of their own experiences and could be more willing to discuss more and others perspectives and try to develop and grow together. That is, being able to expand knowledge and experiences beyond the rigid in their perceptions. They could also be the ones supporting you in your exploration of the topic and those asking ‘persecutors’ to check themselves or back off.

I think the third role in a conversation, the ‘victim’, is easier to spot. It may not be the choice of the ‘victim’ to play the role of the ‘victim’. This is because the ‘persecutor’ and the ‘protector’ have taken very specific roles in the conversation and force one or two people into the role of the victim by the word game they choose to play and the role they choose to take.

When there are things like ‘substance abuse’ present (example purposes only), the above game becomes more complicated with the ‘abuser’ forcing different people into different roles (and more) in the game to suit the game the ‘abuser’ is playing and the end outcome the ‘abuser’ desires. In these situations conversations become more about the words on the page to be moved around so that the end outcome can be achieved and the ‘abuser’ gets his/her fix. ‘Abusers’ become very clever at using word games, and some would consider themselves ‘genius word game players’ because of their years of training at putting people into various roles to get their own desired outcome at the end of the game.

 

[doc leda]

What does this have to do with topic of Pity Parties?

If we were to draw up a table with the following categories across the top of left winged arguments, in-between arguments and right winged arguments, which we can do by using the ‘persecutor’ (right) and ‘protector’ (left) categories. If we discard anything that appears to be an ‘unhelpful thinking style’ as others making assumptions, then what are we left with?

When I did this myself on this thread, what I found was very simplistic. It was on the left side (emotion) we have showing others compassion and allowing them to grieve. On the right side (mathematical) we have stopping people from heading down an unhealthy ‘negative’ cycle of thought or a ‘persecutory’ role of assuming that the victim is engaged in a word game of ‘attention seeking behaviours’ to serve a disingenuous goal. That is, if I kick someone equals less ‘pity party’. However, the response may have a more negative impact on the person needing compassion and space to grieve. There is also the possibility, that the right side (kickers) is assuming that a) it is unhealthy b) that it will cause a negative cycle and c) that they don’t have the capacity to offer compassion d) that they are the one in need of compassion. I see these things as the ‘grey’ area of assumptions and perspectives.

On the left side (emotional) there is compassion and being allowed the space to grieve. This is the genuine victims situation, where they are seeking compassion, empathy, understanding and space to grieve through assuming that the other will apply ‘active listening’ skills. Active listening skills are to do with the development and growth of both parties. Yes, there are assumptions but these are more fluid and flexible for both parties and it forms a mutual ‘protector’ style of engagement where both parties are cognisant of each others’ needs and the desired outcome is that both parties expand their knowledge and experiences. Then there are those victims who are engaged in word games that seek, not to expand their perspective, but rather to take the compassion to serve a disingenuous goal, like a ‘substance abuser’ would. These also form the ‘grey area’ of the pity part discussion. There is more to consider such as honesty, truthfulness and equality in control that I personally feel is important to this discussion and to conversations around ‘pity parties’ with ourselves, others and with the world.

I would really like to hear whether this is helpful for you Meadowsweet, and whether there is another way of looking at the ‘pity parties’ and what is helpful and unhelpful thinking and word games when traumatic experiences are present. I know that I don’t have all the answers, and I see far more ‘grey’ in this topic than what can be computed at the moment. It would be really nice if the conversation moved forward as a growth exchange and there was a little more respectful discussion. We are dealing with people and not words on a page.

I have attached two documents, one summarising ‘unhelpful thinking styles’ and the other is a worksheet on ‘compassion’, which might be helpful for those willing to self reflect and expand their perspective.

 

[The Albatross]

The Karpman Drama Triangle.

I have been trying to get out of that and learn the Quinby model (Quinby Durable Model).
http://www.soulselfhelp.on.ca/karpmanquinbytriangles.pdf

Edited to add a better synopsis of the Quinby Durable Model:
[DLMURL]http://www.ta-tutor.com/webpdf/trivprfm.pdf[/DLMURL]

Both models come from transactual analysis?

 

[Meadowsweet]

It's very interesting doc leda. There is a lot there, so I think some I will bear in mind and will come back to at a later time.

The victim, protector, persecuter triangle I think can be more complex that what comes across on the surface.

