| |
| |
| |
| |
People in difficulties frequently see things in “black and white,” and often express this in statements that are overgeneralizations. One clue to such limiting beliefs is the use of universal quantifiers—words like “all,” “always,” “whenever,” “every,” “totally,” and their negations—“none,” “never,” etc.
One way to challenge an overgeneralization is to scale it down to a specific example. At one point in the Step by Step session, the dialogue goes:
Virginia (to the wife): You just share with Casey at this point what you were feeling when he started to talk about this specific incident just now.
Margie: Hurt.
Virginia: Hurt. OK. All right. Now, could you say what that hurt is about?
Margie: The family.
Virginia: No, I mean right here. This is in here.
Margie: I hurt. Emotionally, I hurt.
Virginia: And what made you hurt?
Margie (accusingly): Because we don't have a father.
Virginia: Now wait a minute. (Drawing out the words) Wait a minute. You're back into, if you'll forgive me, into a museum for the moment. I want to come back to something else. Just now I asked Casey to ask you for something, OK? And he went into something very abstract and I asked him to be specific. Now, was it the fact that Casey found something to criticize in you that made you feel hurt?
Margie: Yes. (1983, pp. 122-124)
In this segment, Virginia scaled back the overgeneralizations “hurt” about “the family,” and “we don't have a father” to the mother's feeling bad about being criticized. In the process, Virginia also transforms Margie's general complaints about her husband into a statement about her own difficulty in dealing with criticism.
Virginia frequently asked other family members to give their views of an overgeneralization, inviting them to provide specific exceptions or counter-examples. And sometimes she would interrupt and bring the person back to the here and now without directly challenging the overgeneralization:
Virginia: How do you feel about that?
Margie: I disagree with him.
Virginia: What do you disagree about?
Margie: Whenever I approach him—
Virginia: Wait a minute, we're right here, right now.
Margie: Yeah, I agree.
Virginia: I want you to look at me now, and I want you to listen really carefully. There's a lot of history—I know there's a lot of history and I don't know what it is, and I have a hunch that oftentimes you don't see what's right in front of your nose, because it is all covered up with what you expect, because you almost did it right now. Are you with me?
Margie: Uh huh.
Virginia: OK, now I'd like you to look at Casey and feel his skin through your hands at this moment and tell me what you feel. (Casey explodes into a smile.) (1983, pp. 112-114)
Virginia frequently used exaggeration to challenge overgeneralizations by making them appear ridiculous, and there are many examples in the transcript in this book.
There's a certain kind of thing that happens when you can bring things to the level of absurdity. Have you noticed that? It bypasses defenses, when you do it in a kind and loving way. (1984)
At other times she was more direct, saying skeptically, “Do you really believe that?” or “I don't believe it.” She knew when overgeneralizations that interfered with family communication had to be challenged, and she did whatever was necessary to do it.
| |
| |
| |
| |
