Learned Optimism and Street Heeling, part I

[kneehighs]

Okay guys, I'm not usually into long posts so bear with me on this one. You guys have heard about Ivan Pavlov right? He's the guy that discovered Classical Conditioning. What happened was that he took dogs that were hungry and right at the moment in time when he fed them food and they started to salivate, he rang a bell. After repeating this a few times, he discovered that by just ringing the bell, he could get the dogs to salivate. Hence, Pavlovian or Classical Conditioning was born. Now around the 1960's, a couple of U Penn graduate students began a similar study on dogs. Martin Seligman and Steve Maier took 3 groups of dogs: A, B, and C. First, Group A dogs were exposed to shock that they could terminate and control by pushing a panel with their nose. Group B dogs were subected to shock that they could not directly control and terminate. Their results were completely dependent on Group A's response. If Group A escaped shock so did they; and if Group A did not escape, neither did they. Group C didn't receive shock either way. The next day the dogs were placed on a court with 2 sides. Half of the court was shocked, half of it wasn't. Naturally Group A dogs jumped the middle barrier to safety. So did Group C. But Group B dogs remained motionless and merely soaked up the shocks like wet sponges. They had learned helplessness. The same thing occurs with us when we street heel. Many times our confidence is based on our past "failures" Some of us, not all of us, have learned to associate more pain than pleasure to street heeling. We have put on our beloved heels, and soon our heart starts to race. We might get sweaty hands, sweaty foreheads, look nervous, worry about what other people may be thinking, some may even feel guilty..and pretty soon, we have similarly learned helplessness. Back to the study. Seligman and Maier in follow up visits with Group B dogs took the dogs back to the same court where half was shocked and the other half wasn't. But instead of just letting the dogs lie limp and "die" they intervened. They physically dragged the dogs back and forth over and over and over until pretty soon the dogs learned that they could escape the shock on their own and did so. In fact, in Seligmans own words, "the cure was 100% reliable and permanent." (Seligman, '90)Seligman had succeeded in teaching his formerly pessimistic dogs learned optimism. He had reversed the learned helplessness and created a new dynamic for the Group B dogs. And the same thing can also be done for humans like us! More on that in part two tomorrow, as it's getting late now. Please bear with me as this has relevance for the forum FOR THE GUYS and offers a way to empower men to live and dress the way they want to live. Thanks.

[genebujold]

Okay guys, I'm not usually into long posts so bear with me on this one. You guys have heard about Ivan Pavlov right? He's the guy that discovered Classical Conditioning. What happened was that he took dogs that were hungry and right at the moment in time when he fed them food and they started to salivate, he rang a bell. After repeating this a few times, he discovered that by just ringing the bell, he could get the dogs to salivate. Hence, Pavlovian or Classical Conditioning was born.

Now around the 1960's, a couple of U Penn graduate students began a similar study on dogs. Martin Seligman and Steve Maier took 3 groups of dogs: A, B, and C. First, Group A dogs were exposed to shock that they could terminate and control by pushing a panel with their nose. Group B dogs were subected to shock that they could not directly control and terminate. Their results were completely dependent on Group A's response. If Group A escaped shock so did they; and if Group A did not escape, neither did they. Group C didn't receive shock either way.

The next day the dogs were placed on a court with 2 sides. Half of the court was shocked, half of it wasn't. Naturally Group A dogs jumped the middle barrier to safety. So did Group C. But Group B dogs remained motionless and merely soaked up the shocks like wet sponges. They had learned helplessness.

The same thing occurs with us when we street heel. Many times our confidence is based on our past "failures" Some of us, not all of us, have learned to associate more pain than pleasure to street heeling. We have put on our beloved heels, and soon our heart starts to race. We might get sweaty hands, sweaty foreheads, look nervous, worry about what other people may be thinking, some may even feel guilty..and pretty soon, we have similarly learned helplessness.

Back to the study. Seligman and Maier in follow up visits with Group B dogs took the dogs back to the same court where half was shocked and the other half wasn't. But instead of just letting the dogs lie limp and "die" they intervened. They physically dragged the dogs back and forth over and over and over until pretty soon the dogs learned that they could escape the shock on their own and did so. In fact, in Seligmans own words, "the cure was 100% reliable and permanent." (Seligman, '90)Seligman had succeeded in teaching his formerly pessimistic dogs learned optimism. He had reversed the learned helplessness and created a new dynamic for the Group B dogs. And the same thing can also be done for humans like us!

