The most common issue in therapy comes as a question.
Why can’t I feel good?
Sometimes framed as a statement.
I wish I could feel good…
Everyone would agree that feeling good is desirable.
For some, it might be the goal of therapy.
Why?
Premise One: Feeling Good is preferred to Feeling Bad.
Premise Two: Most people feel good, and few feel bad. Even fewer feel very bad.
Premise Three: If I feel bad, something is wrong with me.
(Otherwise, I should feel good.)
This leads to the next premise:
If someone feels bad, then this same person, by conjecture, can also feel good.
This “After the Session Blog” entry hinges on three words:
1. Feel 2. Good 3. Bad
What does it mean to feel good?
A definition of the word “good” is a helpful starting point:
Good Defined (Merriam-Webster): 1. of a favorable character or tendency, “good news.” a. Suitable fit (good to eat). b. Agreeable, pleasant (had a good time)… 2. Virtuous, Right, Commendable (A good person).
The American Psychological Association does not define the word “good” per se. Instead, it describes the word “good” as a colloquial modifier emphasizing (or elucidating) for example, other perceived, more central, words or phrases. Example: The “good behavior game:” This is a game or…an intervention to decrease vocal interruptions, unexcused seat leaving, fighting, and other disruptive actions in elementary school classrooms. Children are divided into teams and informed of the behaviors that are not allowed during the game. Teachers penalize teams for any member’s misbehavior and award special privileges to the teams with the most points at the game’s conclusion. The time and the situations in which the game is played are gradually extended throughout the school year until the intervention is withdrawn altogether.
“Good,” in this case, is operationalized in the game as: “decrease vocal interruptions, unexcused seat leaving, fighting, and other disruptive actions in elementary school classrooms.” Presumptively, the opposite of this - “unexcused leaving of your seat…” is bad.
Noteworthy is that “good” usually fits in. Bad is ousted, punished, shunned, bad is alone. Bad people make poor friends (or so the saying goes). People who obey the rules fit in (or are good). People who disobey the rules, do not fit in (bad). See my early definition of good above. Fitting in and “Good” have been inextricably linked for eons, at least as far back as our history goes.
But, Is fitting in always good?
An “excellent” question, one that deserves attention because at its core is the concept of “change”. Change for the good and change for the bad. We live in times of flux where the notion of good and bad is rapidly changing with our social times. Being good, fitting in, staying with the crowd, these are all features of the subjective state of “good” at least in our world.
More Background:
Good comes from the Old English word gōd (with a long "o"). The word itself is (and has been) relatively uniform - across all languages as far back as we know, or since the inception of language. Likely, it was one of the first natural words spoken and written (in any language), so “good,” it seems, has been chiefly un-modified across time: Examples: Proto-Germanic *gōda- "fitting, suitable;” Old Frisian god, Old Saxon gōd, Old Norse goðr, Middle Dutch goed, Dutch goed, Old High German guot, German gut, Gothic goþs).
Good is an ancient word; initially, it meant "to fit, to be adequate, to belong together." Some variations of “good” include the word “ghedh,” which means “to unite, be associated with, suitable."
Am I good? Yes or No
Is this food good? Yes or No
Am I in a good place? Yes or No
Are you good? Yes or No
We use the word “good” all the time, perhaps multiple times daily. The word “good” is number 106 of the 1200 Highest-Frequency written words in our Western English language. It’s right up there with the words: “go”, “much”, “back”, “get”. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://diannecraft.org/wp-content/uploads/1200-Most-Commonly-Used-Words.pdf
Good, is essential to dwell on because it connotates a state of being (a subjective state). Good is a kind of coming and going. For example, we say, “Good Bye,” or “Good Day,” we don’t say “Bad Bye,” but if you did say this, the recipient would think you couldn’t speak English.
The State of Being “Good.” “Hey, I’m Good.” Whatever this means, is what most people want it to feel.
People want to feel good, to be good, to be considered good; most people want to act good, and so on. To feel good “all the time” is what’s called:
A GOOD character trait.
What is the opposite of good?
BAD
What is “bad”?
Bad Defined (Merriam-Webster): 1. failing to reach an acceptable standard, “a bad repair job.” 3. inadequate or unsuited to a purpose (a bad plan). b. Disagreeable, unpleasant (bad news)… 2. Mischievous, morally objectionable, Evil (bad men, a bad dog).
“Bad” has many more definitional dimensions than “good”.
The Merriam Webster Dictionary, for example, provides three main headings for the word “bad.” Under these are six sub-headings. This means that we probably think more about the words “bad” than about “good.” I’m not sure why this is, but, on the surface, it seems human beings are more preoccupied with the word “bad” than with the word “good”. One reason might be that “bad” connotates a negative outcome which would mean painful (or states to avoid) are bad. Wow! That’s a “bad” burn. Watch out in the future. If you are bad, you don’t get the reward, a pleasant outcome. Most people shun unpleasantries or negative feeling states, so there is fear around bad, and when there is fear, human beings attend to it, run from it, and are vigilant around it. This might explain why we focus on bad (to avoid).
What does the American Psychological Association Dictionary say about “Bad?”
Like the word “good,” The American Psychological Association does not define the word “bad” by itself. Instead, like the word “good” the word “bad” is described as a colloquial modifier emphasizing other word phrases or terms that include the word “bad”. Example: “Bad me.” This phrase is part of the self-system theory of Harry Stack Sullivan (a psychiatrist (1892-1949) who was a Freudian Analyst and a clinician predominantly with schizophrenic patients. In this setting, he developed an interpersonal theory of mental illness. “Bad me” is a small part of his theory in which the internalized personification of impulses and behaviors that are considered to be negative by the self are, therefore, needed (by the self) to be hidden or disguised from others (or from the self) to feel intact emotionally. In a child, “bad me” may arise out of a sense of parental disapproval that stimulates anxiety and self-doubt.
