There is quite a bit of insight in literature into the
processes that take place in the course of our lives, and that make us a
different person over time. The changes are sometimes spectacular, and
relate to temperament, equilibrium, values, competencies, objectives, etc.
Although something of the original is still preserved, these changes are
profound. But they require time, and are the result of a complex
set of influences and experiences,
supplemented by the way in which we both absorb or use these. The fact that these changes occur don’t need any proof, anyone can observe them. (1)
Another question concerns wanted changes. For example, changing a disturbing habit or a style of working. This is about specific behavioral change. Let us assume that there is an advantage
for either the person involved or for people around him, or for both. People do not have to change their behavior
if there is no benefit. But, unfortunately, this supposed benefit is not
sufficient to achieve the desired behavioral change. In that sense, it is therefore not a
question of arguing why the change is desirable. Arguments will not lead people to change
their behavior. In that sense it is not a rational process.
Behavioral change goes through six phases through
which the person concerned goes through with a conscious, active involvement. So it does not happen unnoticed, under the
skin, as a kind of background process such as the spontaneous change through
the course of life. Conscious involvement is essential.
Phase 1 : attention. A condition for change is that the person
concerned is willing to pay attention to the phenomenon that the need for
change entails. This willingness can be a first difficult obstacle in
the event of emotional blockages. Fear of the consequences; related to very negative experiences; lack of self-confidence or positive
self-esteem are some examples. Taking feedback serious is often a start of
phase 1.
Phase 2 : insight. Focusing attention does not necessarily create
progress. There must be some insight into the causes of the
behavior to be unlearned, mechanisms that play a role, consequences that people
have not consciously chosen but which have to be discovered as real, etc. This
analysis will not in itself bring any change, but is necessary in building a
foundation for the following phases. Only on the basis of willpower will the
desired change be a lot more difficult.
Phase 3 : acceptance. The results of the insight should be
accepted in order to change. The main obstacle here appears to be
'cognitive dissonance' (see Festinger : 'reduction of cognitive dissonance') or, with a
nicer term, the 'Psychic immune system' (finding a way or excuse yourself out
of self-preservation need). Acceptance not only means accepting the
causes and consequences as relevant, but also the combination of the
provocative context and the personal response to it. The effect is that the guilt about the
less productive behavior is left behind. This phase is essential to deal with
disturbing scripts ('neurotic traits'). It is clear that without phase 2, this
acceptance will be more difficult. External causes, such as the influence of
education, will reduce the feeling of being guilty.
Phase 4: choice . If resignation arises after the previous phase,
nothing will of course change. A choice must be made to do something
about it. This will require the belief that it is possible,
together with a clearly convincing 'benefit' that is expected of it. This does not necessarily have to be a pragmatic advantage (self-interest), but can also lie
in ethics and values, and all variances in between.
Phase 5: focus . The real change begins with concentrating attention
when the behavior to be changed occurs. The insights from phase 2 will help to
become aware at that moment of the causes (often emotions) of this behavior,
and to sharpen the awareness that people actually have the choice at that
moment: give in or not give in. This phase starts with observing when and
how automatism occurs, and is then followed by intervention on the basis of
what one wants (choice made).
Phase 6: perseverance . Keeping the focus active requires a lot of energy
initially. Persistence will probably only succeed if one knows
how to organize himself with simple or more complicated support tools. Record evaluation moments; engaging with friends or colleagues,
visual reminders of intentions, asking for feedback, etc. As the focus can be continued longer, less energy is
required to make the desired choice at crucial moments. After a while it becomes a new habit, and
the old pattern disappears.
There is a profound neurological explanation for this
process, including the role of the pre-frontal cortex in human behavior (2) , the influence of ‘black
pedagogy’ (3) on the development of scripts and sensitivities, including a
strong influence of emotions on behavior (4). Experience shows that it really works in
practice. Evidently, time is needed, but the result mainly
depends on the careful completion of the six phases and the will to sustain. This sometimes requires external guidance , and this is called coaching, where trust must
outweigh the required vulnerability. The maturity of the person involved will
play an essential role in the achievability of the desired change.
A last remark: sometimes there is more involved
than just changing a bad habit. It seems that the more we use a certain
behavior script in practice, the more it evolves from an automatic reflex to a
habit, and further to a need. (5) This means that not using the old pattern any more, will be
perceived as a loss. It seems very clear that the results from the ‘insight’
phase on the origins of the disturbing behavior will have to go very deep to be
able to cope with this kind of forces, but it can. Het spreekt voor zich
dat de inzichten over de oorzaken van het storend gedrag erg diep moeten gaan
om daar tegen opgewassen te zijn, maar het kan. (6)
Hugo Der Kinderen (October 2017)
(1) Bernard Lievegoed, Levensloop van de mens, Lemniskaat , Rotterdam, 1976
Charles Jacobs, Management rewired, Penguin Group, New
York, 2009
(4)
Walter Mischel , The Marshmallow test, Little, Brown & Co., New York, 2014
(5)
Margriet Sitskoorn, Hersen hack, Prometheus,
Amsterdam, 2019
No comments:
Post a Comment