Thank you for pointing that page out. I read the first part and... think it applies, though I'm noooot quite sure. I'll have give it a read through.
I'm really struggling with the idea proposed by this and the panic disorder infopack that if I'm just less scared of the effects of consuming caffeine I'll be able to ~resume drinking tea~~~? I have a substantial evidence base that in physiological terms I really don't get on with it well - significantly raised heartrate, etc - and I don't think it's wrong of me to decide caffeine isn't worth it?
I think the fact that you have physiological problems with it makes it okay to stay away from caffeine. But I would look at things and see if there's some fear worked into there. If there's some fear worked into the issue, you need to dissect that and try to figure out what exactly are you afraid of. Does your heart rate make you think you're going to have a heart attack or panic attack? If you sleep like crap when on caffeine and a lack of quality sleep impacts your health, leaving you feeling especially mentally or physically vulnerable or fragile? Things like that.
I think you can dissect the fear while respecting the fact that caffeine isn't good for you. So if it's "oh god, I can't have caffeine because [underlying fears]", you need to turn it into "I can't have caffeine."
I absolutely am avoidant of family members who make me incandescently angry. Again, I'm struggling to see that as a problem? Like, they're going to ignore my boundaries and describe me in awful ways, why would I want to spend time with them, I don't, etc.
I don't think that's a bad thing, to be honest. It could be that the author isn't making accommodations for people who have abusive family members. Or it could be that the "avoidance of family members" only applies when you have small problems with them. Like "I burnt the pie and she screamed at me, so now I'm avoiding her" stuff.
Another thought: Abuse is a pattern and maybe distress tolerance focuses more on the singular events. "This too shall pass" and all that.
re: being unsafe: I think some people can tolerate it better. Constructing it as fear might definitely be helpful. There are situations where people are unsafe and they get through them -- forex, people may live in a crappy part of town, but never actually get robbed. They have an awareness that crap can happen, but they don't let their fear be the focus of their life.
(Oi. I'm not sure that works as an idea, but I can't figure out how better to word it. -headskritch-)
I'm struggling to see the material difference between behaviours described as "distress avoidance" and "distress improving" (the latter being described as "soothing" or "activating").
Maybe the difference beween them is a level of degree? Or maybe "distress improving" is when you do those things only when you're distressed? Then distress avoidance would be when you do those things before you even feel the distress?
(If this rambles or doesn't make much sense, sorry. /o\)
no subject
I'm really struggling with the idea proposed by this and the panic disorder infopack that if I'm just less scared of the effects of consuming caffeine I'll be able to ~resume drinking tea~~~? I have a substantial evidence base that in physiological terms I really don't get on with it well - significantly raised heartrate, etc - and I don't think it's wrong of me to decide caffeine isn't worth it?
I think the fact that you have physiological problems with it makes it okay to stay away from caffeine. But I would look at things and see if there's some fear worked into there. If there's some fear worked into the issue, you need to dissect that and try to figure out what exactly are you afraid of. Does your heart rate make you think you're going to have a heart attack or panic attack? If you sleep like crap when on caffeine and a lack of quality sleep impacts your health, leaving you feeling especially mentally or physically vulnerable or fragile? Things like that.
I think you can dissect the fear while respecting the fact that caffeine isn't good for you. So if it's "oh god, I can't have caffeine because [underlying fears]", you need to turn it into "I can't have caffeine."
I absolutely am avoidant of family members who make me incandescently angry. Again, I'm struggling to see that as a problem? Like, they're going to ignore my boundaries and describe me in awful ways, why would I want to spend time with them, I don't, etc.
I don't think that's a bad thing, to be honest. It could be that the author isn't making accommodations for people who have abusive family members. Or it could be that the "avoidance of family members" only applies when you have small problems with them. Like "I burnt the pie and she screamed at me, so now I'm avoiding her" stuff.
Another thought: Abuse is a pattern and maybe distress tolerance focuses more on the singular events. "This too shall pass" and all that.
re: being unsafe: I think some people can tolerate it better. Constructing it as fear might definitely be helpful. There are situations where people are unsafe and they get through them -- forex, people may live in a crappy part of town, but never actually get robbed. They have an awareness that crap can happen, but they don't let their fear be the focus of their life.
(Oi. I'm not sure that works as an idea, but I can't figure out how better to word it. -headskritch-)
I'm struggling to see the material difference between behaviours described as "distress avoidance" and "distress improving" (the latter being described as "soothing" or "activating").
Maybe the difference beween them is a level of degree? Or maybe "distress improving" is when you do those things only when you're distressed? Then distress avoidance would be when you do those things before you even feel the distress?
(If this rambles or doesn't make much sense, sorry. /o\)