Guest guest Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 That would be the most important metric, I believe.... D Sent from my iPad Darrell G. King, RN, CASAC-T Rochester, NY, US > Love your down to earth response > Your calculations might not be very scientific but they make sense > > Sent from my iPhone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 LOL. ACT or listserve wisdom?DSent from my iPadDarrell G. King, RN, CASAC-TRochester, NY, US ....so what you resist persists? Hey - Yeah. Bring on the equations!!!!!!!!! I think your logic might be more appropriately applied to distress (the bad kind of stress). The good kind keeps us safe, etc.. The challenge is to know the difference. I'll be interested where this thread will take us. Bill To: ACT_for_the_Public From: castonemsw@...Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 17:28:05 -0400Subject: stress I have been reading the threads about meditation and acceptance and pain and tension. I thought this idea might be relevant to some of you. I was talking with an engineer the other day about stress. The definition of stress in the realm of physics is "the internal resistance of a body to an applied force or system of forces which tends to deform the body." I noticed that this definition is also applicable to the psychological term "stress". If you look at it with an ACT lens, you might say that the world exerts a perpetual series of forces on a human which tends to deform (or alter) the human and resistance to said force increases the deformation. If stress = resistance + applied force (please physicists dont take this too literally, I know the real equation is more complex), it might stand to reason that, given the external forces of the world are frequently not within the control of said human, the way to reduce the stress is to reduce the internal resistance. stress = resistance + applied force OR X=8+3 OR X=11 BUT IF resistance is reduced to 1, then stress = 4 It might also be said that if the body, instead, applies energy or work in effort to reduce the applied external force, that energy or work IS resistance and thus the stress also increases. X= (8+5) +3; X=16 Just a thought. -- -- A. Stone, MSW,LISW-CP210 West Stone AveGreenville, SC 29609(864) 238-2003castonemsw@...www.betterthinking-betterlife.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 Thanks so much, Helena, for helping me out with the clarification. . I actually wrote another explanation trying to make it more clear but erased it because it still looked pretty much the same as the first, so I erased it and asked for help. sure, I'm capable of plain words. All I was saying was " Drop the rope " . I just wanted to see what people thought about another way of looking at the concept. And I got it, some like it and some really don't. OK. Here's the final version of my response (sorry for the mis-post): Definition of terms: S - Stress: Whatever we perceive as stressful AF - Applied Force: applied external forces - on our body/psyche (my question: do not these forces also stem from internal sources, such as thoughts?) R - Resistance: the effort to reduce applied external forces; any energy expended for the purpose of reducing those forces, including mind/body work, for example Equation: Stress is the sum of Resistance and Applied Force, or S=R+AF Assume that the amount of Resistance and Applied Force can be rated on a scale of 1-20 Therefore, if Resistance = 8, and Applied Force = 3, then Stress equals 11 Thus, if we could reduce Resistance on the scale (say to 1), then Stress would be reduced to 4 (much lower when resistance is lowered) Don't know if this helps or muddies the water... Helena > stress = resistance + applied force OR X=8+3 OR X=11BUT IF resistance is reduced to 1, then stress = 4> It might also be said that if the body, instead, applies energy or work in effort to reduce the applied external force, that energy or work IS resistance and thus the stress also increases. X= (8+5) +3; X=16 Re: stress Bill, can you or dumb it down some? Have no idea what is being said. Thanks,Theresa For other ACT materials and list serves see www.contextualpsychology.orgIf you do not wish to belong to ACT_for_the_Public, you may unsubscribe by sending an email to ACT_for_the_Public-unsubscribe MARKETPLACE Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center. Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use .. -- A. Stone, MSW,LISW-CP210 West Stone AveGreenville, SC 29609castonemsw@... www.betterthinking-betterlife.