More on that in part two tomorrow, as it's getting late now. Please bear with me as this has relevance for the forum FOR THE GUYS and offers a way to empower men to live and dress the way they want to live. Thanks.

Wow! Terrifically insightful post!

Counselors use this as a "method of last resort" in the process of systematic desensitization.

Sometimes, those who've learned helplessness behaviors fall into the B category because they've associated numerous past efforts with failure.

The only way to get them over this is to build such a repoir with them that they'd rather face their fear than risk loosing a solid friendship (many subjects have few friendships).

I hate to say it, but it's the technique I hate the most, as it means placing a condition on the newfound relationship, namely, one of getting on the elevator, or going outside, or... you get the picture.

Naturally, we would never really abandon our clients. If anything happens, it's an immediate 180 back into the counseling relationshiop. that's failure, however, and we can't jumpt the gun, as it means they'll just learn how to manipulate us into never pressing the issue.

Unfortunately, we must, if it comes to that, make them think that's what we'll do if they don't take the next step.

One method I do like is what I call the "come walk with me" method, as it has Jesus Christ's "follow me" command at its center.

I use this when dealing with x-phobes, as it leverages the personal relationship I've built up with them against their own fears, which usually include abandonment. It still stucks, but sometimes it's the only way one can pry people out of the massive rut they, or their circumstances, have dug for themselves.

For example, when dealing with an agoraphobe (fear of openness/public places), I will build the relationship, then leverage that to entice the individual to accompany me to the front door, the end of the hall, the elevator, the lobby, the patio, the local street, the park, the...

It takes a looooong time, but when you finally see that individual walking confidently through an open park or down a crowded street, embracing life...

I can't begin to tell you how much worth it that it really is.

[kneehighs]

Okay, so the other half of the Learned Optimism thread works like this. Just as Martin Seligman forced the Group B dogs over the middle barrier over and over and over again and thus trained them to "think optimistically" on their own, so Seligman has a system to teach people how to think optimistically. Basically he borrowed the system ABC from Albert Ellis, another cognitive psychology movement pioneer. A stands for adversity and is the actual event, no personal opinion, no personal commentary, just the raw data of the event. B stands for your belief about the event. What do you think about the event? C stands for the consequences of what you think. How do you feel as a result of your thinking and believing such and such was bad? For example: A=I was at a nightclub and I crossed my legs exposing my high heel. Some girls next to me cupped their hands and put their mouths to each others ears and looked at me. B=I believe they were laughing or gossiping about my heels. C=I felt embarrassed. The next part of the ABC method is D. D stands for disputation and here is where you argue against your own limiting beliefs. An argument against B and C above might be. 1. Another girl came over to me and talked to me about my heels and she even asked me to dance with her in front of her friends. Thus, it was no real big deal. 2. Maybe they were just surprised to see a man in heels as this is indeed uncommon. But uncommon doesn't mean bad, even in their minds. 3. Chicke Little--making mountains out of molehills here. etc.etc.. What kinds of arguments have you guys used for yourself in defense of street heeling? Seems like there are alot ways to argue for it and I was just hoping to get at least SOME feedback. Thanks

[kneehighs]

Wow! Terrifically insightful post!

Counselors use this as a "method of last resort" in the process of systematic desensitization.

Sometimes, those who've learned helplessness behaviors fall into the B category because they've associated numerous past efforts with failure.

The only way to get them over this is to build such a repoir with them that they'd rather face their fear than risk loosing a solid friendship (many subjects have few friendships).

Seems to me rapport is easy to build. Usually, I find it easy to focus on how fast a person's chest rises and falls and mirror the phrases of my sentences in rythm with their breathing. Others begin with mirroring how loud a person talks. I remember I went to a junk yard when I lived in the Detroit area and the owner was loud, rude, and a little intimidating to be honest with you. He was unshaven, wearing a blue baseball cap, and was a hard ass. When he talked to me, I talked as loud as he did right back at him! That got him to respect me and take me seriously.