The overt display and the covert self of victim/protector/persecuter can be reactions against each other.

For example, the person who feels they have been unfairly treated (the victim) may feel justified in displaying attributes more commonly associated with the persecuter. Or they may put themselves in the role of protector of people they percieve as being victimised. In this way they remain in denial of their feelings of victimisation, and that can feel safer.

But the same reactions can be caused by how others are responding around us. I wonder if this is more prevelant in people who have a weak or insecure sense of self, so that they play whichever role is required by a given situation. In an abusive situation with somebody taking the dominant role, I think this is often the case.

As children (or adults yet to develop a strong sense of self) people aim to please the authority figure, and if weakness and incapability are what brings the authority figure pleasure, then the dominated person will learn to play that role. At the same time, when there is aggression and punishment for showing strength of character and capability, then there can be fear associated with being successful and showing stronger attributes to others.

So what appears on the outside, in somebody's words or actions, can be either a reaction to the unconcious self or a reaction to the situation.

I think that getting to know somebody at a deep or psychological level can give us the insight to better understand the behaviours of ourselves and others. But I don't believe there is ever a place where evaluation and re-evaluation are no longer necessary.

I think if continuous evaluation is applied to experience, then it becomes possible to view a single subject from multiple angles.

 

[doc leda]

Absolutely correct The Albatross. I am glad you have these models handy.

There are various other models of interest in transactional analysis, including the Ego States which can apply. The Ego State model becomes more complex in variations depending on the situation. The Ego States comprise Parent Ego, Adult Ego, and Child Ego. It is worth exploring if you are interested.

Meadowsweet, what you have written is very valuable and enlightened thinking. I agree with everything you have written and it has very complex layers.

What we learn as children is about pleasing authority, and we may also choose to please authority to avoid situations. We also learn before the age of 7 years old (sounds awfully young to me) what our future should hold and the steps that should happen. This can be either positive or negative and is called a 'life script'. Culture, society and familial influences determine our expectations and assumptions as much as our self and the situation at hand.

It also could be a fear of success as much as a fear of failure and a desire to have a voice heard (even if it repeats the same song). It could be a sign of weak sense of self and it could be others putting someone into a box that they choose. Most of our reactions are subconscious until we can examine, reflect and move that reaction into our consciousness.

I think if continuous evaluation is applied to experience, then it becomes possible to view a single subject from multiple angles.

Yes it absolutely does. You are one bright cookie.

 

[The Albatross]

I cut my teeth on the Karpman Drama Triangle Doc, when my high school psychologist was involved and trying to help me get through school (1976 and 77). Perhaps you should start a new discussion thread. I would particularly be interested in the Quinby model as there seems to be precious little available to laypeople on the net.

 

[Meadowsweet]

But after all the theory and understanding, we still have to find our own place in the world. That for me is what this thread is about.

To open discussion enables me to hear different views. So my choices about the words I choose to use and how I choose to respond to others are hopefully considered with respect for the effect those words can have and with respect for myself when dealing with other peoples responses.

 

[doc leda]

What we understand and the conclusion we draw from the understanding is what we own ourselves. A forum full of the mentally unwell can be a very tricky place to navigate because what others have seen as a benefit is often expressed as ‘the only solution’ and people rarely talk through how they came to have that conclusion.

It is best described by development theories. Development is about encouraging others to explore their thinking, feeling, knowing and doing and guiding them through other perspectives for the purpose of finding something that they can relate to express themselves and express the point of view of other parties. It is never about making decisions for others.

People tend to jump to their own conclusion without helping others to see where their conclusion came from. They expect that their own way is correct because it was correct for them and so they built a higher wall of knowledge that reinforces that particular way of thinking. As we age, it becomes harder to shift that wall and with so many knowledge bricks, we are talking about changing people’s mental models which is not easy to do. Most will try to crash through that wall at high speed with little regard for the pea that is under those many knowledge bricks, will little regard for the effect on the wall builder, and the wall builders desire to protect that pea at all costs.

If we re-read your original post, we can learn that during your development stage you were not allowed to express your emotions for fear of criticism and punishment. Those who have read your OP should be able to discern that you were raised in an unhealthy thinking environment and you might be concerned as to whether you have adopted some of these unhealthy thinking patterns. Those that have taken the time to read the OP, should also have the good sense to avoid pushing buttons that would make you feel fear, criticism and punishment. So why was this not respectfully considered in others’ words other chose to use?

