2008年6月30日 星期一

負面語言知多少?

  有一年,我們全家去澳洲自助旅行,整個星期裡,上山下海接觸到的都是當地人,心情非常輕鬆愉快。回程時,坐在機場的候機室,聽到背後傳來家長罵孩子的聲音,忽然神經緊繃起來,這才意識到:這一整個星期以來,都完全沒有聽到家長罵孩子的聲音。回頭一看,果然是台灣的旅遊團!

  憑良心講起來,一般的台灣家長實在是非常喜歡罵孩子,好像不罵就不會成器似的。罵還分層次等級,有邊打邊罵(我打死你!)、人身攻擊的罵(你這個壞孩子!你白痴啊?)、惡狠狠的罵(我看你下次還敢不敢!?)、恐嚇的罵(再不乖我就不理你了!)、和別人比較的罵(你看那邊那個小妹妹就比你乖。)、酸溜溜的罵(唉,你們這一代的小孩真是人在福中不知福喔,我們以前哪有這麼好命?)、羞辱的罵(這麼大了還哭,羞羞臉!別人會笑你喔。)、訊息矛盾的罵(你再說一句看看。你再說呀!)、喪志的罵(看你這樣,將來怎麼會有出息?)、訴諸情感要脅的罵(你看你把爸爸氣成這樣,還不道歉!早晚會把你爸爸氣死。我辛苦工作還不是為了你們?)

  這些負面語言,不但通通沒用,恐怕還會有反作用。

  人的心理很微妙,你越欣賞他,他的自我價值感越強、越會有向上的動機越希望表現得更好不讓你失望,也就是所謂「士為知己者死」的心理反應。反之,你越是批評、訕笑、責罵,他的自尊心和自信心就會越低落、表現越差、越不願意聽你的話。既然孩子生命中最重要的人認為他是笨蛋,那他的希望在哪裡呢?不如乾脆自我放棄算了。

  其實,不論碰到甚麼狀況,我們總是可以把話鋒轉一下,用正面的語言和孩子說話。

  有一次,我在山中散步的時候,看到一家人也在走山,孩子走著走著忽然就跌到水溝裡去了,爸爸驚嚇之餘,拉起孩子馬上大聲的說:「你怎麼會這樣!每次走路都不看路!以後不帶你出來了,總是這樣不小心!真是笨手笨腳!」同樣的情景,他可以說:「你還好嗎?哪裡跌破了?剛剛嚇了一跳吧?沒關係,下次小心點。」這樣說,感覺是不是完全不同了呢?同樣是教導孩子,正面的語言可以提高孩子的自我形象,也可以提昇親子之間的情感,絕對會產生正向循環的作用,讓孩子一天比一天更好。

  有一位朋友說:「這些道理我都懂。我要是睡夠了就好,如果睡不夠,脾氣上來了,講甚麼道理都沒有用啊。」這也是現代父母面對的一個大問題:一根蠟燭兩頭燒,累到最高點,甚麼教育理想也談不上了。

  或許作父母的人終日忙碌操勞,自己也沒有被疼愛、被呵護夠吧?那麼,健康有效的親子互動是不是必須建立在稍稍放緩的生活步調上呢?

  相信我,這樣的生命投資絕對值得!


普通的父母說:\ 卓越的父母說:

  • 你怎麼那樣懶惰? \你努力些可以做得更好。

  • 你怎麼那麼會搗蛋? \你的聰明可以用在適當的地方。

  • 你怎麼那麼笨? \找到了訣竅你會進步。

  • 你真是敗事有餘! \成功之路還需花點力氣尋找。

  • 你真是騙子!\ 你所講的不是真實。

  • 你真是自私! \你可以試著為別人著想。

  • 你真是頑固! \別人的意見常有可借鏡之處。

  • 你真是浪費時間! \你可以更有智慧地運用時間。

  • 你是人見人怕!\ 你可以與別人相處得更好。

  • 你怎麼那麼愛現? \你需要別人的注意,爸(媽)愛你!

  • 妳真是長舌婦! \妳講話可以精簡些,我會更喜歡聽。

  • 你真是沒出息! \你能從別的角度找到自己的長處。

  • 你的脾氣真暴躁! \你可以控制自己的情緒。

  • 你是個膽小鬼! \勇氣是需要經過鍛鍊的美德。

  • 你真討厭! \你不那樣作我會很高興


    (資料來源:網路流傳)

歌名:反正

歌名:反正
歌手:何以奇
專輯:黑白世界
作詞:許常德 作曲:劉宜
製作:一般人


反正 我說的話沒有人聽
反正 有人相信就會有人不信
反正 像我這種不服輸的個性
遇困境 只能拼 一拼

反正 我一堅持就被說任性
反正 大雨過後也看不見彩虹
反正 沒人看見你為我做的事
到天空 為我摘 星星
我喜歡你 你是 我的第一
我不過是 喜歡和你靠在一起
我太年輕 不聽那些複雜道理
我的初戀 沒那些道理

那些 關心我的人給的壓力
那些 傷害你的人我想說對不起
那些 想不通的事也許就是愛情
第一次 我只怪 自己
我屬於你 你是 我的第一
從我開始 飛上天空和你相遇
雖然空氣稀薄 快要不能呼吸
所幸有你 站在我這裏
第一次 我怎麽忘記

2008年6月10日 星期二

Talking Out Trauma: Not Always a Help / By Kathleen Kingsbury

.

