I have been asked about the way safe experiments fit together. My main web-site does read like a long list but there is a thread linking them all.
I was reluctant to identify that thread as it comes out just like another model! However, what do you make of this development of Dan Siegel’s thinking about the Window of Tolerance (WoT)? I say ‘development’ because my reading of Dan’s material suggests that change, as he sees it, happens around the edge of the Window of Tolerance;.
My diagram, by contrast, suggests you really have to step outside that Window and, indeed, be prepared to travel a fair bit without stepping back into your WOT. THe WOT is a safe place, but change requires that we take planned and measured risks.
The diagram points out that there are risks involved going on such a journey. It is possible to fly to one of the extremes, as listed, or indeed, to fall into a combination of those extremes. Such extremes are STOPPERS. The four corners may describe common human responses, but, in my view, those responses impede progress in therapy.
That said, ‘safe experiments’ we initiate along our scenic route can help to expand our “Window of Tolerance” with change happening in small steps.
The Window of Tolerance (WOT) is the area where we can stay and feel familiar. Familiar tends to be ‘comfortable’ but not necessarily OK. It is not an area in which change is easily obtained. Each of us has a greater or lesser willingness to expand that window in our day-by-day ‘learning’.
Any move outside the Window of Tolerance invites change and the outcome of any change created can be unpredictable – sometimes welcome (a small victory) and other times unwelcome and unintended (a small defeat).
The diagram emphasises that the path toward change rarely follows a straight line. Instead, it weaves around corners and hits obstacles, taking the scenic route, as described in two other pages:
I learned much about this scenic route during my teaching career. I observed that the process of learning can be uncomfortable for adults and, at some point, it has to be uncomfortable enough to motivate us to move toward another place. See more on this at:
The ever-present risk for any of us is that, under pressure, change can lead to confusion, or chaos (“I don’t know; I don’t understand“). For others, the risk is to become rigid in our problem-solving (“this is the way I’ve always done things“). In these extremes of confusion and rigidity, change struggles to be effective. In another place, the pressure can generate anger. Now that might help but only if I can avoid striking out in frustration and blaming all and sundry for the results being generated.
It can be made worse by cycling between each of the extremes. Any safe experiment runs the risk of generating a ‘small defeat’ when we jump to one of the four extremities identified in my illustration.
I’d prefer you to have only ‘small victories’, but that’s not going to happen. Therefore, the design of any safe experiment has to accept the result might be a small defeat. You and I need to build in ways to meet such defeats.
My recommendation is to ask myself, and for you to ask yourself:
“what something can be done just a little bit different next time around?”
This is a valuable question when the extreme response is our tendency to catastrophise (“I’ll never get this right, ever” and ritualising (“I’ll only get it right by doing this every time”).
Therapy provides an opportunity to move outside the window of tolerance and expand our experiences. Therapy can help to see that the process of change is safely contained. This is not guaranteed, of course, and it is easy to retreat and slip back into old, familiar ways. Such ways may be unwanted to some degree but we can prefer them simply because they are familiar!
So the diagram points out that our ability to change suffers when we are chaotic or rigid in our problem solving. Catastrophising and ritualising has a similar impact on our efforts.
Therapy can improve performance through small amounts of change. This emerges from small victories and small defeats – as long as we have recorded some results and can come more aware of what is going on.
I am saying, then, that a way toward better well-being is something like: “what step can I take now to do something a little bit different?”, just as stated above.
In practice, then, if this way to initiate and promote change is going to help at all, please consider some of the following challenges:
* what encourages you into chaos or rigidity, or both.
* what might ‘inoculate’ you against chaos and rigidity?
* DITTO, for catastrophising and ritualising.
* do YOU have a ‘favourite’ out of these four possibilities – chaos, rigidity, catastrophising or ritualising? Alternatively, do you mix them up?
* what can you do to widen your Window of Tolerance (WOT) by some small step.
* what can you do NOW?
For more information take a look at this material made available on YouTube by a US training group, The National Institute for Clinical Applications in Behavioral Medicine (NICABM). It includes material from Bessel van der Kolk where he talks about his use of various breathing-related exercises. This site is well worth a visit, and a further follow-up. A search for Dan Siegel’s material, say, his Wheel of Awareness, might be useful line for further research.