Your OP says to me that you have a high sense of consciousness and are trying to frame ‘healthy’ from ‘unhealthy thinking’. That is a very positive approach to thinking which is at the start of the development process. There are benefits to emotions, one of which is cathartic benefits of venting and arguments that help to reduce stress. The words chosen in the process of cathartic venting, can lead to unhelpful thinking. For example, bottling up emotions can lead to unhelpful and misdirected argument. It can be easier to lash out to strangers than it can be to those we care about as much as we can lash out to those we care about because we expect them to understand us more or to love us unconditionally.

I am unsure if you had a specific discussion or situation in mind when creating this thread. What I can do is tell you a story and hope that a discussion of this story can help in some small way.

The story

Jack and Jill were raised in a family where discipline was considered the most appropriate way to raise a child. Their parents, parents were disciplinarians and they were expected to listen and do whatever their parents told them to do and that children need to learn boundaries and respect for elders. Jack was expected to have a dominant future because he would need to provide for a wife and family and have a successful job. He was praised often for his intelligence at school and for being a responsible person. When Jack was upset, everyone would have to be kind to him and take care of him.
Jill was expected to be both independent and to take care of others. She was expected to go to school and be successful, not to have a job, but to be appealing to a future husband. Jill was often criticised when she got upset and was told she was temperamental, difficult and emotional if she ever questioned her parents, or when she was upset. Jill was expected to take care of herself and love her parents and brother unconditionally. If she did not, suck it up and give more to everyone else she was called emotional and disciplined.

Others would comment on how well disciplined the children were. The father would say we have high hopes for Jack, but Jill is unwell and has a ‘condition’ that makes her moody so she needs greater discipline, particularly when she is being emotional. She had a very creative imagination though and is very good at making up stories. Others would accept this as wisdom and praise Jack, and tell Jill that she was being silly or criticise her for not riding her bike appropriately if she fell off and grazed her leg, instead they would tell her to suck it up and get back on the bike and stop being emotional. Jill would get back on her bike and try even harder at being a ‘good girl’ because she didn’t like getting in trouble. She saw how her brother was treated and thought that if she did it right and listened to her elders she might get some comfort through kind words, a hug and unconditional love.

When Jill was 7 years old, her father began sexually assaulting her, and unfortunately for Jill, she learnt that if she got upset and talked to people she would be disciplined, if she talked to people they would say she was lying, being emotional and had quite an imagination. Jill was unable to talk to anyone, she had one friend and that friendship was lacking in emotional openness. Jill grew up and got married. She told her husband what happened to her as a child, but rarely spoke about how it made her feel, because she feared the consequences of being emotional.

Jill’s husband said to her he was very stressed at work and wanted to quit. She got upset and said to him, what do you have to be stressed about? at least you can work and have your own independence, at least you have your sanity. Life is not so bad for you, get over it and stop feeling sorry for yourself. You just want a pity parties and I am not playing. An argument resulted. The husband says, you are not listening to me, I work to put food on the table, show me some respect, can’t you do better or work harder to get over your father?. They slept in different rooms for a week, grunting and passing snide comments to each other. Jill would make a meal and Jack would refuse to eat it, Jack would need a shirt for work and Jill would refuse to wash it.

We can dissect this story and look at the perspectives, what went wrong for both parties and what could have been a better approach and what benefits would a different approach have had on the relationship between husband and wife. What do we think, know, feel and do? What would we change in the last paragraph of the story?

I will start by saying that I believe both parties can improve their exchange and words in this story.

 

[doc leda]

I would particularly be interested in the Quinby model as there seems to be precious little available to laypeople on the net.

There isn't a great deal on the internet. Here is a document geared more towards trauma and dissociation than relational articles that use the model. If in the right frame of mind, it can help to read this with the Quinby Durable Model you linked to earlier.

I encourage you to begin a thread. It is a lovely idea and I believe using models are a helpful starting point for exploring challenges people face.

 

[The Albatross]

ME? :O_o: I'm hardly the person to begin that thread. I just want to follow the discussion. You on the other hand, seem pretty well versed on the topic. I don't think I could intelligently discuss anything other than my own personal experience... but I know we have others here that certainly can.