What I'm getting at is that rapport can be quickly built. I'm sure this isn't new to you, but if you listen carefully when people speak, they tend to subconsciously emphasize certain words over others. You can say, "I did not STEAL the bag," or you can say, "I did not steal the BAG." And by repeating back these favorite words to people, I find I can get rapport very fast. That's just one way of doing it though.

[genebujold]

Unfortunately, the level of rapport required to get a phobic to choose the relationship over the phobia takes months, if not years, and is only contingent upon that phobic not having much of a relationship with anyone else. I, as their counselor, literally have to become their best friend. This poses all sorts of problems for the counseling relationship, and is something most counselors aren't willing to do, as it requires considerable time spent outside of the paying counseling environment.

[Firefox]

The argument I use is that it's my fashion choice, it's not illegal, and it doesn't harm anyone. Is any other argument needed?

[genebujold]

Uh, we're talking about two totally different things, here. Street-heeling and severe phobics... One is trying to attain to society's norm, while the other is going significantly beyond society's norm...

[kneehighs]

Firefox Thanks for your arguments...there really is no limitation to the number of arguments one could come up with. Really, what I am aiming to do is create a Top Ten Reasons For Men To Wear High Heels. Then we could post that as some men need logic and rationalization to justify their feelings and behaviors. People in general need logic to support a decision usually made with emotions. The essence of sales is to excite the emotions first, then "rationalize" those emotions with solid logic. Men at this forum are no exception.

For instance, I find that when wearing stilleto pointy toe's, I feel feminine. And sometimes part of me wants me to choose between being masculine or feminine, but not both. Thus, this thought process can reduce my motivation to wear heels publicly during the daytime. But masculine and feminine can co-exist, independent of clothing. And even based on clothing, masculine and feminine can co-exist. These are some samples. This type of theorizing isn't for everyone either. I don't expect it to be.

Gene Have you ever studied Neuro Linguistic Programming? NLP is based on the findings of Richard Bandler and John Grinder. They studied some of the worlds foremost authorities in counseling and distilled their findings into a step-by-step format the average man can use to duplicate their results. Alot of their findings are based on the techniques of Milton Erickson. As you know, he was to hypnosis was George Washington was to the U.S. Presidency. He legitimized the science of hypnosis in the medical community in a world plagued by sensationalized media presentations. Take a look at some of their stuff. Richard has cured hundreds upon hundreds of phobics in minutes and I've even used some of his mechanics to help people lose weight.

[genebujold]

But masculine and feminine can co-exist, independent of clothing. And even based on clothing, masculine and feminine can co-exist.

Definately! About the only time I "feel" feminine is when I either open up to my wife on a heart issue, or I'm counseling someone, thinking, "just spit it out!" only to remember that if they could, they wouldn't be in counseling. Then I'm flooded with compassion. It's kind of weird, but at times I feel quite feminine, yet much like I do when I'm holding my son after he hurt his knee/hand/elbow/chin while riding his scooter! My heart, well, melts.

Gene Have you ever studied Neuro Linguistic Programming? NLP is based on the findings of Richard Bandler and John Grinder. They studied some of the worlds foremost authorities in counseling and distilled their findings into a step-by-step format the average man can use to duplicate their results. Alot of their findings are based on the techniques of Milton Erickson. As you know, he was to hypnosis was George Washington was to the U.S. Presidency. He legitimized the science of hypnosis in the medical community in a world plagued by sensationalized media presentations. Take a look at some of their stuff. Richard has cured hundreds upon hundreds of phobics in minutes and I've even used some of his mechanics to help people lose weight.

A bit. Although NLP used gestalt techniques, it isn't based on hypnosis, but some NLP advocates the use hypnosis to achieve faste results.

Faster results do not necessarily translate into better long-term success. Phobics who've gone through gestalt-based therapy often develop a different phobia, because the underlying fault with their coping mechanisms that allowed them to get into the first phobia are still there, even if the phobia is gone.

The Army actually studied NLP back in the 80s to help improve "human performance," but concluded that the empiracle foundation of NLP was quite weak.

I use a mixture of therapies, including gestalt, Biblical, and Congnitive Behavior, as I believe most address at least some of the many problems each client brings to my office. I have to be careful, though, for if I flip-flop between therapies it can confuse the client and result in mistrust. I find that consistant, loving application of Biblical principles works the best in the long run.

