Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: Is destroying an old belief actually a constructive act? Dr. Yasemin Yazan, Marc, Jürgen and Sabine wrestle with who really gets to call a thought constructive or destructive, detour through a self-driving car’s impossible trolley problem, and land on a simple test: is the thought pulling you forward, or holding you back?
Note: This session was recorded live in German as part of the Deep Talk Club, so the video above is German-language audio only. What follows is an English translation of the conversation, lightly edited for readability — the back-and-forth between the moderator and participants is preserved, but the original timestamps and speaker names have been left out.
A very good morning I wish you. Yes, today we continue with constructive and destructive thinking. The question we want to engage with is, how can constructive and destructive thinking be distinguished? First we should maybe first look at what constructive and destructive thinking even means. And then in the second step, so to speak, also look at similarities and differences. And so I’m really, really curious about the development of the room today. I’m curious what all comes up in this context. So you’re all warmly invited to join, get into the exchange, and just see together which direction the room develops in today. Again briefly the note. As every morning, the entire room gets recorded today too and then published later too. That means, anyone who joins is automatically agreeing to that. Then we have three small room rules, a profile picture where you’re recognizable, last name, and at least one sentence in the bio. And anyone who doesn’t want that for whatever reason can gladly use the chat. And with that, yes, let’s just see who’d like to open the round this morning. Marc is joining directly too. A very good morning, dear Marc. What do you say to the topic?
Good morning, dear Yasemin. Good morning to the group. I’ll stick right to the topic and would like to start briefly with a sentence, as always, with a repetition, and specifically I’m referring to the article you also responded to yesterday on LinkedIn, from our happiness-ologist Patrick Wenke, who wrote “In time the soul takes on the colors of one’s thoughts” from Marcus Aurelius, and I’ll also tell you why it’s so important to me to start with that. It occurred to me this morning while making coffee, to what extent mindfulness plays a role, and then I’ll also get to the topic now, constructive and destructive thinking. So, in time the soul takes on the colors of one’s thoughts. And I thought, that’s such a great sentence. And you could express that with a single word, namely with mindfulness. And if we now go into what’s constructive and destructive thinking, then we’ll certainly also get afterward to how that works too, that we think constructively or destructively. And that has, for me, very, very much to do with mindfulness. But I’ll get to that in a moment. For me as an introduction, because for me this, please excuse me, or you all please excuse me, but this topic, becoming aware of your thoughts, that’s so, so important, and from the bottom of my heart I think you can’t repeat that often enough, because if we’re aware of our thoughts, how our brain functions, all that you do in this room, Yasemin, then we then really have something for our life, where we can go into self-determination, and that’s why I find it so important to repeat. So I’m looking forward to the round and to the discussion, and I’ll wait now first to see what you say about that, to then really get into the topic afterward.
Yes wonderful, thank you so, so much. A nice start, and here of course the question also arises to a degree right away, well who actually defines what’s constructive or destructive in this context. So I’m also really, really curious about that. Marc, you can add directly again, and then we’ll gladly bring in Jürgen right away too.
Now my headphones are on again. Where am I to be understood now? I don’t know if I’m speaking through headphones or just a sign. Now I hear you again. Okay, that’s good. Sorry, it switched again. Yes, that’s a good question, who decides whether there’s constructive or destructive thinking. I also looked it up, because Jürgen had a really great contribution in one of the last rooms, where he said, destructive thinking can also be constructive, in the sense of destroying old thought patterns. ChatGPT doesn’t share this view, and neither does Google. So it’s quite clearly defined there that destructive thinking is rather destructive. So destructive thinking isn’t positively occupied there, in the sense of how we interpret it. So destruction of old thought patterns would then again be positive too. That means constructive. There you see what you have to do with words and terminology, and why it’s so important to agree on terminology. But basically, from the gut, from the feeling, and especially my meaning of the words, destructive is always something leading away, into the negative, negatively connoted. And positive, constructive thinking is something solution-oriented. How could it work? So a completely different solution approach. But what I found quite exciting, on the question, what’s better, is constructive thinking better or destructive thinking better? There I got the answer that in exceptional cases constructive, so destructive thinking, negative thinking, can briefly lead to success. But you assume, the majority assumes, that constructive thinking, involving the employees, and, and, and, can lead to better results over time. All, as I said, just a possibility. I can’t prove it scientifically now. That’s what I found in my research.
Yes, wonderful. Thank you so, so much. Then let’s directly bring in Jürgen too, and can then gladly make cross-connections again too. A very good morning, dear Jürgen.
