Steve Andreas - Help with Negative Self–talk Volume I

Think of a simple sentence like, "I need to get going," and hear it in your mind in an ordinary, everyday tempo… .

Now say the exact same sentence internally in a very fast tempo… .

Finally, say it in a very slow tempo, even slower than if you were about to nod off to sleep… .

Did you notice any difference in your response to that sentence in the different tempos? …

Most people will feel only a little motivated by the first, much more motivated by the second, and completely un motivated by the last. Since the words spoken are exactly the same, this difference is solely a result of the change in tempo. But since most people only notice the words that they speak to themselves, this effect of tempo is usually completely unconscious.

In the real world, a fast tempo is usually paired with urgent situations in which we need to tense up and do something quickly, while slow tempos are typically associated with relaxation, rest, and leisure activities. Since we use our memories of those real–world events to construct our internal world, a fast tempo usually elicits tension and motivation, while a slow tempo elicits relaxation and repose. But if you had a parent who motivated you with dire threats in a slow voice, you might be very motivated by a slow tonality. Changing the tempo of an internal voice is another way to gain some control over the impact of what you say to yourself.

Recently I saw an older woman whose dearly loved husband had died two years ago, and she had been depressed ever since. I used our grief resolution process (4) with her, but it was only partly successful. A little exploration revealed that she had an internal voice that was depressing her. In a low, slow voice, it said things like, "It doesn't matter; things aren't worthwhile; they don't have any meaning anymore, because you're just going to die anyway." Try saying those words to yourself in a slow tempo, over and over again, and notice how they affect you… .

Now send that voice off into the distance, and "shake off" any depressed feelings by wiggling your body a bit and then remind yourself of something that you enjoy a lot… .

When I asked this woman to speed up the tempo of this voice, she immediately started chuckling, and said, "It became a hip–hop rapper voice." Changing the tempo resulted in changing the tonality, and the words became somewhat ridiculous, lifting her depression.

Nick Kemp is a provocative therapist and hypnotherapist in England who has explored the use of voice tempo changes with his clients in great detail. He has originated and developed a detailed and dependable process for using tempo with anxiety and other intense and fast–paced uncomfortable states that is very widely useful. It is one of the methods that Nick includes in what he terms "The Provocative Change Works" set of tools.

Whenever I see someone with a problem, I always ask myself the question, "How do they do that?" I began to realize that there are a number of elements that are very similar in a wide range of conditions, which on the surface may seem very different, but actually are not that different when taking a closer look at their internal structure. With many problems that create anxiety and tension, someone is talking to themselves in a fast tempo that creates and sustains their intense feeling response.

They are usually talking to themselves at such a fast tempo that they become hyper–alert and stimulated, and aren't able to access other choices — rather like driving a car on the freeway while stuck in high gear, unable to change down into lower gears. At that fast speed, they lack choice; it's not possible for them to exit and turn off onto side roads, or stop for lunch. Slowing down the tempo of their internal voice makes it possible to have choices that simply weren't available to them when they were talking to themselves rapidly.

Before beginning the exercise below, I do a thorough congruence check, to be sure it is appropriate to reduce or eliminate the anxiety or other unpleasant symptoms that they feel. If someone has very good reason to be anxious, and their anxiety keeps them out of dangerous situations, it would not be appropriate to change their feelings until and unless they had some other way to protect themselves from that danger.

However, often there is no real danger, only a perceived or imagined danger, or their response is to some past context, so the danger is no longer present. In order to distinguish between these different possibilities, it is important to find out if there are any positive outcomes that would be affected by eliminating the anxiety.

The simplest way to do this is to ask, "Does any part of you have any objection to having a more comfortable response in all the situations in which you have had these intense feelings?" Often an objection will emerge as an uncomfortable feeling or nonverbal incongruence. At other times, it may appear as an image of a potential problem, or a internal voice that is more explicit. "If I lost my anxiety, others would expect me to take charge and be more responsible." Any objection needs to be satisfied before proceeding, or it will tend to interfere with the process.

Whenever you find an objection, one option is to simply stop what you are doing until you have more experience with adjusting a voice, or until you have more experience with satisfying an objection. This is the safest option, but it prevents you from trying some changes that could be very useful.

Another option is to proceed with the process, with the full knowledge that any change can be reversed if it turns out to be unsatisfactory. If you assure any objection — whether that is a vague feeling, or a more specific image or internal voice — that you agree reverse any change if it objects to it later, it can be comfortable trying out a change to find out if it is satisfactory or not. This option is particularly useful when an objection is not based on a specific perceived danger, but only on a somewhat vague fear of the unknown — what might happen if the change was made.

Other objections are much more specific. For instance, "If I lost my anxiety, I wouldn't get out of dangerous situations fast enough," describes a protective function that needs to be respected. The simplest way to satisfy this objection would be to agree to keep the anxious feeling in any contexts that are truly dangerous, while exploring alternatives in other contexts.

Most anxiety doesn't actually protect someone by keeping them out of a context that is perceived as dangerous; it only makes them feel bad while they are in it. For instance, many people are anxious about flying, but it's not strong enough to keep them from flying, it only makes them miserable when they are on a plane. Once you have decided to risk getting on a plane, the anxiety is useless, so you may as well feel comfortable.

Yet another way to satisfy an objection is to ask the objection how it could be satisfied. "OK, you want to protect me from danger; how can you continue to protect me from danger, while allowing me to feel more comfortable?" In many ways this is the best option of all, because it gives the objecting part the task of finding a solution. Since it knows most about exactly what it wants to protect you from, it is in the best position to propose an effective solution.

In the outline below, sentences in "italics" and quotes give the exact language that I use, with explanatory remarks in parentheses, or in plain text.