Inner well-being resilience

TRANSCRIPT

Interviewer:

Dr. Patrick Jones. Thanks for joining us again here on Youth Talk Radio. 

 

Patrick:

Yes, a pleasure.

Interviewer:

So the subject that I was thinking we could talk about this week, and this is from a cue that you gave us a little while ago, is inner wellbeing and resilience. 

Patrick:

Yes, definitely. They often are connected. So you're very happy to kind of talk through all the bits that are part of that. 

Interviewer:

Yeah. And again, like last week's topic of mindfulness, I feel like there's going to be a lot of people that have a little bit of knowledge or they feel like they have some sort of residual understanding of what these topics are. But usually, when we talk about well-being, it has to do with our physical health. But when we talk about inner well-being, what are we referring to and how is this connected to physical well-being as well? 

Patrick:

Yeah, okay. Well being often also in the literature, too, is connected to quality of life. So people talk about quality life and well-being, and the reality is that when you look at all the research on the quality of life well-being, they've found that only 20% comes from your external situation and 80% comes from your reactions to those external situations. So while our problems are real, they're actual factual things. The research has found that it's our reaction to them that determines our well-being. And that's why I like to kind of clarify and call it sort of inner well-being because it is our internal state in relationship to those external things. And I'm fascinating study I read once that made this clear for me was they said that when they're looking at the predictors of well-being for health.

They found that someone's view of their health was a much greater predictor of well-being than their actual health, which sort of staggered me, It means if someone's suffering from arthritis, chronic arthritis is just one example, and they're always going, I used to be able to play tennis, now I can't. And I've always got this residual pain and it's just totally affected my life versus the other person going, I've had had a car crash, I lost an arm, but thank God it was my left arm because I'm right-handed.

And that person, that second person will report potentially just as sort of an example, much higher well-being than the first person because their view of their health is the predictor of their well-being, not their actual health status. So that's kind of like a fascinating way of kind of putting it that its inner well-being is the critical bit. 

Interviewer:

So it sounds like there's a clinical basis to the idea of psychosomaticism, doesn't there? Like when you think that or you worry about something being wrong with you and that's fear, it can in some way come to physically impact you. Which I suppose is where inner well-being ties into resilience. And again, resilience comes up a lot in discussions around physical endurance, but you've kind of explained it there. But just to clarify a little further, why is mental resilience of similar importance to physical resilience? 

Patrick:

Yeah, well, there's an interesting construct, again, in the research, they call it the adaptation reflex. And essentially they've done studies of over 140 countries of different people's assessments of their quality of life score or their well-being. On average, across literally the world, it's around 77 out of 10 people might self-report. We go up and down all the time, but that's kind of one marker. And yet what happens is that life has certain triggers that bring us up or down. South Africa, many years ago, voted in Nelson Mandela as president. The whole nation's well-being spiked and it went up, but then it sort of returned to baseline and they found that this adaptation reflex is that generally almost everything within about eight to twelve weeks.

Range, we return to the baseline that we had, which also includes lottery winners. They have a spike as well, but then they go back down. This happens because we have like an inbuilt resilient system that enables us to sort of adjust to situations, problem-solve them by using cognitive skills or social support, whatever it is, and then back to baseline. But what's critical is that that adaptation reflex is working.

And if it kind of, in a sense something's too big and it takes us down too far and we can't get back up, we sometimes return to a baseline that wasn't our original baseline and that becomes our new one, which is a real problem. So the adaptation reflex is basically that internal resilience that we all have. If we sort of trust and make sure we use those cognitive, behavioral, and social sort of skills, can get us through anything virtually. 

Yeah, of course. And I mean, invariably a lot of people will know what the sensation of hitting a wall is like. And you've described there the sensation of hitting a wall. And of course, as you've mentioned, there's a bit of a link there between how people impose that sensation on themselves. But still a lot of people I think, are going to have feelings of not being able to go on further. And resilience is a means of combating that. 

Interviewer:

What are some techniques to help us persevere against that, where sometimes it can feel a little bit tough to do? 

Patrick:

So yeah, exactly. Well, when I was talking about that adaptation reflex, that brings us back up to that baseline, sometimes events, if they're too hard for us, for example, let's say our baseline was 70 and something significant happens to us and we can't within that eight to twelve weeks, we can't sort of rejig ourselves back. If someone does go down to like 40 or whatever else, or out of 100, and then they try and make their way back up and they just can't, and they stay at 45 or 50 or something, that might be an example of someone that now you could say has hit that wall and perhaps now.

We could almost class that perhaps as an example of, say, depression, where, as opposed to being upset, which is sort of temporary, the depression becomes more of an ongoing thing. And I think the reason why that's happened is because simply the demands were greater than their resources, or the event was greater than their current skill set. And when that happens, normally, as I said, the three parts the cognitive, the behavioral, and the social wall is the thing that gets us back up and stops us from staying down or having hit that wall and staying down. But if somehow our cognitive strategies are trying to reframe it, this is just temporary. I can get through this or behavioral going.