Good morning, dear Yasemin. Good morning, Marc and everyone else in the room. I’d very much like to address what Marc brought up with regard to the common definitions of constructive and destructive thinking. I’ll put a check mark there. However, the decisive point, and that was also the trigger back then for my contribution, was questioning “what for.” So if I assume, from these common definitions, also generally for what is destructiveness? Not only with regard to thinking, but also to acting. Then it’s destroying, tearing down, demolishing, breaking, abolishing and the like. So disruptive basically. I used this connection with regard to the question “what for” back then, to proceed destructively, so destructively from the world of thought, against what destroys us, or negatively burdens us. And so, basically, according to formal logic, minus times minus, or minus times minus, gives plus. That means, a destructive approach with regard to something that possibly — our recurring topic, unconscious bias, rules of thumb, theoretics and beliefs. If I approach that with a destructive basic thinking attitude and say, I want to destroy that, I want to tackle that, that was the background, and that’s actually always a really essential aspect for me, not to ask what you’re doing and why you’re doing it, but especially, what for are you doing it. Namely exactly to destroy what destroys me. That was the background. Thank you.
Yes wonderful. Thank you so, so much. And here the question arises, so we can also formulate the question. And I think that also goes in this direction, what you just brought in, Jürgen. Whether, whenever we, so to speak, want to create something new, for example, isn’t a tearing down, a destroying of something, in quotation marks, actually also necessary, to create space, so to speak, for the new. So the question is, how destructive is destructive thinking actually? Marc, Jürgen, what do you say to that?
Dear Yasemin, I hug you exactly. Sorry Jürgen that I’m preempting. For me, destructive is, in the moment where I destroy the old and create the new, again positively occupied, and becomes then, in that moment, exactly in that moment, destructive becomes constructive.
Interesting, that means here we already have a reinterpretation directly. Jürgen, what do you say to that?
Yes, I just wanted to spontaneously connect to what you say, completely down, thumbs up. That’s the continuation of my favorite saying, “I am the spirit that always denies” — if you read that in Faust, it means that everything that exists basically has the fate of going under, and only through going under is something new created. But that was just a small side note. Thank you.
Oh wonderful. Yes, and then we have the second question, so to speak, which is also hidden in that, this “how can constructive and destructive thinking be distinguished?” So not just from the term definitions, but we already see here, it depends on which lens you look through it with, whether destructive is really so destructive, or whether that can’t also lead to something constructive again, so to speak. And then we also come again to this point of, I’ll call it now evaluation, in this context, because what’s constructive for me is maybe not constructive for Marc, or not constructive for Jürgen, or not constructive for the others. And vice versa. So, what is constructive thinking at all? Gladly, Marc.
It occurred to me this morning while making coffee, I’ll repeat my opening sentence again. So in time the soul takes on the color of one’s thoughts. And then I thought, I can simply summarize that with a single word. And that’s mindfulness. And with mindfulness, mindfulness expresses exactly this sentence. And with mindfulness I decide from the outset, before I go into thinking, I decide, should it be a driver, a driver toward something it’s good for, or a brake. And I hope we also talk afterward about how we decide, how you can even think destructively or constructively at all. And I think that’s a decision, the decision happens. Already before I start to think, Marc can say, I want to think constructively or destructively. That has something to do with mindfulness, and also with emotion. Small example, if I meet with you, dear Yasemin, and something stands between us, whatever it is, and we work together, and you want to strive for a constructive thinking process with me, then that might possibly not work, because I’ve already decided before our meeting, definitely subconsciously, to be destructive, and don’t open myself to you at all. So mindfulness is the magic word for me, which writes all of that, and which actually makes it possible at all to be able to think destructively or constructively.
Yes, thank you so, so much. Only the question is, it can well be that we both decide to be mindful. And still the question arises, who now decides whose thoughts, that we share, then ultimately are constructive at that point. And if we say that constructive ultimately means that it serves a development, or is aligned toward a goal or similar, couldn’t we say, it’s often such that, for example, in the moment where we make a decision, we can’t yet know at all whether that’s actually goal-leading. It’s possibly only the thought that it could be goal-leading, against the background of the analysis I’ve undertaken, considerations and so on. But I don’t yet know at all whether that’s actually then constructive. So who then ultimately evaluates what’s constructive or not? And when can I even evaluate whether it’s constructive or not? Would you like to add to that? Jürgen, gladly.