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 I didn't think you were trying to rile me up at all, Helena. I'm giving you feedback on what your response felt like for me. Maybe not a lecture (I realized that word was a bit strong after I hit send), just felt a bit over- eager and forcing the issue with a desire for me to be happy and have fun. And I was just commenting thanks, and I need to simply be where I'm at. After all, resistance causes persistence, including resisting my own feelings of things not feeling so hot in the moment. Doesn't mean the feeling/discomfort needs to stop me. Just means I prefer to let it be, let it play out, just like folks wanted the thread about Watts to play out before I (wrongly and precipitously) attempted to control it, stop it. There are times I experience: wow, that sucked and didn't feel cool and when that happens, I try to let that be too. In other words if things don't necessarily feel O.K. at the moment for me, I don't feel a need to add or subtract to it. It's great you got value out of the read "I'm O.K., you're O.K." and I honestly didn't. The book read too much like more control agenda, another feel good book, trying a bit too hard with a new intellectual rule about being cool, that we're all O.K. Just didn't feel like acceptance to me, least not in the experiential sense. (Although the authors were likely aiming for that). I often forget that the phrase "Holding lightly" frequently used in ACT is not at all meant as a rule and even that needs to be held lightly! ;-)kind regards and holding all lightly (including that),Theresa*p.s. And please don't believe a word I say!To: ACT for the Public <ACT_for_the_Public >Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 9:35:53 AMSubject: Re: Re: stress I hear you, Theresa. Yes, you should allow your own experience to be what it is. It is YOUR experience. But you can allow your own experience to be what it is even if someone does put out a gentle comment (not a lecture) about what works for them. The gist of what said, which is that resistance to outside forces ("what is") increases stress, may have resonated better with some people because she chose to portray that concept using an equation--but not to others. I didn't mean to rile you up; seems to happen a lot between us. I think it best that I simply stop responding to your posts - no ill feelings. Helena Re: stress Bill, can you or dumb it down some? Have no idea what is being said. Thanks,Theresa For other ACT materials and list serves see www.contextualpsychology.orgIf you do not wish to belong to ACT_for_the_Public, you may unsubscribe by sending an email to ACT_for_the_Public-unsubscribe MARKETPLACE Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center. Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 The first book I read was that "Feel the fear and do it anyway". Everyone seemed to be reading it... it was like The Da Vinci Code of its day!!!I stopped reading it when it said "take a risk, you might surprise yourself" but then felt it had to add the footnote that you shouldn't take risks like speeding or taking drugs, and generally not to interpret the book as encouraging illegal acts.Like, duh! :0) xSubject: Re: Re: stressTo: ACT_for_the_Public Date: Friday, 3 June, 2011, 19:05 I didn't think you were trying to rile me up at all, Helena. I'm giving you feedback on what your response felt like for me. Maybe not a lecture (I realized that word was a bit strong after I hit send), just felt a bit over- eager and forcing the issue with a desire for me to be happy and have fun. And I was just commenting thanks, and I need to simply be where I'm at. After all, resistance causes persistence, including resisting my own feelings of things not feeling so hot in the moment. Doesn't mean the feeling/discomfort needs to stop me. Just means I prefer to let it be, let it play out, just like folks wanted the thread about Watts to play out before I (wrongly and precipitously) attempted to control it, stop it. There are times I experience: wow, that sucked and didn't feel cool and when that happens, I try to let that be too. In other words if things don't necessarily feel O.K. at the moment for me, I don't feel a need to add or subtract to it. It's great you got value out of the read "I'm O.K., you're O.K." and I honestly didn't. The book read too much like more control agenda, another feel good book, trying a bit too hard with a new intellectual rule about being cool, that we're all O.K. Just didn't feel like acceptance to me, least not in the experiential sense. (Although the authors were likely aiming for that). I often forget that the phrase "Holding lightly" frequently used in ACT is not at all meant as a rule and even that needs to be held lightly! ;-)kind regards and holding all lightly (including that),Theresa*p.s. And please don't believe a word I say!To: ACT for the Public <ACT_for_the_Public >Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 9:35:53 AMSubject: Re: Re: stress I hear you, Theresa. Yes, you should allow your own experience to be what it is. It is YOUR experience. But you can allow your own experience to be what it is even if someone does put out a gentle comment (not a lecture) about what works for them. The gist of what said, which is that resistance to outside forces ("what is") increases stress, may have resonated better with some people because she chose to portray that concept using an equation--but not to others. I didn't mean to rile you up; seems to happen a lot between us. I think it best that I simply stop responding to your posts - no ill feelings. Helena Re: stress Bill, can you or dumb it down some? Have no idea what is being said. Thanks,Theresa For other ACT materials and list serves see www.contextualpsychology.orgIf you do not wish to belong to ACT_for_the_Public, you may unsubscribe by sending an email to ACT_for_the_Public-unsubscribe MARKETPLACE Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center. Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 I don't recall getting value out of I'm OK, You're OK - I don't even recall reading it; maybe I didn't. I just remember the title of the book and how popular it was. The phrase stuck with me through the years and I often find if helpful to just say "I'm OK, you're OK" when niggling little things about other people's actions/words annoy me. It helps me to remember that we are all mostly OK and things that other people think, say, or do that I take issue with are really no big deal most of the time. Helena Theresa said: It's great you got value out of the read "I'm O.K., you're O.K." and I honestly didn't. The book read too much like more control agenda, another feel good book, trying a bit too hard with a new intellectual rule about being cool, that we're all O.K. Just didn't feel like acceptance to me, least not in the experiential sense. (Although the authors were likely aiming for that). For other ACT materials and list serves see www.contextualpsychology.orgIf you do not wish to belong to ACT_for_the_Public, you may unsubscribe by sending an email to ACT_for_the_Public-unsubscribe Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 , you're obviously too young to remember I'm OK ... it was published in the early 1970s! It was one of the first of its ilk (popular psychology/self-help) out of thousands to follow. The old standbys The Power of Positive Thinking by Norman Peale and How To Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie were the forerunners of the self-help movement in books. I believe the book you mention was first published in the 90s. So much crap out there, isn't there? ACT seems so simple and so solid in comparison, not to mention effective for so many. I wish it had been around in the '70s - I might have lived a more valued life, but who knows. Helena Re: stress Bill, can you or dumb it down some? Have no idea what is being said. Thanks,Theresa For other ACT materials and list serves see www.contextualpsychology.orgIf you do not wish to belong to ACT_for_the_Public, you may unsubscribe by sending an email to ACT_for_the_Public-unsubscribe MARKETPLACE Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center. Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 What about dropping the rope you are holding right now? No one ever said to you 'please go away.' If that's what it felt like to you, your feelings, although valid as such, do not reflect the reality of what was actually said. Sorry - I am letting you push my buttons again. Please just let me be with that experience. Helena stress> >> >> >> >> > *I have been reading the threads about meditation and acceptance and pain> > and tension. I thought this idea might be relevant to some of you. I was> > talking with an engineer the other day about stress. The definition of> > stress in the realm of physics is "the internal resistance of a body to an> > applied force or system of forces which tends to deform the body." I> > noticed that this definition is also applicable to the psychological term> > "stress". If you look at it with an ACT lens, you might say that the world> > exerts a perpetual series of forces on a human which tends to deform (or> > alter) the human and resistance to said force increases the deformation.> > *> > *> > *> > * If stress = resistance + applied force (please physicists dont take this> > too literally, I know the real equation is more complex), it might stand to> > reason that, given the external forces of the world are frequently not> > within the control of said human, the way to reduce the stress is to reduce> > the internal resistance. *> > * stress = resistance + applied force OR X=8+3 OR X=11*> > *BUT IF resistance is reduced to 1, then stress = 4*> > * *> > *It might also be said that if the body, instead, applies energy or work> > in effort to reduce the applied external force, that energy or work IS> > resistance and thus the stress also increases. X= (8+5) +3; X=16*> > *> > *> > *Just a thought.*> > *> > *> > **> > -- > * A. Stone, MSW,LISW-CP> 210 West Stone Ave> Greenville, SC 29609> > castonemsw@...> www.betterthinking-betterlife.com*> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 I swear to God, I am done. Terry, do you not realize how never-endingly contentious and critical you are? I never should have gotten sucked in, but you seem so kind and sincere at times - then whamo! It's like trying to walk through a minefield. Not good for me or the list, so I'm out. Perhaps it bothers me so much because I see that trait in myself and it is one of the main things I am working on. Best wishes, Helena stress> >> >> >> >> > *I have been reading the threads about meditation and acceptance and pain> > and tension. I thought this idea might be relevant to some of you. I was> > talking with an engineer the other day about stress. The definition of> > stress in the realm of physics is "the internal resistance of a body to an> > applied force or system of forces which tends to deform the body." I> > noticed that this definition is also applicable to the psychological term> > "stress". If you look at it with an ACT lens, you might say that the world> > exerts a perpetual series of forces on a human which tends to deform (or> > alter) the human and resistance to said force increases the deformation.