Rus Articles Journal

I am the concept: in a consent with itself of

Ya - the concept is one of the most powerful systems of beliefs, installations and ideas of the person of itself and a situation around it. Therefore the person possessing developed I - the concept builds the behavior so that it did not contradict its ideas of itself. “Clever“ seeks to behave as it is necessary clever;“ rich“ - according to standards of behavior famous to it “rich“. I am the concept can play a role of the filter organizing perception and an assessment of experience. How I am formed - the concept and how it can be improved?

Ya - the concept - mediates incentives from world around, predetermines a line of action of people and is the key reason of feeling them the life as happy or tragic. I am the concept carries out important functions in human life. According to the English psychologist Robert Burns, it carries out a number of functions.

  1. Ya - the concept promotes achievement of internal coherence of the personality. If I am the concept of the person it is inconsistent, contains mutually exclusive representations, then the person feels discomfort. Its actions in such cases are directed or to change I - concepts, or to distortion of reality for elimination of discomfort. Coordinated I I am the concept allows the personality to feel confident, be in close contact with reality.
  2. Ya - the concept defines interpretation of life experience of the personality. The person has a steady tendency to interpret the individual experience on the basis of ideas of itself. I am the concept serves as peculiar “prism“ through which the perceived reality refracts. For example, the person considering himself “incapable“ can explain the success with accident, and “capable“ - manifestation of the talent;“ unattractive“ regards attention to himself as attempt to play a trick, and “attractive“ as attempt to get acquainted. The person with positive I - the concept regards a smile in the address as manifestation of good feelings, and from negative - as a sneer.
  3. Ya - the concept is a source of expectations. It influences the forecast of the person concerning what has to happen to it. According to I - the concept of people counts on success or failure: “I, as usual, will fail“ or “At me everything will turn out“. She allows it to expect the reactions: “I will be frightened“, “I will burst into tears“, “I will treat it quietly“. I am the concept imposes to the person the forecast for the relation and behavior of people in its address:“ Nobody will fall in love with me “, “ will laugh over me “, “ I will be highly appreciated“. Such forecast possesses property of the self-confirmed prophecy: the person expecting that he will be criticized behaves uncertainly (or provocatively) and by that really causes criticism in the address. Instead of passively reacting to environment, I am the concept begins to change it and to support itself, not so much predicting consequences how many provoking them.
If the behavior of the person contradicts

it I - concepts, it will cause a cognitive dissonance. Therefore the person possessing developed I - the concept builds the behavior so that it did not contradict its ideas of itself. “Clever“ seeks to behave as it is necessary clever;“ rich“ - according to standards of behavior famous to it “rich“ “poor“ will shirk occupations, to distract at lessons etc. Thus, I am the concept in many respects defines behavior.

Describing itself, the person uses judgments which reflect some steady tendencies in his behavior. As a rule, these judgments are answers to questions:

All these characteristics enter in I - the concept with various “specific weight“: one are represented by more significant, others - less; the importance of separate judgments can change in various context, in different life situations, during various periods of life.

by

This I - concepts are organized hierarchically: there are more general judgments including more private. For example, “I do not love poetry“, “I have a strong will“ and “I am rationally conceiving person“ can be consequences of the “I Never Have to Show the Feelings“ installation. According to the founder of the scenario analysis Eric Burn, some of such decisions can be the cornerstone of the plan of life which we accept at early age.

Early decisions

Parental figures, other people and life supply the child with data on the one who is he such who - other people and that represents the world where it got. These messages look as peculiar “messages“ which the child periodically accepts. Especially sensitively it treats parental messages as intuitively feels that his life and wellbeing depend on them.

Some messages actually have character of the verbal message addressed to the child or overheard by it; sometimes are acts or emotional reactions. But happens and so that the child, owing to egocentricity of thinking, can consider as the message an event of the life, not being is real the message. It is necessary to tell what matters not that the parent intended to tell, and with what sense the child allocated the message.

Analyzing psychological scenarios of the patients who asked for the therapeutic help, Burn came to a conclusion that not constructive decisions which are made under the influence of the special parental messages having negative, destructive contents are their cornerstone. They are transferred by some parents because of some own deviations. Such instructions are similar to spells which bewitch the child.

can be allocated to

Among verbally transferred negative instructions:

of the Instruction can be given and not verbally. The child thinks out, dreams and incorrectly interprets events and in such a way itself gives himself instructions.

For example, after death of the father the child gives himself the instruction: “Do not approach people“ - if to love nobody, then and it is not necessary to be upset from - for losses. The boy whose resolute behavior every time is stopped can conclude: “It is not necessary to be the man“. The child whose feelings criticize can solve: “It is not necessary to show the feelings“. The child who is punished for manifestation of disagreement with seniors can conclude:“ It is not necessary to think“.

the Small child is not able to estimate objectively himself, and parental figures become for it peculiar “mirrors“ on which he can judge the one who is he such and whom are surrounding people. If significant others recognize it, he considers himself as the standing person, and “I“ become accepted. However if these others manage with it as with bad and harmful, he perceives himself as harmful and considers that this harm lives at it inside. The child is too small and inexperienced to understand that these “mirrors“ can be curves. The child who was hit cannot conclude:“ I am not a bad child. Mother slapped me because she is the hysterical personality worrying that is not more in the center of attention“. He will think rather that a problem in it, but not in his mother.