I know all about Harry Stack Sullivan, perhaps I should write an entry about him. I taught an advanced-level PhD course on psychopathology, and he is one of the theorists we studied. I was impressed by his ideas, but I don’t recommend reading his work because it is highly obtuse and complex. His ideas were innovative for understanding the self and how the self fractures in schizophrenia. His theory rests on the idea of “good me” and “bad me”.
I state the obvious if you haven’t already figured this out. The words “good” and “bad” refer to subjective experience. They are not, by any stretch of the imagination, objective. People (us, we) determine what “good” and “bad” is or how these words are operationalized for everyday living. For some, what they believe is “good” or “bad” might be the opposite for others. If you live in a Totalitarian State, you might think that it is “good” to give your whole allegiance to the supreme leader. If you live in a Democracy, you might believe that it is “bad” to follow a supreme leader unquestioningly. Instead, you might believe that it is “good” to be part of selecting leaders through a collective vote of the majority. You might think it is “good” that elected leaders make and enforce laws through a collective process with the people.
This is also true for the psychic experience of feeling “good” or “bad.” In other words, you ultimately decide what is good or bad for yourself. Those around you can certainly influence your biology, social context, or interpersonal interaction, but you make the ultimate decision for yourself, what is good or bad.
“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”
This is an old Proverb that means: What’s good for a man is equally good for a woman; or, what a man can have or do, so can a woman have or do.
Interpreted in Merriam Webster Dictionary as (United States Use) as follows: “…used to say that one person or situation should be treated the same way that another person or situation is treated…If he can go out with his friends at night, then she should be able to, too. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I abstracted the following phrase from AI (our techno oracle): I used this phrase.
“What is good for one is bad for another.”
The phrase I engaged AI around is: “Good for one is bad for another.”
…implies that a particular action or situation can have different outcomes or effects on different individuals. This concept is often called the “law of opposites” or “opposite effects.”
AI response expanded:
“This can result from personal preferences or values, where what is beneficial or enjoyable for one person may not be so for another…
In other situations, the phrase can refer to the consequences of an action or decision. For instance, a policy that benefits a particular group might negatively affect another group…
Overall, the phrase “Good for one is bad for another” highlights the idea that what is advantageous or desirable for one individual or group may not be so for another, emphasizing the importance of considering multiple perspectives...”
In an earlier “After the Session” blog entry, I described how people use self-dialogue or talk to themselves. The strongest point-counterpoint you will ever encounter is when you debate something with yourself. “Should I stay, or Should I go.” “Should I feel good, or should I feel bad.”
I’m making the point that the experience, mental state, or emotional state of being that is “good” or “bad” is NOT objective but a SUBJECTIVE STATE.
Subjective State
“Subjective State” describes our perception or internal understanding of ourselves and our world awareness. It is how an individual processes and interprets sensory input based on one’s internal state (biology/neurology), past experiences, personal beliefs, emotions, and psychic knowledge of reality. Each person's subjective state is unique, and it changes with time.
Yes, But I feel bad because I’m chronically depressed.
Indeed, a person will have a propensity to feel bad, significantly when the person’s biology, endocrine system, and/or neurology, etc., are disrupted or operate in a way that prompts the person to generate and cycle around negative/chaotic/disrupted thoughts along with uncomfortable internal states that are constant occurrences. This could have originated at birth (genetics). It could have been due to a trauma (PTSD), or it could have been due to addiction or exposure to external substances (with or without the person’s knowledge). Suffice it to say that we are very vulnerable to exposures, experiences, or even genetic abnormalities that can impact how you or I perceive, sense, interpret, and feel about our world.
It is beyond the scope of this single entry to provide a specific roadmap or diagnostic tool to identify, isolate, or specifically say what is impacting another person’s POV, but it is certainly not all individual choice. In the end, we live with ourselves, and this includes our deficits and our strengths. Finding what these are is usually a lifelong dilemma, but it does boil down to the individual conundrum underlying what prompts us to feel good versus feel bad.
What do you think can be done?
A lot, actually. We live in an age where people, as a group, are searching for answers, or at best, pathways to feeling “good”. Even so, I never count out the power of individual choice or one’s free agency or Will. I have alluded to this feature of human beings elsewhere in this blog. Psychologists who are competent and informed professional, work to identify where, how, and under what instances people can exercise this Will to feel better. I’ve seen this work more times than I can count.
A comprehensive way to think about it is through a “Paradigm Shift” or a holistic alteration in one’s POV. Being “Born Again.” It’s too bad that religion has maligned this concept, at times, because it is a good concept (in my POV) and one I’ve seen work with many individuals.
I recall a person who once said to me,
Dr. Hill, I like your style, I’ve been seeing you for several years, and you’ve hardly said anything. Sure, you’ve given me a nudge from time to time, but by and large, you’ve just let me be. AND I’VE GOTTEN BETTER. I NOW FEEL GOOD.
Why?
This person was not sure why, but that was OK. I understood what was happening even if she didn’t at the time. This client was maturing, a slow, evolving paradigm shift. Perhaps this was for the first time in her life. Part of the process of maturing is to have available someone she could come to and share week after week her challenges and pain. Someone whom she trusted, who encouraged her to explore her POV without judgment or interpretation.
This is facilitation or encouragement, helping a client shape her own POV in a more adaptive way. Sure, she didn’t solve or heal all her issues or problems, but she finally got herself on a path where she could honestly work on her problems, guided by her reasoning, feeling state, and reality. This is what psychotherapy is all about for many clients. At least, it's part of what good (in my POV) psychotherapy does. I will discuss this further in my next blog entry because my entry length has been exceeded.