Yes, if I may go back there, right at the beginning my neck hairs stood up anyway. This sentence came up. Who even decides how I think, namely constructively or destructively? But I think that’s the crux of the discussion. And if you puff out your chest there and say, I decide that, because who actually reacts about my thinking, well me, I’m the lord of my thinking — there I make a restriction, there I make a restriction, in that a really essential, also through the physiology of our brain, a really essential influencer on the way I in a specific situation — that’s also a point again, I’ll come back to that in a moment — how I in a specific form actually evaluate, namely to be constructive or destructive. And this essential point is, for me, the fallback on experience. And these experiences from the past, we know that by now thanks to your educational work, dear Yasemin, is really essentially shaped by presets, again our topic, unconscious bias, but not only in the negative, but also in the positive sense. So that basically, for me, essentially, in summa summarum, the moment decides, the dimension of the potential fallback on experience decides. Have I already experienced a situation often, have I also gotten corresponding feedback about it, and am I reinforced to handle it that way in the future too. And the third favorite topic of Marc’s. It’s not just a question of logic then, when the whole thing gets transported from the associative into the logical brain, but also a question of emotion and feelings in the respective situation. So, in summa summarum, let me say that again. It always depends on the respective situation. Thank you.
Yes, thank you so, so much. Then let’s gladly bring in Sabine here too. A very good morning, dear Sabine. What do you say to the topic?
A very good morning. Jürgen has almost anticipated everything with his words for me. I actually wanted to go to the topic of change processes. And from that side, in this change process, you have to be destructive and constructive. And I think it can even be that the same ideas can be destructive for one and constructive for the other. But there, I think, you also just have to look at, what’s my goal, and how do I get there? And that can just be that I first throw everything overboard, to then do everything new again. And from that side I see that as destructive and constructive. Or am I on the wrong track here?
But it’s already right and wrong. Thank you so, so much. Marc, would you like to add again?
Yes, but I’d also like to say good morning to Patrick. Dear Patrick, you see what you triggered. Wonderful, also with your sentence. And I’d like to address Jürgen again and repeat my word again. Mindfulness, you’re completely right. We have to become aware that we don’t always decide whether we’re constructive or destructive, because very, very much takes place in unconscious bias, in the subconscious. And that’s why, for me, the magic word is mindfulness again. In the moment where I go into mindfulness and know about these processes — and that’s also Yasemin’s intention in doing this room — in the moment where I know the processes, then I can go into mindfulness. And with this mindfulness I get back the power over my body and over my thoughts. And also one of my favorite sentences is, do I think my thoughts, that’s what you meant, Jürgen, do I think my thoughts, or do I not think my thoughts? And that’s still no guarantee that I really think my thoughts, or the experience, or my thoughts think me. But I’m a bit closer. And then it’s situation-dependent, you’re completely right, how strongly the emotion gets the upper hand, how strongly the ratio. But then I at least know it, and can smile and say, ah, now it’s like that again, I’m currently emotionally gripped. I’ll take a short break and try to think through the same train of thought again five minutes later, or ten minutes later, to see, do I come to the same result again.
Yes, I find that totally exciting. So I’m absolutely with you on the aspect, ultimately I determine my thoughts, and I can also decide about something like mindfulness. I can decide how I evaluate that personally, etc. The question that arises for me is, whether there’s a kind of objective consideration, so to speak, of constructive or destructive thinking. Because if we talk about the same topic, approach it differently, and each of us for ourselves, with good reasons and arguments, is of the opinion that this is now constructive or destructive, that still doesn’t mean there’s an overlap, so to speak, at that point, but it can well be very, very different how we look at our own thoughts and at the other person’s thoughts. And so the question arises for me, whether it’s something very subjective, or whether there’s also an objective quantity of judgment at that point. Marc.
Thanks Yasemin, that helps me a lot. I think objectively, let me put the word objective, what we maybe want, that objective always means correct. No, there can never be a correct answer, because I constantly find within a day that the things I said here get refuted, because I’ve read a new scientific report. But we can try to be as objective as possible, so objective, if I’d set that as 100 percent correct and truth, as objective as possible, and processes like mindfulness help us with that. There probably won’t be 100 percent objectivity, or I’d always leave one percent, and if it’s only 5 percent or 3 percent, because within the day, within the week, within the month I have completely new information, and say, I was objective, but it wasn’t correct. And this objectivity we try for doesn’t guarantee that we make the right decision. But constructive, that was your question before, engaging constructively with it alone doesn’t mean it gets better either. And that also doesn’t mean we both make the right decision. But we’re mindful, we’re aware of that, and make the decision we make, at least with a better feeling.