If I just get myself out of the house once a day, that will at least be able to break my pattern of being stuck or social. Like, who can I call and just kind of connect with? They're normally the ways that can help us get back out. So we should try all of those if we're finding that we're a little bit stuck. And then, of course, if our skill sets aren't as great as the demands, and it's no shame in that, that's just that life sometimes hits us with something that we're not trained for. You could say it's at that point that we just need to go to people who are trained, whether it's professionals, psychologists, counselors, mentors, or family.

So we're meant to use those three ourselves, our cognitive, our behavioral, and our social. And if not, then we just go to a system change, which is going to someone in the system that can get us there.

Interviewer:

Yeah, and that's obviously where someone in your role steps in. And you're mentioning there that before you get to that period, there might be certain things that you can do in your own life that'll help. Be more resilient and overcome that sensation of instability or inability, even. But for me, I feel a lot of the times that the resilience has been challenged and is harder to strengthen when it is challenged in a scenario where there's another person at play or there's another party. And of course, they've got their behaviors and emotions to contend with. So then, in those scenarios, how do we best apply our resilience in a circumstance such as that, where you're having a difficult interpersonal exchange? 

Patrick:

Yeah, for sure. Well, I always think there are two parts. One is I'm responsible for my well-being, not them. I think it's important when they talk about external locusts of control versus internal locks of control. External is where we let the control for our well-being outside of ourselves. And so I think the first step is to go, okay, so who's meant to be in charge of me? I remember once my daughter, she's young, she said to my son, who's a bit old, he said, you're not the boss of me.

And I thought that was a fantastic psychological principle of just someone else outside of us is not the boss of us in terms of our well-being. And we must always remain, in a sense, of the boss. So that would be the first bit. But then the other bit is also about trying to get inside their world a bit. And so I'd like to introduce just one mindfulness technique each week. And this was a nice place where we could put this one in. This was sort of a four-part mindfulness method, and it's a way of just trying to get inside that person's world, because they may also be going through a hard time, and it's simply just leaking out on us. So the four steps are we can say this person is like me in one way, in that they don't want to suffer.

And so just as step two would then be, just as I don't want to suffer, may this person not suffer. And then step three is this person is also like me in another way. They want to be happy, just as I want to be happy. They want to be happy. So then step four is, just as I want to be happy, may this person be happy. And it's a four-step sort of compassion exercise. But what it also does is it builds a bridge between you and that person, at least in terms of your motivation as a person. Every human being wants those two things. They don't want to suffer and they want to be happy. I guess the question is, how skillful are they being about how they're trying to get that?

And sometimes it might be at our expense, so that's where it's really hard. But if we at least try and get inside their world so step one was we got our world being sorted, that I'm responsible for it. But step two is to also try and get inside someone else's world and at least come from a compassionate place about where they might be and then try and solve it from that place. So at least we're not trying to solve it as an enemy. We're trying to solve it as someone that sort of at least tries to get that they might also be suffering as well. 

Interviewer:

Yeah, of course. Now, as always, as is the case with all of the discussions that we've had, we're talking about problems or scenarios that I feel are very common. And for those that don't feel that they are, well, I think talk to more people and you'll find that some of these instances are a lot more common than you may think. And in those scenarios, particularly around mental health, it can help to interact with other people. And in doing so, you may find that they're experiencing similar problems to you. Um, are there ways that we can support our inner well-being and our resilience that incorporate a friend or a family member who is having similar troubles? 

Patrick:

Yeah, for sure. I think just sort of touching, I suppose, on some of the things I've pointed to. The first step I think always is empathy and listening. Now, sometimes we may go to problem-solving first or annoyance first in terms of trying to help someone that you've heard before or you don't already know what you think they should do. I think the first step, and also the counseling research, funnily enough, is that I found sometimes up to 50% of the therapeutic efficacy of the intervention, or how effective therapy was. 50% of it was accounted for by simply the connection between the two people, like genuine caring, the relationship of actually just sharing. Somehow that debrief just halves the impact of whatever they're going through.

So the first step, I think always is empathy and listening. And then the second step is problem-solving and sort of working with them on whatever it is. Sometimes people do forget that first step and just jump in with both. And I think just showing that you care and connecting even, it's just like, mate, that's horrible. I would not wish that on anyone. And you're there with them in that. And then it's like, look, what do, what are some options? And then that's sort of, in a sense, always step two, but not step one. And then the second bit I think is useful and it's a little distinction they sometimes use is separating something into what they call the event. And then my story about the event or event and story is one way people put it.

And just to help the person just separate themselves. Typically people often say that event was just so upsetting and that's not accurate speech. It was in reality, we needed to split them. This event occurred, in steps one and two. Step two is and I was upset by it. And often people conflate them into one thing and when you do, they say you're then like a victim of the whole thing. That's just so upsetting.

And we separate them, we actually kind of get our power back. It's like, no, that event occurred and I have a story or a response to that event and I'm in charge of that bit. I think when we separate it as well, then if I'm in charge of my response to it, then what other response could I choose? Because if I'm now not a victim of the event, the event has occurred, it gives me room to be able to kind of create whatever it is that I would like. And I think that's very empowering in terms of being able to help people. So listening, problem-solving, creating events, and story separation is quite a nice place to start. 

