I was listening to an interview with Dr David Rosmarin, head of the anxiety center at Harvard University. He was on the podcast 10 per cent happier talking about his book the gift of anxiety At one point, he began to discourse on a specific intervention for clinical anxiety, specifically for worrying. My ears perked up when he stated it was invented by a psychologist called Tom Borkovec.
Now anxiety has been around about as long as humanity, so the idea that some novel approach to dealing with it had somehow emerged from the mind of a 21st century psychologist seemed to me, well, unlikely. And sure enough, as he described the intervention, my suspicion was confirmed.
He called the intervention “to learn to think the worst,” and stated it was a form of exposure therapy found in cognitive behavior therapy. The strategy is to have those who are absorbed in their worry truly contemplate what would happen should their worst fears come true. They are to bring before their mind the actual feared event and imagine how they would feel, what they would think, and how they would act in this dreaded situation. As a result of this activity, people learn that they “can tolerate uncertainty better, can tolerate not knowing what is going to happen. It makes us more resilient to life stressors.”
Now I agree wholeheartedly with the value of the strategy and have not only offered it to my patients but practice it personally. The only problem is that it did not originate with Tom whatever his last name is. Instead, it goes back a couple of thousand years, and is featured prominently in the philosophy of Stoicism, where it is known as the pre rehearsal of future evils. Epictetus has perhaps the most succinct statement of the strategy
“With regard to whatever objects either delight the mind or contribute to use or are tenderly beloved, remind yourself of what nature they are, beginning with the merest trifles: if you have a favorite cup, that it is but a cup of which you are fond of—for thus, if it is broken, you can bear it; if you embrace your child or your wife, that you embrace a mortal—and thus, if either of them dies, you can bear it.”
Now I have taught Stoicism to many students over the years, as well as presented papers on the topic at professional conferences. And the response that invariably elicited by the recitation of this passage is the word “heartless” followed not infrequently by the term “bastard.” But the advice that Epictetus is providing here is exactly the same as that which Dr. Rosmarin offers. We imagine the worse so that we can live undisturbed in the present by the prospect and be more resilient should it actually arise.
Epictetus is sometimes charged with an inhuman attitude because he is comparing a cup to a human being. What is instead being hinted at here is a training process. One does not simply try to imagine the loss of a loved one. Rather, one builds up to this situation, much as one must lift lighter weights before on attempts heavier ones. It is important to keep in mind here that what we have from Epictetus are students notes of his lectures, and that we can imagine much has been left out of the steps in between.
As in interesting side note, Jack Kornfield relates how his teacher Ajahn Chah, one day held up a beautiful tea cup and said, “To me this cup is already broken. Because I know its fate, I can enjoy it fully here and now. And when it’s gone, it’s gone.” Here we see the pre-meditation of future evils related not to present serenity or future resilience but to a more complete enjoyment of the present moment. Recognizing that this cup is of the nature to break leads me to appreciate more its presence. By the same token, realizing that the people we love will die can bring us to a state of more fully appreciating their presence.
Or again. I am reading Permission to Feel: The Power of Emotional Intelligence to Achieve Well-Being and Success by Marc Brackett, specifically the chapter on Emotional Regulation. One of the sections is entitled “forward-looking strategies.” He provides a couple of examples: (1) You are going to Thanksgiving dinner where an aunt who infuriates you will be presence; so decide in advance to sit at the opposite end of the table, (2) a co-worker who you have a strained relationship with wants a 1-1 meeting, and you fear you may blow up if it is just the two of you together; so you make it a group meeting. He sums up “if we can predict which situations of encounters will provoke an emotional reaction, we can take measures to prevent them from happening.” Th same strategy of anticipating and preparing for future stressors is exactly what Epictetus is referring to when he writes
“When you are going about any action, remind yourself what nature the action is. If you are going to bathe, picture to yourself the things which usually happen in the bath: some people splash the water, some push, some use abusive language, and others steal. Thus you will more safely go about this action if you say to yourself, “I will now go bathe, and keep my own mind in a state conformable to nature.” And in the same manner with regard to every other action. For thus, if any hindrance arises in bathing, you will have it ready to say, “It was not only to bathe that I desired, but to keep my mind in a state conformable to nature; and I will not keep it if I am bothered at things that happen.”
There is a difference here, and a rather substantial one at that. Brackett is talking about actions we can take to defuse a situation whereas Epictetus is talking about mental maneuvers we can perform
Actually, I tend to favor a combination of both strategies. If I am driving to work, I know there is going to be a good chance of a traffic jam. So I have some relaxing music lined up on my playlist. But I also remind myself, mouthing a phrase found in the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, that “nothing unprecedented is happening,” and to get upset at what is an inevitable part of life is not the mark of a wise person.
I don’t mean to imply that anyone offering up a psychological intervention needs to probe into the history of thought to see if this particular strategy has been offered up before so that they can properly credit the source. My only point if you are going to make a claim for originality in a strategy of dealing with human behavior, a little historical research might be in order.