Yes wonderful, thank you so, so
much. What do the others say to that? Sabine?
Yes, it just occurred to me, that of course also depends 100 percent on the environment. Am I in an environment where this idea is seen as constructive, then the thoughts are probably relatively constructive, and exactly the same topic can be seen as destructive in the other environment. We often have that right now in politics.
Yes, and here quite different aspects come up, and all of that ultimately also counts toward this environment. So it can well be that there are also agreements about it, and yet it’s maybe not constructive at all, but destructive. We have here on one hand, we’ve opened up different cultures in the various rooms, for example. That means, it can well be that, depending on where I’m socialized, it’s viewed completely differently. Then Jürgen had also opened up the topic with regard to organizations, that thinking blocks can also be present in organizations, for example. It can well be that the organization members would indeed rate certain thoughts, processes etc. as constructive themselves even, but that it’s nevertheless not helpful, so to speak. Maybe we can connect there again, to check that again too, what these terms constructive and destructive thinking actually are about in this context. What do you say to that? Jürgen, maybe you’d like to, since you also brought up the thing with organizations and thinking blocks in one of the last rooms, maybe you’d like to add there again.
I actually wanted to add something right after your last contribution, and specifically, or it was Marc’s contribution, with regard to the evaluation quantity objective, and I’ve unfortunately lost the connection directly to that now, because it occurred to me, you had, I think, asked, to, we’re in the evaluation, and for me the measurement quantity to be able to assess something, whether I now arrive at a destructive or a constructive approach, is an essential content of reflection. And in that moment… And that’s why I put this postulate, the thinking, primarily in the foreground, because I have this means of reflection, to become clear about what this situation makes of me, and how I position myself in this situation. The result is, in my view, well, tunlichst from my view objective. And it’s measured by the quality with which I can carry out reflection on a quite specific topic. Well knowing that of course one could object, but it’s also subjective. And there I say, yes, you’re right. That’s, in my view, both from one side and from the other side, that’s my personal opinion, not solvable, if — and now comes the essential restriction — if someone else looks at it and then evaluates that. But I for myself, in my reflection and the decision from the reflection to behave constructively or destructively, has, in my view, the title “objectively found result” and “subjective,” because it was my reflection and my decision. That’s what I wanted to add. But I’d gladly go into the topic of organization again, if you want.
At this point it’s always exciting how some circles close, or how something always somehow happens that falls in like a puzzle piece. I’d like to briefly mention an article I got yesterday from Professor Dr., and we’re currently in exchange to see how we can include this contribution, so to speak, in the Knowledge Base too. And that’s actually about coaching and AI. Now you might first think, what does that have to do with this topic now? But exactly this aspect with this restriction, so to speak, that we have too, we’d also already talked about that in the coaching context, this, for example with the selection of methods or similar. We’re always, against the background of unconscious bias, so to speak, always underway in a certain bubble, in quotation marks, so that we also, in the evaluations that get made or similar, always look at it from this perspective, from the respective own perspective. And whether, for example, such technological tools as artificial intelligence now, so the tool ChatGPT, or maybe also quite special tools that already exist by now, that coaches etc. can use, but also self-users can use, to actually let themselves be accompanied with thoughts and so on, whether those maybe even represent a possibility, so to speak, to break open exactly this aspect at this point, against the background that these systems have access not only to their own bubble, but can draw on far more than we could ever draw on mentally, because that’s simply not available to us. There I’m totally curious now. What do you say to that? I hope I’m not overwhelming you with that. Marc?
I’d like to briefly, because it helps me, address the word objectivity again. And I asked Dr. G. And specifically, objectivity is described there as being able to express yourself without being determined by feelings, prejudices, factually, unbiased and impartially, and blocking out all these things. And I think, now we get to AI, that we as humans don’t manage that, maybe for a second, to be completely free of feelings, prejudices, what we’ve experienced, unbiased and impartial, to block all that out and then express ourselves. We do try, but we don’t know objectively whether we succeed 100 percent, and whether we have more or less access to what’s stored anyway. And I once compared our head to a hard drive in a room, and was then corrected, that doesn’t work. But ultimately our head is like a hard drive, like a computer, a highly complex system that nobody understands yet, and we do fall back on this hard drive. And now to come to your question, dear Yasemin, also with AI, tests were made too, how the AI answers certain things. The AI also answers things, it’s also been fed by people, and the AI is also racist, and the AI also excludes women, depending. There are also studies on that, because the AI has been fed by people. The AI doesn’t think for itself, but the AI also arrives at things and conclusions according to what it’s been fed, and then reacts more or less almost exactly like our head, exactly because it falls back on the feeding, so on the stored data. Then it depends again on who feeds the AI, but the human, and that’s why I count on humans, they can become aware of that, without someone having to reprogram us, because we can imagine this programming ourselves. And that’s why I’m very, very glad to be a human and not an AI.