> > *> > *> > *> > * If stress = resistance + applied force (please physicists dont take this> > too literally, I know the real equation is more complex), it might stand to> > reason that, given the external forces of the world are frequently not> > within the control of said human, the way to reduce the stress is to reduce> > the internal resistance. *> > * stress = resistance + applied force OR X=8+3 OR X=11*> > *BUT IF resistance is reduced to 1, then stress = 4*> > * *> > *It might also be said that if the body, instead, applies energy or work> > in effort to reduce the applied external force, that energy or work IS> > resistance and thus the stress also increases. X= (8+5) +3; X=16*> > *> > *> > *Just a thought.*> > *> > *> > **> > -- > * A. Stone, MSW,LISW-CP> 210 West Stone Ave> Greenville, SC 29609> > castonemsw@...> www.betterthinking-betterlife.com*> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2011 Report Share Posted June 3, 2011 Sticking my nose in here but...Theresa, you seem to have interpreted 's words below as directed at you, but as far as I can tell she was just referring to the original posts with the mathematical formulas, in other words the formulas themselves were just a new way of expressing the idea of "drop the rope", ie looking at it through a mathematical framework And if you read her other words below: I actually wrote another explanation trying to make it more clear but erased it because it still looked pretty much the same as the first, so I erased it and asked for help. There's no sense of "go away" here, but just saying that she was finding it difficult to come up with another way of explaining it and so was hoping someone would step in to do that, which is what Helena did.CheersKate with regard to what you write here:"sure, I'm capable of plain words. All I was saying was "Drop the rope". I just wanted to see what people thought about another way of looking at the concept. And I got it, some like it and some really don't."How could I possibly drop a rope I had not even been holding? Imagine a kid saying hey I want to play, can you please help me some here, explain this game that seems important and fun and you're taking time to write about on a public board called 'ACT for the public' to me? And the other kid saying: "No, afraid I can't..my brain doesn't work that way. Maybe someone else can. Now please go away so I can carry on."That's what it felt like for me.TheresaTo: ACT_for_the_Public Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 10:16:33 AMSubject: Re: Re: stress Thanks so much, Helena, for helping me out with the clarification. . I actually wrote another explanation trying to make it more clear but erased it because it still looked pretty much the same as the first, so I erased it and asked for help. sure, I'm capable of plain words. All I was saying was "Drop the rope". I just wanted to see what people thought about another way of looking at the concept. And I got it, some like it and some really don't. OK. Here's the final version of my response (sorry for the mis-post): Definition of terms:S - Stress: Whatever we perceive as stressfulAF - Applied Force: applied external forces - on our body/psyche (my question: do not these forces also stem from internal sources, such as thoughts?)R - Resistance: the effort to reduce applied external forces; any energy expended for the purpose of reducing those forces, including mind/body work, for exampleEquation:Stress is the sum of Resistance and Applied Force, or S=R+AFAssume that the amount of Resistance and Applied Force can be rated on a scale of 1-20Therefore, if Resistance = 8, and Applied Force = 3, then Stress equals 11 Thus, if we could reduce Resistance on the scale (say to 1), then Stress would be reduced to 4 (much lower when resistance is lowered)Don't know if this helps or muddies the water...Helena > stress = resistance + applied force OR X=8+3 OR X=11BUT IF resistance is reduced to 1, then stress = 4> It might also be said that if the body, instead, applies energy or work in effort to reduce the applied external force, that energy or work IS resistance and thus the stress also increases. X= (8+5) +3; X=16 Re: stress Bill, can you or dumb it down some? Have no idea what is being said. Thanks,TheresaFor other ACT materials and list serves see www.contextualpsychology.orgIf you do not wish to belong to ACT_for_the_Public, you may unsubscribe by sending an email to ACT_for_the_Public-unsubscribe MARKETPLACEGet great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use. -- A. Stone, MSW,LISW-CP210 West Stone AveGreenville, SC 29609(864) 238-2003castonemsw@...www.betterthinking-betterlife.