[kneehighs]

Although NLP used gestalt techniques, it isn't based on hypnosis, but some NLP advocates the use hypnosis to achieve faster results.

Not true. Fritz Perls' influence on NLP was very minimal. Bandler and Grinder actually created NLP while students at UCSC in Greg Bateson's classroom. Bandler merely transcribed a seminar taught by Mr. Perls as part of a project including, but not limited to: Virginia Satir (family therapist) and Milton Erickson. Bateson encouraged the two to visit Erickson in Arizona. They learned from Milton Erickson one on one, mano a mano. If you read my post carefully, you would see that I said, "Alot of their findings are based on the techniques of Milton Erickson." I never said NLP was based on hypnosis in general.

Further, NLP and hypnosis both presuppose the use of a trance state (as any therapy actually does). NLP just doesn't require a formal trance induction like hypnosis teaches.

Faster results do not necessarily translate into better long-term success.

I agree completely here. I've studied therapy that takes years and studied therapy that takes seconds. Both can be effective. I've met people who have used therapy that lasted years and they were still at point one. Therapy that takes along time to translate into good results does not necessarily translate into more permanent results either.

Phobics who've gone through gestalt-based therapy often develop a different phobia, because the underlying fault with their coping mechanisms that allowed them to get into the first phobia are still there, even if the phobia is gone.

Well, Bandler in his newer works doesn't support Gestalt therapy. Besides, go through a index of any NLP book and you'll find Erickson cited many, many more times than Perls--if you even find Perls at all. So basically, the efficacy of Gestalt therapy as far as this thread is concerned is non topical.

The Army actually studied NLP back in the 80s to help improve "human performance," but concluded that the empiracle foundation of NLP was quite weak.

What documentation do you have for this? Because I have conlcusions from the Army that support positive peformance enhancements as generated through NLP.

I use a mixture of therapies, including gestalt, Biblical, and Congnitive Behavior, as I believe most address at least some of the many problems each client brings to my office. I have to be careful, though, for if I flip-flop between therapies it can confuse the client and result in mistrust. I find that consistant, loving application of Biblical principles works the best in the long run.

The bible addresses the heart and it is from the heart that good or evil comes from. How's that for a Christian viewpoint?

[azraelle]

Many women, and nearly all of the ones I have personally gotten to know, resent high heels as an expectation of society, find them genuinely uncomfortable, debilitating, a method of control by a male-dominated society, etc. Many women that I've known, often resent that they have to use such inane and medically unsound methods as high heel wearing to get noticed, profesionally that is, as in employment. While not my only reason for wearing them, this has always been in the back of my mind, although I've never been able to formulate an answer based on it (perhaps someone on this board can put it better?): "Although I would never presume to expect or require women to wear high heels, I am aware that major portions of society in general does exactly that, especially in certain more formal situations. That being the case, I am doing my part in attempting to equalize what I percieve to be an unfair situation--What is appropriate or expected for the "goose" ought to be shared by the "gander" as well, be it a wedding reception, or a prom, or anything else. I am sorry the vast majority of my fellow males don't feel similarly bound by the rules of fair play."

[Bubba136]

Azraelle commented:

Many women that I've known, often resent that they have to use such inane and medically unsound methods as high heel wearing to get noticed, profesionally that is, as in employment.

This reasoning has always puzzled me because if women don't like to wear high heels, all they have to do is refuse to buy them and manufactures, stores and retail businesses will get the message (the forces of the market place). The same applies to employers. If women applicants for a position don't wear heels, the expectancy will disappear. While a lot of men (like me) will decry the passing of high heels, we will persevere.

[azraelle]

While individual women and men may be logical and act logically, collectively, human beings, especially women, are not. Forgetting fashion for a moment, your same argument can, and has, been applied to many other subjects; organizing workers into a union comes immediately to mind. While arguments are made to the effect that the workers will be better off if they act as one, collectively, they (individually) still have to put food on the table, and will still act in what they perceive to be their own individual best interests. It is only when conditions become so intolerable that they feel that they have nothing more to lose that they will start to act together, as one, in the group's self-interest. In a nation with a population aproximating 300 million, many women feel, individually that things are unfair to them with regards to society's expectations of them in social and employment situations, whether fashion is involved or not. They cannot, however, attempt to change things single-handedly unless they have a very hard mental shell, or have been brought up to truly think and act for themselves. Even in this so-called enlightened day, a surprisingly few actually are--it may have alot to do with the more negative aspects of collective schooling (excessive peer pressure), and an inadvertent argument for home-schooling.