Yes, I find what you say totally exciting. Ultimately it’s clear, the AI can, based on a basic programming, so to speak, ultimately also, whether that’s just the pure basic programming, so the AI is also able to learn at — that means, the more information and knowledge it can draw on, the more it’s also able, for example, to neutralize certain things. But the problem arises especially when, let’s say, also online, and it draws on the net, there are predominantly discriminatory or prejudiced content, then it also falls back on that, in quotation marks. And that’s one point. And the other point, which the AI makes use of here, I find quite exciting, and we can maybe connect there again, namely the fact of drawing on information and knowledge, and doing that at a fairly high speed. What we maybe can’t necessarily accomplish is the high speed. But if we think back to the rooms again, and we’d also had aspects there, I’d also brought in an example, that it’s partly also about opening up various perspectives. And there I’d reported from the dissertation, that experts, for example, first have their own perspective, then try, on the meta level, to put themselves in the position of other colleagues, how they would see that too, if they had to argue it toward them for example, then from the perspective of the client and so on. That means, taking a multi-perspective view on the meta level, however many dimensions, there are different numbers, to bring about a certain kind of objectification, so to approach an objectification. And if we now simply say, the AI makes use of this system on a much broader level, that’s of course a nice thing. First of all per se, I find that actually astonishing, because that also shows what potential that brings with it at that point. And it can do that with a completely different speed than us. But if we now also transfer that to this constructive and destructive thinking with regard to us personally, viewed individually, then we’d also have the possibility again, here too, to make a comparison again and again, so to speak. And then we’re also, so to speak, not just staying stuck in thinking ourselves, staying with ourselves, with our thoughts, but actually comparing what we then think, quite well also in exchange with others, for example, and thereby also generating more perspectives, to also bring about a certain objectification again. What do you say to that, Marc, Jürgen, Sabine? Jürgen, gladly.
Yes, I think you brought the essential keywords, which I’d connect to. And specifically that was on one hand information, and second knowledge. Information as I understand it, as a pure data basis, as a, in quotation marks, evaluation-free factual representation, and knowledge, this capacity and this competence to connect information in a quite specific context, and thereby lead to a corresponding use, also use in thinking. The essential difference to the next step, and I hope that artificial intelligence puts these shackles on itself here, because the essential next step is then the personal decision. From this connected knowledge, which is now available to me in an unbelievable dimension, that it still remains with me, also from understanding, to know that this is my basis for decisions, but that I, with my experiences, and there I’ll now claim, no artificial AI knows those, that my experiences, which I’ve had and connect with this knowledge, to make a decision, that that still remains my own individual and personal level. And I’d like to point out one more thing, so from my limited usage with ChatGPT, if I remember correctly, there’s hardly a question, at least a query from me, where at the end of the discussion or the provision of information, there isn’t the hint that it’s to be noted that this possibly needs to be considered individually and so on and so forth. I think that closes this circle too, in this respect, to what I said. Thank you.
Yes, thank you so, so much. And while you just said that, I considered to what extent it wouldn’t even be necessary that we possibly also add this sentence to our remarks. Marc, Sabine, would you maybe also like to add here again? Gladly, Marc.
Yes, really quick. Sorry Sabine, I’m pushing ahead, and now I’ll bring a new word into play, and specifically God. Without giving God a name, the power of the universe. Dear Jürgen, you said, information as data basis. My topic AI. I have a self-driving car, and this AI now makes a decision. An evaluation-free and objective decision is possible neither for the AI nor for humans, and that’s the topic that drives all of us. My car goes out of control. I have a group of pedestrians. Who should die? Viewed objectively it would be more sensible, so attention, that’s an evaluation, that the old woman dies, because the old woman doesn’t have as many years of life left. So it’s better if the old woman dies than the child, who still has life ahead of them. Who should decide that? Who wants to make this decision? The parents of the child would see that differently than the relatives of the old woman, and that’s why I’m glad there’s still a power of the universe, so that I as a human neither have to make such a decision, want to make it, can make it, and I don’t think the AI does that either. But an objective and evaluation-free decision would then certainly be that the AI weighs what’s sensible, what makes sense. But whether what makes sense, we as humans also perceive as fair, morally fair with our whole feelings, that remains, yes that remains squaring the circle for me.