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 TheresaI know I have a choice to read or ignore your posts. And I choose to read them but I just wanted to say I find it difficult to understand why you often react so angry and defensive. I know you're going to get really defensive when you read this but I just had to say it. Birgit Sent from my iPhone I swear to God, I am done. Terry, do you not realize how never-endingly contentious and critical you are? I never should have gotten sucked in, but you seem so kind and sincere at times - then whamo! It's like trying to walk through a minefield. Not good for me or the list, so I'm out. Perhaps it bothers me so much because I see that trait in myself and it is one of the main things I am working on. Best wishes, Helena stress> >> >> >> >> > *I have been reading the threads about meditation and acceptance and pain> > and tension. I thought this idea might be relevant to some of you. I was> > talking with an engineer the other day about stress. The definition of> > stress in the realm of physics is "the internal resistance of a body to an> > applied force or system of forces which tends to deform the body." I> > noticed that this definition is also applicable to the psychological term> > "stress". If you look at it with an ACT lens, you might say that the world> > exerts a perpetual series of forces on a human which tends to deform (or> > alter) the human and resistance to said force increases the deformation.> > *> > *> > *> > * If stress = resistance + applied force (please physicists dont take this> > too literally, I know the real equation is more complex), it might stand to> > reason that, given the external forces of the world are frequently not> > within the control of said human, the way to reduce the stress is to reduce> > the internal resistance. *> > * stress = resistance + applied force OR X=8+3 OR X=11*> > *BUT IF resistance is reduced to 1, then stress = 4*> > * *> > *It might also be said that if the body, instead, applies energy or work> > in effort to reduce the applied external force, that energy or work IS> > resistance and thus the stress also increases. X= (8+5) +3; X=16*> > *> > *> > *Just a thought.*> > *> > *> > **> > -- > * A. Stone, MSW,LISW-CP> 210 West Stone Ave> Greenville, SC 29609> > castonemsw@...> www.betterthinking-betterlife.com*> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 Wow! What a great opportunity to put ACT in use. So here's the formula I made up. Not meant to be scientifically correct, more like a metaphor. Stress = Internal Resistance + External Force Where stress is my unpleasant reaction (distress) and Internal resistance is my mind saying this should not be or I need to fix/stop this from happening and External Force is the thing in the environment that is part of my context. In this case, a precipitating event is that I put an idea I had in an email and send it out into the universe inviting reaction. I got a reaction (more emails) so the External Force is other people’s words, some of which were critical of me. Using Helena’s idea of a scale of resistance and external force of 1-20, lets say that after the first email asking to “dumb it down” the External Force was perceived by me as 5 and my mind said to me “you did that wrong, you need to try to make it right by typing another email” so my resistance (perceived by me) was 5. Stress = 5+5 = 10 And the stress was self-doubt and insecurity.Then that email also received harsher criticism (as perceived by me) making the external force number higher, say 10. My initial resistance to it also increased, lets say also a 10. Stress = 10+10 = 20My mind was saying “you shouldn’t have posted at all. Maybe you shouldn’t even be on this list. Maybe its best to just leave so you won’t have any more of this stress” This would be avoidance. This is what I meant by applying energy to the External Force. So, while I would be removing that specific external force, reducing it to 0, I would be increasing my resistance, lets say to 20 (because never reading this list again would be the max resistance for that context). Stress = 20+0 = 20As you can see, the stress is the same. Now the stress would be sorrow about loss of connection and maybe shame that I failed, thoughts like that. But if I notice my anxiety that is present when I think about typing another email and possibly getting another critical response and notice that I can still breathe while I have that anxiety and I can still type letters with that anxiety, that I don’t have to resist it, I can embrace it knowing that it happens because I care about people and their feelings. Then, as I type this email, choosing to move forward in the world as it is, not trying either to make it how I want it to be or to make me how it wants me to be. The resistance is reduced back to 0, though the external force is the same and the overall stress is then reduced to 10. Stress = 0+10 = 10I can live with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 I think you should change your Stress = Internal Resistance + External Force to: Stress = Internal Resistance X External Force ;-) ;-) ;-) Shinzen Young uses a similar equation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u9nuSf9g1g > > Wow! What a great opportunity to put ACT in use. So here's the