[Bubba136]

Your arguement is sound, azraelle. However, I still can't see, no matter how anyone trys to explain it, why any woman would wear heels if she didn't want to wear them.

[azraelle]

How about turning the argument around a bit? I doubt you will find one man in ten that really truly like wearing ties, much less see anything useful or comfortable about them. But ask them why any man would wear ties if he didn't want to wear them.

[genebujold]

Not true. Fritz Perls' influence...

If I could share with you how many people who've come through my office as NLP "success stories" only to wind up repeating their deep life problems, it would scare you.

I'm into healing, not band-aids, and NLP is a short-term band-aid. The deep issues remain.

I agree completely here. I've studied therapy that takes years and studied therapy that takes seconds. Both can be effective. I've met people who have used therapy that lasted years and they were still at point one. Therapy that takes along time to translate into good results does not necessarily translate into more permanent results either.

[kneehighs]

If I could share with you how many people who've come through my office as NLP "success stories" only to wind up repeating their deep life problems, it would scare you.

I'm into healing, not band-aids, and NLP is a short-term band-aid. The deep issues remain.

Okay, the issue on this particular subpoint on this thread was originally about NLP's relationship to Gestalt therapy and hypnosis. Let's not get to far off topic here. And NLP as a band-aid? More on that below.

Whether it's out of pocket of via insurance, therapy costs money. I'm all for the "best bang for the buck" approach.

Well, we both agree on this subpoint of this thread.

Again, I use what works. Gestalt therapy, in it's simplest terms, merely means that there are ways of going from one point to another, primarily by building the foundation, and then, when the patient is ready, putting in the keystone, thereby moving their awareness from one point to another in a "gestalt." The understanding, though, is that it still involves the laying of a good foundation, and that takes time.

A pragmatic response from someone arguing from a need to prove efficacy with scientifically backed research as your case citings against NLP demand.

I can be equally as pragmatic. I use what works too. NLP works with some people some of the time. So does REBT. So does hypnosis. I am not claiming it works for all people all of the time. To me, NLP is just a piece of the whole puzzle. It has it's purpose in it's own designated time and place. After all in your own bible it says in ECC, "there is a time and a place for everything."

Indeed, I agree that achieving symptomatic solutions even with NLP without addressing the deeper fundamental problems can actually result in an overall worse condition later. That does not mean it does not have it's time and place in the overall picture of personal improvement. Gestalt therapy, REBT, MBTI therapy, in fact, any therapy can have a time and a place to be used.

While many therapists employed by the Army use NLP (which has been particularly successful in their drug and alcohol rehabilitation efforts), the Army itself explored NLP in the 80s to improve human performance. Conclusion, above.

Here are some quotes:

"The study, conducted by the National Research Council (NRC), completed in 1988, and entitled Enhancing Human Performance, under the commission of the U.S. Army, examined the claims of the NLP.

"The NRC researchers checked out other frontiers of human potential as well, including accelerated learning, biofeedback, and neuro-linguistic programming (NLP). NLP which postulates connection between behavior and neurology and claims to train students to `read' others by noting their eye position and choice of language, was also dismissed as having a social rather than a neurological basis."

Here are some other resources:

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Neuro-Linguistic_Programming.asp?sitearea=ETO

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309037921/html/15.html

http://www.trancenet.org/research/2000druckman.shtml

I'll have to get back with you on this. I have a mini Barnes and Nobles personal improvement self help section in my living room to go through.

No and Yes.

Evil does come from the heart. But the Bible addresses the mind, first, then the heart:

Does everything have to be an argument with you about what is right and what is wrong? Whether the heart (feelings) come before the mind (thoughts) wasn't my point. Matt 15:

17"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "

[genebujold]

Hi, Kneehighs - I'm in agreement with everything you said.

I'm curious about this, though:

Does everything have to be an argument with you about what is right and what is wrong? Whether the heart (feelings) come before the mind (thoughts) wasn't my point. Matt 15:

17"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "

I do not see any conflict between 2 Pet 1:3-9's progression of faith, goodness, knowledge, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love.

Faith begins with the heart.