Yes, I find that a really interesting and exciting aspect you open up. Because here it’s of course, as a basis, about probabilities. That means, here an AI would go, for example, in this concrete example, by who has bigger chances of survival. And there we’d possibly, we quickly get into this ethical aspect too, but I’d like to note at this point that, even though we don’t necessarily notice it, there definitely are such considerations and also decisions against the background of survival chances also with regard to, for example, doctors. So that means, if someone, for example, has cancer, and the prospects of survival aren’t given, then, for example, no organ transplant gets performed, and the organs go to someone else on the list. Just as an example. We’re maybe not always quite so aware in everyday life that this also happens with us, and also possibly is indeed sensible, that this happens. But that we don’t just get stuck, in quotation marks, on that with AI, but maybe these decisions are also needed at one point or another, precisely against the background of certain considerations. And of course none of us wants to get into this situation. But not just acting from emotion, in quotation marks, but against the background of considerations. Sabine, I think you wanted to add something to that.
Yes, you already went in the same direction. I wanted to connect there too with the doctors, and specifically on the topic of Covid. If you now picture the decision back then in Bergamo, they didn’t have enough, so they had to decide whether this one or that one survives. And are we with us partly so far removed, if you think about how it went with us during Covid. And if you spin this whole thing further, what will happen with the health reform, won’t that then also at some point come to the point where not everyone can get everything anymore, but it has to be decided. And then of course you also have to ask, this decision that then gets made, is that destructive or constructive? Certainly destructive for one, constructive for the other, but it’s the same decision.
Yes, thank you so, so much. And I find these aspects very, very exciting, because even if we have the feeling, or keep being guided from within, to also look for differences between human and AI, I find it astonishing how many parallels can also be found here. Really, where you might have the feeling at first glance that it’s so different, and then it’s maybe not so different at all, if you look more closely. So I find that very, very exciting, and also with this follow-up question you asked, Sabine, against this background we’re talking about, is that then even so constructive or destructive at all, what we’re thinking there. Would anyone like to add again? Marc, Jürgen? Marc, gladly.
Yes, I’d like to say again, it’s about decision processes after all, and I find this example with the doctor good. There it becomes clear to me that it’s important to have an ethics council, or a team of doctors who aren’t emotionally affected, who then try to judge objectively. You can probably only judge objectively, only approach it, get to 100 percent, if you yourself aren’t emotionally affected in the decision. If it doesn’t concern your own relatives, but if you judge objectively with the ratio whether it’s then the right decision. Nobody can say that, but it’s maybe the better decision, as soon as you manage again to switch off emotions. And you can best switch off emotions if you’re not necessarily affected yourself.
Yes, wonderful. Thank you so, so much. Especially this aspect, leaving the emotions aside, so to speak, I find a really important aspect at this point. That means, if we manage that, or if we at least get into an emotion regulation, even if we can’t completely leave them aside, also because in many situations there won’t always be an ethics council, that also has a lot to do with the situation, so to speak, and in many places probably also won’t even be necessary. Nevertheless, we do have, in many situations where we trigger certain thinking processes, derive decisions and then also go into an evaluation, always a certain degree of being affected too. That doesn’t even have to be an extreme emotional state. But in some way we are involved in this process, so to speak. That means, the emotions and the feelings always play a role too. And it seems all the more important to me in this context to pick up this aspect of emotion regulation again, always also in the sense of self-efficacy in this context, and to make use of various strategies, so to speak, to be able to
establish a neutralization in some way again. Marc, Jürgen, Sabine, would you like to add here again with regard to constructive and destructive thinking? Gladly.
Thanks that you mention that again, dear Yasemin. This emotion regulation, I think, for certain professions, especially like with a doctor, there’s really no other way than to mentally engage with it. During my work hours, I’ll do what’s necessary. That doesn’t mean a doctor, I think, cheers and is happy when he has to make some decision. But I think you can only get through such a profession if you’re aware of your emotions and also aware of the technique of emotion regulation, and really train that too. You can’t do that from one day to the next. I’ll now do what’s necessary, what’s objective, what’s sensible. Not because I like doing it, and also not because I enjoy it, but because it’s the only possibility to do my work well.
Yes wonderful, thank you so, so much, and then I’d like to ask again. Have you yourselves possibly already experienced situations where you maybe had the feeling that something was constructive, so your thinking, and in retrospect maybe that changed in the way you looked at it? Maybe that would also be quite interesting, whether the time component also plays an important role here again, Marc, Jürgen, Sabine. Or even if you don’t have a concrete example now, you can also voice your thoughts on that. Yes, Marc.