formula I > made up. Not meant to be scientifically correct, more like a metaphor. > Stress = Internal Resistance + External Force > Where stress is my unpleasant reaction (distress) and Internal resistance is > my mind saying this should not be or I need to fix/stop this from happening > and External Force is the thing in the environment that is part of my > context. > > In this case, a precipitating event is that I put an idea I had in an email > and send it out into the universe inviting reaction. I got a reaction (more > emails) so the External Force is other people's words, some of which were > critical of me. Using Helena's idea of a scale of resistance and external > force of 1-20, lets say that after the first email asking to " dumb it down " > the External Force was perceived by me as 5 and my mind said to me " you did > that wrong, you need to try to make it right by typing another email " so my > resistance (perceived by me) was 5. > Stress = 5+5 = 10 > > And the stress was self-doubt and insecurity. > > Then that email also received harsher criticism (as perceived by me) making > the external force number higher, say 10. My initial resistance to it also > increased, lets say also a 10. > Stress = 10+10 = 20 > My mind was saying " you shouldn't have posted at all. Maybe you shouldn't > even be on this list. Maybe its best to just leave so you won't have any > more of this stress " This would be avoidance. This is what I meant by > applying energy to the External Force. So, while I would be removing that > specific external force, reducing it to 0, I would be increasing my > resistance, lets say to 20 (because never reading this list again would be > the max resistance for that context). > Stress = 20+0 = 20 > As you can see, the stress is the same. Now the stress would be sorrow > about loss of connection and maybe shame that I failed, thoughts like that. > > > But if I notice my anxiety that is present when I think about typing another > email and possibly getting another critical response and notice that I can > still breathe while I have that anxiety and I can still type letters with > that anxiety, that I don't have to resist it, I can embrace it knowing that > it happens because I care about people and their feelings. Then, as I type > this email, choosing to move forward in the world as it is, not trying > either to make it how I want it to be or to make me how it wants me to be. > The resistance is reduced back to 0, though the external force is the same > and the overall stress is then reduced to 10. > Stress = 0+10 = 10 > > I can live with that. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 Way cool! thanks for the link to the video and for the suggestion. Yeah, I see how that works better. I think you should change your Stress = Internal Resistance + External Force to: Stress = Internal Resistance X External Force ;-) ;-) ;-) Shinzen Young uses a similar equation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u9nuSf9g1g > > Wow! What a great opportunity to put ACT in use. So here's the formula I > made up. Not meant to be scientifically correct, more like a metaphor. > Stress = Internal Resistance + External Force > Where stress is my unpleasant reaction (distress) and Internal resistance is > my mind saying this should not be or I need to fix/stop this from happening > and External Force is the thing in the environment that is part of my > context. > > In this case, a precipitating event is that I put an idea I had in an email > and send it out into the universe inviting reaction. I got a reaction (more > emails) so the External Force is other people's words, some of which were > critical of me. Using Helena's idea of a scale of resistance and external > force of 1-20, lets say that after the first email asking to " dumb it down " > the External Force was perceived by me as 5 and my mind said to me " you did > that wrong, you need to try to make it right by typing another email " so my > resistance (perceived by me) was 5. > Stress = 5+5 = 10 > > And the stress was self-doubt and insecurity. > > Then that email also received harsher criticism (as perceived by me) making > the external force number higher, say 10. My initial resistance to it also > increased, lets say also a 10. > Stress = 10+10 = 20 > My mind was saying " you shouldn't have posted at all. Maybe you shouldn't > even be on this list. Maybe its best to just leave so you won't have any > more of this stress " This would be avoidance. This is what I meant by > applying energy to the External Force. So, while I would be removing that > specific external force, reducing it to 0, I would be increasing my > resistance, lets say to 20 (because never reading this list again would be > the max resistance for that context). > Stress = 20+0 = 20 > As you can see, the stress is the same. Now the stress would be sorrow > about loss of connection and maybe shame that I failed, thoughts like that. > > > But if I notice my anxiety that is present when I think about typing another > email and possibly getting another critical response and notice that I can > still breathe while I have that anxiety and I can still