Why 'Should' Statements Are Actually So Difficult to Handle #5
'Should' statements directed at oneself—why they erode people most quietly
Up to this point, we have looked at why 'should' statements directed at others destroy dialogue, erode relationships, and make situations worse, even when the intention was good.
However, what is truly difficult to handle may not be the 'should' statements directed at others.
It is the 'should' statements directed at oneself.
—
I should be more like this.
I should be able to do at least this much.
I shouldn't be worried about something like this.
Many people call these kinds of words 'ambition' or 'effort'.
In fact, they can sometimes be a driving force.
But at the same time, everyone must have experienced moments where the same words quietly erode a person.
—
Why do 'should' statements directed at oneself cause such exhaustion?
The reason is simple.
There is no partner for dialogue there.
—
In an argument with someone else, you can change the subject, create distance, or pause the relationship at some point.
However, you cannot escape from 'should' statements directed at yourself.
The attacker and the defender, the judge and the judged, are all within the same person.
—
As touched upon in #3, when people speak 'logical truths,' they have already passed an intuitive 'verdict of rejection' in their brains.
The thoughts that follow are not for understanding or dialogue, but are closer to a defense activity to justify that verdict.
This structure works exactly the same way toward oneself.
—
The moment you think, 'I should try harder,' a verdict has already been passed in your brain that 'the current me is insufficient.'
The thoughts that follow are not for growth, but become a search for reasons why that verdict cannot be overturned, or a defense activity to convince yourself.
What happens as a result is not improvement, but exhaustion.
—
In social psychology research, it has been repeatedly confirmed that when people have their opinions or actions denied, they tend to feel it not as a 'denial of an idea,' but as an 'attack on their own existence.'
What is important is that this reaction occurs not only from denial by 'others,' but also from denial by oneself.
—
When you are denying yourself, your brain is not in dialogue mode, but has switched to defense mode.
A defense with no one to protect. A war with no enemy.
This is why 'should' statements directed at oneself quietly, but surely, erode a person.
—
Here, I would like to clarify one thing.
The problem is not the wish itself to 'want to be better.'
The problem is that it becomes a 'judgment' rather than a 'direction.'
—
'I want to be like this' is a direction.
'I must be like this, or it's no good' is a judgment.
The former points to the future starting from the current self.
The latter makes the current self itself the target of denial.
These two, while seeming similar, place completely different loads on the brain.
—
From an evolutionary perspective, a sense of norms or the feeling of 'how things should be' is originally closer to an alarm device for detecting deviations within a group.
It is an immediate reflex to signal danger.
However, an alarm is not intended to keep ringing.
An alarm that keeps ringing, rather than avoiding danger, robs you of your ability to think.
—
The reason 'should' statements directed at oneself are painful is not because your will is weak or your effort is insufficient.
It is simply that the volume of the alarm is too high.
—
As we have seen so far, the problem with 'should' statements is not whether they are correct.
It is not about who they are directed at, either.
It is about whether you are handling them at the right temperature.
—
If you direct them at others, you destroy relationships. If you direct them at yourself, you destroy yourself.
That is why what we should think about next is not 'a solution.'
Nor is it how to correct things.