So for me it’s more such that the word destructive is negatively connoted, and my way of life is such that I even moved, that I keep myself away from people who have this way of thinking, because I simply, only for Marc, am of the opinion that that doesn’t bring me forward. And my favorite answer that immediately occurs to me on the topic, when I talk with people and tell them something, hey, I have a new business idea. Hey, I’d like to do that, that I then immediately notice how he reacts, whether he’s constructive, says, hey, that’s a great idea, tell me, or oh, no, I don’t know, I don’t know. And then the sentence always immediately occurs to me, how it doesn’t work, I know that myself. And with that I mean thoughts. I then separate immediately, because how it doesn’t work, I’m already that far. I’ve already decided that it should work. And I had to think yesterday, with the topic you mentioned, constructive and destructive thinking, of our rooms on pioneering spirit. All these pioneers, they’ll all have looked. There was no light yet, and there were no airplanes. And if I say, how great would it be if we humans could fly, and I had said, Marc are you crazy, how are we supposed to fly? We’re not birds after all. Do you have wings? That doesn’t work. No, I want us to fly. That constructivity has always brought us humans forward. Not with all the inventions we’ve made, but if I want us to fly, then I find a way for us to fly. And if I don’t want to sit in the dark, I find a way for us not to sit in the dark. And that’s why I decided for myself that, for me personally, constructivity brings me further forward than destructivity. And that’s also the reason, that might be wrong, that I immediately try to separate myself from destructive people in a decision phase. Because I go into mindfulness. And there are, for me, then supporters. There are brakers, who hold me back. And there are supporters, who pull me forward.
Wonderful, thank you Jürgen. I wanted to briefly address your question with regard to the importance and value of time, and thereby a possibly accompanying revision, being able or wanting to perceive something in the past as good and now as bad, and say, yes, that too. And that, in my view, depends essentially on one point, namely how we used the time to learn. And essentially this learning is a process of our thinking, and quite essentially from self-reflection. I wanted to add that too. Thank you.
Yes wonderful, thank you so, so much. And it can of course also be the other way around, that we evaluate something as constructive, and then later in retrospect that goes into the evaluation as destructive, or maybe experience something as destructive and then notice in retrospect that it was constructive after all. Sabine.
I wanted to briefly say to Marc, it’s the same for me. I’m also rather, I’m together with someone who thinks constructively. Only now, after what we’ve heard here today in the room and thought about, constructive isn’t necessarily always only positive. It can also always be that the destructive is the positive. We connect in our head actually always constructive with positive for us, because we go forward, and destructive with the brake. That doesn’t have to be so at all. We just learned that, didn’t we?
Yes I find that mega, thanks. Marc, what do you say to that?
I disagree with that, dear Sabine, because I also said, again, we hear what we want to hear, and we see what we want to see, and if I go into mindfulness and exchange with Yasemin, then destructive thoughts can immediately switch to a constructive thought, namely if we talk about it objectively, why it can work, not per se setting myself negatively. That doesn’t work because I want to, I have no desire to damage myself there, but if Yasemin says, dear Marc, but note, if you now jump off the roof because you want to learn to fly, and we haven’t tested that yet, then it could be that you break your bones, then that’s not destructive, but helps me from hurting myself. So for me, if she thinks along toward the solution, if she’s a driver, then a destructive thought too, that she says, watch out, that could happen, we definitely have to keep an eye on that, can immediately, in the second she says it, turn from destructive to constructive. Destructive is, for me, an attitude, a general attitude, when Yasemin can’t follow any argument from me, or I can’t follow Yasemin’s argument in any way, and I’m just against it, because I want to be against Yasemin, because I want to be against the thought, because I don’t open myself at all, because I’m not mindful, and because everything inside resists letting any out-of-the-box thinking happen at all.