type letters with > that anxiety, that I don't have to resist it, I can embrace it knowing that > it happens because I care about people and their feelings. Then, as I type > this email, choosing to move forward in the world as it is, not trying > either to make it how I want it to be or to make me how it wants me to be. > The resistance is reduced back to 0, though the external force is the same > and the overall stress is then reduced to 10. > Stress = 0+10 = 10 > > I can live with that. > > > -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 I watched the video, too. It really exemplifies how resistance increases suffering. I am trying to identify the forms of resistance I use against pain. Sometimes, they can be very subtle. For example, feelings of annoyance and anger are examples of resistance, for me. When I find something very annoying, it seems easier to say "I'm annoyed" and conclude that "he's wrong and I'm right" than it is to say, "My feelings of insecurity (pain) came to the surface by that person's criticism, or that person's flippant remark, etc." Resisting those feelings seems to reduce the suffering and it seems to be the right thing to do, based on years of habit - righteous indignation, right? Maybe not so righteous after all. How does one learn to flip off the struggle switch when encountering such feelings and judgments in daily life? That is what ACT is all about. Breaking it down, for me, I think the first thing is to recognize that I am resisting; that my irritation and judgments are manifested by my resistance and not by the activating event. Then use that awareness to defuse those feelings when they come up again. Hopefully, in time, the feelings may not even show up as I slowly learn to accept whatever IS in the moment, when it occurs. Of course, it is never a done deal -- life will continue to throw out new challenges and new learning opportunities at all times!I would say I am smack in the middle of the "awareness" part and not yet automatically accepting. Lots of room to learn and grow. But two years ago, I didn't even have the awareness, so that is progress. Helena Re: Re: stress Way cool! thanks for the link to the video and for the suggestion. Yeah, I see how that works better. I think you should change your Stress = Internal Resistance + External Force to:Stress = Internal Resistance X External Force ;-) ;-) ;-)Shinzen Young uses a similar equation:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u9nuSf9g1g >> Wow! What a great opportunity to put ACT in use. So here's the formula I> made up. Not meant to be scientifically correct, more like a metaphor.> Stress = Internal Resistance + External Force> Where stress is my unpleasant reaction (distress) and Internal resistance is> my mind saying this should not be or I need to fix/stop this from happening> and External Force is the thing in the environment that is part of my> context.> > In this case, a precipitating event is that I put an idea I had in an email> and send it out into the universe inviting reaction. I got a reaction (more> emails) so the External Force is other people's words, some of which were> critical of me. Using Helena's idea of a scale of resistance and external> force of 1-20, lets say that after the first email asking to "dumb it down"> the External Force was perceived by me as 5 and my mind said to me "you did> that wrong, you need to try to make it right by typing another email" so my> resistance (perceived by me) was 5.> Stress = 5+5 = 10> > And the stress was self-doubt and insecurity.> > Then that email also received harsher criticism (as perceived by me) making> the external force number higher, say 10. My initial resistance to it also> increased, lets say also a 10.> Stress = 10+10 = 20> My mind was saying "you shouldn't have posted at all. Maybe you shouldn't> even be on this list. Maybe its best to just leave so you won't have any> more of this stress" This would be avoidance. This is what I meant by> applying energy to the External Force. So, while I would be removing that> specific external force, reducing it to 0, I would be increasing my> resistance, lets say to 20 (because never reading this list again would be> the max resistance for that context).> Stress = 20+0 = 20> As you can see, the stress is the same. Now the stress would be sorrow> about loss of connection and maybe shame that I failed, thoughts like that.> > > But if I notice my anxiety that is present when I think about typing another> email and possibly getting another critical response and notice that I can> still breathe while I have that anxiety and I can still type letters with> that anxiety, that I don't have to resist it, I can embrace it knowing that> it happens because I care about people and their feelings. Then, as I type> this email, choosing to move forward in the world as it is, not trying> either to make it how I want it to be or to make me how it wants me to be.> The resistance is reduced back to 0, though the external force is the same> and the overall stress is then reduced to 10.> Stress = 0+10 = 10> > I can live with that.> > > -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.