B the situations described above the child can not hear direct verbal instructions, but under the influence of strong impressions makes the decision and follows it.

can be

of the Instruction positive or neutral.

of Definition and assessment: “The boy, in you something is... Well done!. Clever fingers!.“. Prophecies: “Very much we hope that you will graduate“, “Once you will become well-known...“ “Is directly created to be the musician“. Permissions: specify what can be done, but do not force.

Should notice

that instructions “are not implanted“ in the child like an electrode. It is imperious to accept them, to ignore or turn into contrast. However, if on the basis of the instruction the decision is made, it is very heavy to break it. This decision defines set of the central beliefs about the one who is he such who - the people surrounding it that represents this world and as in it it is necessary to behave. Thus, the scenario decision is a deep and fundamental cognitive education, for confirmation and which justification of people can address separate irrational beliefs. Early decisions become the peculiar filter influencing all attitude.

the Existential position

of People chooses by

scenario subjects according to the decisions made by it in the deep childhood and the most fundamental of these subjects - feelings of own value and wellbeing. Burn paid attention that the living position of the person consists of set of the attitudes towards itself (I - OK or I - not OK) and sets of the attitudes towards the partner in interaction (You - OK or You - not OK). OK in Burn`s terminology can designate:“ good“, “valuable“, “safe“, “in a harmony with“. The combination of these installations defines four main existential positions:

  1. Ya - OK (+); You - OK (+).
  2. Ya - OK (+); You - not OK (-).
  3. Ya - not OK (-); You - OK (+).
  4. Ya - not OK (-); You - not OK (-).

When the child accepts one of these positions, early decisions, and then and he arranges all the scenario under it.

All children begin with

life with the I +, You + position. When the baby feels that he lives in harmony with the world and everything in the world is in harmony with it, this position becomes the base for its decisions. The child only changes a position in case something interferes with his interdependence with mother, for example, when the child feels that mother ceases to protect him and to care for him as it did it earlier. In response to these inconveniences the child can decide that he - not OK or that other people not OK, and to pass from a condition of “basic trust“ into a condition of basic mistrust. According to this basic idea of himself and people around the child begins to write own scenario.

Each adult is not in the chosen position all the time, we can change these living positions in various situations. However each of us has a favourite existential position accepted by us in the childhood which we enter, testing frustration. Each of four existential positions is characterized by a certain set of emotions.

  • Position “I +; You +“ are healthy and consists in cooperation with other people in the solution of vital problems. Being in it, we act with the purpose to achieve desirable results, and this position - only, based on reality.
  • Position “I +; You -“ - defensive. Being here, the person tries to tower over other people. At the same time people around will perceive it as suppressing others, tolerant and aggressive person. This position is characterized by a set of aggressive emotions and aspiration to disposal of the opponent.
  • the Position “I-; You +“ force to feel below other people. In it the person most likely endures unpleasant feelings of depressive character and seeks to move away from “good“ people whose society it “is unworthy“.
  • the Position “I-; You -“ call fruitless. The person is convinced that the whole world and all people in him are bad as, however, and he. He feels tired and suppressed. A subject of the main action - waiting.

of Belief of the person, the exerting impact on its emotional problems, a set of layers usually comprise.

to the earliest and deep is the solution of rather own wellbeing and trust - an existential position. It can play a role of the filter organizing perception and an assessment of experience. For its justification and confirmation under the influence of parental instructions the early decision concerning itself, people and life which can become the central belief is made. This belief, in turn, influences attitude, forms private beliefs of rather concrete vital circumstances and set of installations.

the Practical work

the Following exercise will help you to learn

more about itself and the emotional reactions, and also about a role I - concepts and systems of beliefs in formation of your emotional reactions.

by
  1. Choose the initiating event which caused in you the destroying experiences. Remember what occurred. You can close eyes. Reproduce that situation as it is possible more stoutly: present that you have a video of that scene, and you look through it. When you see yourself and other people in that scene, remember that you now the viewer also see the events, looking at the screen. Now you are not there really, nothing can do to you harm! You see yourself and your opponents from outside: what did you say also what was told you? What did you feel then? Remember it and “switch off the TV“.
  2. Take
  3. a sheet of paper and write twenty various answers to the question “Who Do I Am?“ so that your descriptions reflected your ideas of themselves when you were in that situation. You aspire to that it were your such ideas of themselves what they were in that situation, but not now. Remember that you answer yourself, but not someone to another. Have descriptions in that order in which they come to your mind. Do not care for their logicality.
  4. give twenty characteristics to your opponent Now: describe what you apprehended it in this scene; “whom“ was he(she)?
  5. Estimate each judgment characterizing you. If it reflects intension “I consider that I - as it should be in relation to yourself“, then note it the sign “+“. If intension:“ I not as it should be in relation to yourself“, mark out him“ - “. If intension is not clear - put “About“.
  6. Discuss your definitions of the opponent. If intension in an assessment “It not OK in relation to me“ - put “-“. Put “+“ or “About“ if intension, respectively, “It not OK in relation to me“ or it is neutral.
  7. Determine by
  8. an existential position in which there was your interaction. Whether it changed in that situation? If yes, that as? Do you have a “favourite“ position?
  9. What feelings you had and what tendencies in your behavior characterized them?
  10. What of the revealed beliefs in relation to the partner and themselves promoted development of the destroying experiences?
  11. K to what you aspired in what position you tried “to place“ the opponent? It is successful? What could be changed now that the situation was complete more successfully?
  12. Note expressiveness of each position in your behavior. For this purpose make the marks reflecting your intuitive assessment of time which you spend in each of positions.