Thursday, Jun. 05, 2008

Talk it out. That's the first advice most victims are given in the wake of trauma. Conventional wisdom would suggest that burying one's emotions after a violent incident — such as a school shooting or terrorist bombing — will only lead to deeper anxiety later on. Yet, while mental health practitioners widely subscribe to this truism, it has rarely been tested outside a laboratory setting — past studies have found a lack of convincing evidence to support the use of psychological debriefing to mitigate trauma — and some experts think the theory doesn't hold up in every situation.

Researchers at the University at Buffalo and University of California, Irvine, explored the question by compiling survey data from a random sample of 2,000 Americans after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. What they discovered surprised them — participants who chose not to discuss their feelings right after the attacks often fared better over the subsequent two years than those who did. "We constantly tell people it's wrong to hold feelings inside," says lead author Mark Seery, a psychology professor at Buffalo. "But our findings [suggest] the exact opposite."

Using an online survey, Seery and his colleagues gave Americans the opportunity to write about their thoughts on the 9/11 terrorist attacks, both on that day and for a few days afterward. Of some 2,000 people surveyed, about three-quarters choose to articulate their emotional response to the events. Older participants agreed more readily than younger ones, and people who had experienced relatively more trauma in their lives tended to write longer reactions. The researchers then followed both groups, evaluating their mental and physical well-being on several occasions over the next two years. A clear pattern soon emerged: compared with those who stayed mum, people who openly responded after 9/11 tended to report more symptoms of post-traumatic stress and general stress, as well as more physician-diagnosed ailments. Indeed, the more in-depth the participant's initial response, the worse off he or she was physically and mentally in the following years. The study, which was funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Mental Health, will be published in this month's Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.

Seery and his colleagues did not delve specifically into why demonstrative participants experienced worse outcomes than the less expressive ones. His best conjecture is that the former group was more deeply affected by the event at the outset, and therefore, naturally inclined to suffer more stress in the long term. That hypothesis is based on the fact that survey respondents who lived closer to the World Trade Center as well as those who were most directly affected were more likely than others to share their feelings. These groups also exhibited poorer mental health over time. But that relationship wasn't consistent: in some instances, people who lived closest to the New York City attacks were the most resilient. "Most likely, some of these [participants] were concerned citizens after 9/11, but not traumatized people," says Richard Tedeschi, a professor and expert on trauma at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. "Their decisions about how to react will vary based on how significant the event was to them. That judgment has to be taken into account."

Seery admits his study had other limitations: for one, participants were asked to self-select whether or not they wrote about their feelings — rather than being randomly assigned to do so — which was necessary to assess each person's decision-making process, but created an inherent bias. Participants were also asked to discuss their feelings on just one occasion and immediately following the terrorist attacks; clinical practice, however, is to diagnose post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in patients no earlier than one month after an ordeal. As Tedeschi notes, "Some people just need more time to process their feelings and decide whether to take action."

Perhaps the most significant drawback of the report is that the researchers had no method of measuring whether people who discussed their feelings actually got any benefit from it — in other words, it's possible that having the opportunity to emote protected respondents from suffering even worse outcomes than they would have otherwise. Previous research shows how important that distinction may be. About 10% of people who experience a trauma will eventually develop PTSD, a life-altering chronic condition, and some 5.2 million Americans suffer PTSD in any given year, according to the American Psychological Association. A recent Pentagon report showed also that military personnel appear are particularly vulnerable to PTSD, with about 20% of service members returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan exhibiting symptoms. Repeatedly, scientists have shown that the most effective means of treating PTSD is through immediate and comprehensive psychiatric counseling. "Post-trauma counseling is more than just expression-based interventions," says Robin Goodman, a New York City–based psychologist who worked with 9/11 survivors. "You also have to equip patients with skills to cope, methods to manage the pain they're experiencing."

Seery agrees that his study shouldn't discourage anyone from seeking counseling after a trauma, if they believe they will benefit from it. Instead, he stresses that what the new findings do reinforce is that no one should be pressured into therapy against their will either. "The implication of our work is that people handle bad situations differently and we need to accept that reality," Seery says, adding, "There's no single solution that fits everyone."

Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1812204,00.html