Interviewer:

See, I love that last year I was doing an area of study in Uni that was looking at writing therapy that was saying exactly. That. It had to do with techniques that people could use to work out their problems in a written form, whether it was something like a diary entry or they were converting it into some kind of fictional narrative. But then what arose in the study of that area was that 1.6 all stories sort of generally are rooted in the idea of developing from some of the more morbid aspects of life. Aristotle talked about that and that was where catharsis came from. And so I feel now, when you look at now sorry, I'm a big fan of Aristotle. All good. Okay. When you look know some of the known sort of baseline stories and the structures in that, there is often an element of catharsis that even if you relate to it on a human level, and then you feel like there's an expunging at the end of it. And that can be quite invigorating. And I think the word you used there was empowering. So even things that aren't necessarily about you, you're going to see a little bit of yourself. And I think it's interesting to see that come up in your discussion of it as well.

Patrick:

Yeah, I think just it's such a common thing. And it also to me when people's language sort of betrays or portrays their position. And I think it's important to have really clean, clear language. And so when people do conflate these two things, I don't know, there's just no choice. But when it is I'm a bit of a kind of martial arts fan, and I was watching some of Conor McGregor's description of his recent loss, in mixed martial arts, and he was kind of quite responsible for the loss. And I think sometimes people will go into victim mode and it's like this happened and this happened, and whatever else. And like, no, I take responsibility. And even if you're losing or you've lost something, there's just some being responsible and sort of powerful in the fact that you're choosing as your response. Even if it's a difficult situation, you feel so much better, you're in charge of it.

One of the things that they talk about as well is if you've had a problem that involves maybe someone else, your actions towards them or their actions towards you, is if you're thinking about how you would narrativize it as well as that, think about how they may do so. And if invariably there will be a difference there. But there may even be a difference around how they focus on the exchange of immorality. Or maybe they're talking about something and they reveal it in a way that shows you something about yourself, health, or even then it could be something, it might be something that plagues you and your. World, but then you hear about it from their perspective and they're able to shrug it off and that can be for better or for worse. Really.

And I like to use a nice example. It's called Felix the cat example. In philosophy, which is a three-part syllogism, and step one is all cats are red is step 1, second step is a cat. Step three is therefore Felix is what? The typical answer is Felix is red, all cats are red, and Felix is a cat, therefore Felix is red. And in philosophy, they would call that a valid argument. And when people are arguing against each other, they simply have their valid arguments. But in philosophy, we wouldn't call Felix's argument or Felix's red argument a true argument. It's a valid argument, it's logical, it makes sense, but it's not true because the premise is wrong. All cats are not red.

And so what I find this is kind of I use this when we're looking at relationship distress, is that people typically have valid arguments, but they're just coming from different premises. The other person going, well, all cats are black. And so sometimes if we get inside the other person's world, we find out what their premise is and it's like, oh, I can see why you're so upset. Your view was that I should have been at the train station at twelve, and if I don't turn up at all, then clearly I don't give a damn. But that's a very logical argument. But my argument was my car was broken into the night before, I couldn't get there and my phone was taken.

And so I think often we don't get inside the other person's world because we don't know what that is. But once we do, just in a sense like what you've said, then we can see that perhaps they're coming from a valid position. Just that is a valid argument. But it's just that we came from different points of view about it. 

Interviewer:

Yeah, or even there where you mentioned that they might be coming at it from a different premise. And occasionally the premise isn't necessary. Like in the case of Felix the cat explanation, not all cats are red. But if you do buy into that and you follow that line of reasoning, it would follow cogently that Felix would be red. But there's a false premise there. And it's quite easy to have a false premise at the baseline of your reasoning that'll in some way because the outcome in your mind is true, will cloud the idea that the premise could be anything other than totally accurate

Patrick:

And in America, Republican versus Democrat, the premise was completely different and they're validly arguing for a different result. I think we have our version of that. Anytime we have a dispute with someone, there is that there's two different positions. That's why I think the compassion bit is, is super necessary. Because even if we feel that we're coming. From the right place. And this is back to jumping since we're doing philosophy today, back to Utilitarianism, which says you can't use a bad means to justify a good end. That was seen as a utility, arguments were seen as immoral, essentially, and I think this is sort of true when it comes to of these different argument positions, even if we think we're coming from a valid place, if we can still both sides have that compassion approach, which is, this person's just like me.

They want to be happy and don't want to suffer, and may they be happy and may they not suffer, and let's figure out a way where we can do that, then we won't get in sort of the position of doing bad stuff to try and achieve our good ends. Because if both parties are coming from that view, it's war, it's horrific. So I think that's why the compassionate approach to problem solving is a critical part of the puzzle. 

 Interviewer:

Thanks for joining us again. Patrick on Youth talk radio. As always, it's been an excellent chat. I hope you've had a good time yourself. 

Patrick:

Yes, lovely. Always an interesting dynamic

Interviewer:

Yeah, of course.