Yes, thank you so, so much. And I think that a kind of reframing takes place here ultimately too. That means, we put a different frame around it. Because Sabine, that’s what I perceive, doesn’t have such big difficulties with the two terms. That’s why she can also simply say, I can also think destructively too, to first destroy. Marc has a hard time with the term there, and keeps transforming that back into the constructive. That means, it may well be that I first tackle something destructive, so to speak, but ultimately, yes, to get into the goal-orientation, to make something constructive out of it again. And I find it exciting in this context, and I think I’d also once told you, that this was also one of the aspects that came up in my dissertation, when surveying experts from the coaching field about failures. And I also had that in many other interviews, that it partly takes a really, really long time until they even find an example. And as it turned out in the analysis, it wasn’t because they didn’t want to answer the question, or somehow didn’t want to admit a weak point or something, but it became clear that they simply had to search for quite a long time until they found something, because in the meantime a reinterpretation had taken place, so to speak. They had basically reflected on the whole thing, and derived lessons learned from it. And in the moment where they derived lessons learned from it, they put a check mark on it. So they put a different frame around it, and didn’t store it, so to speak, as a failure, along the lines of “oh god, oh god, why did that happen to me,” but they developed something positive from it again, which they can then draw on again in the future as an experience value, so to speak, and use in a positive sense for themselves further. And so I also find this reframing, this reinterpretation, a really special aspect in this context. Sabine, you wanted to add again.
Yes, I also find what you just said quite great. An example just occurred to me from my current, so not from my situation, but from the whole situation right now. I have relatively many colleagues who are self-employed, and since the real estate industry is doing so badly right now, I now have three people who’ve decided, I’m going back into employment. If I think about that now, then that’s actually a path you were content with, and now there’s a turn arrow right and a turn arrow left, because lightning struck from above. Nothing’s happening either. So people say, I’m not going straight anymore, but I’m taking the right-turn lane, going back into employment, I’m maybe not completely content there, but I have the topic of security for myself, which hangs on top of everything. So I threw everything overboard that was there until then, destructive, and go in the constructive direction, even if it’s maybe not the best. But for them it is, in that moment, the best.
Yes, thank you so, so much. And I remember we once had someone in our room a while ago who also basically reported exactly that. And out of self-employment, so to speak, then, I believe he then took on a managing director position, changed this frame, and at the same time also reported how good it did him, because he got rid of this burden from his shoulders in many places. And here too we ultimately again have this aspect of evaluation playing a really big role in this context. That means, I take a new frame, and frame, that this new constellation accordingly — and we’ve already had the situation in many rooms of talking about — that everything has a minimum of two sides, so brings both advantages and disadvantages with it, and that it’s never such that there are only advantages, or only disadvantages, or only right or only wrong or something, but that there are basically quite many facets. And depending on what I then, so to speak, direct my focus onto at that point, I can then also change this frame, and quite well feel comfortable again in this new frame I’ve set for myself. And it’s sometimes even necessary, to be able to feel comfortable again too. And if we know that, we can of course also quite deliberately, so to speak, use that, to establish our frame, which we need, also in the sense of the feel-good feeling, for ourselves too. So maybe also quite deliberately actually use that as a strategy too. Marc, gladly.
I’d like to address you again, dear Sabine, and that’s not meant badly. I find it totally exciting, that happens to me every day. I thought about your words for a really long time and reflected. You started the sentence, these people threw everything overboard. That’s already the first evaluation. I just notice that. This word, this emphasis, threw everything overboard, that was bad. And if I notice that about myself, in my thought pattern, I haven’t thrown anything overboard, I’m now taking the new, right path, that’s now, that’s not in the past, that’s necessary for me now. And this evaluation too, which also keeps flowing into my thoughts, is it now bad to go into employment, or is it better to continue the path I’ve gone. And being objective there, objectivity begins, for me personally, with my own language, how I speak with myself. And I keep noticing, really, really often, that I’m so emotion-driven that I speak badly with myself, that I use the wrong words for myself. And then when I speak badly with myself, I also come to wrong decisions, to wrong thoughts. And when I then go for a walk, we also have that, so become resilient, go into meditation, I can sometimes answer sentences for myself differently an hour later, or a day later. But these processes take time. And it sounds easier than it is.
Yes, to pick up constructive and destructive thinking again at this point too. It can well also be that it’s not just a “negative evaluation” at this point, but that this “these people threw everything overboard” is quite maybe even necessary with this aspect of destructive thinking, so to speak, to again create space for the new too. So from this angle too, we can look at it again.
Yes, Marc, gladly.
Thanks, thanks, dear Sabine. I myself just, I told you, you made an evaluation, and I myself made an evaluation too. Great, thanks, dear Yasemin. So brilliant. I say, Sabine, you made an evaluation, I made that too, and that’s exactly how communication works. Dear Yasemin, thanks for the lesson. Sorry that I picked that up so fast. Thanks, I’ve learned.
Sabine, gladly you can also add again.
Now I have to ask quite provocatively, don’t we have to evaluate at that point? Because I have to evaluate for myself, what’s best for me in the situation. I don’t want to judge it completely, because for these people that was the best in the situation. And that’s why they turned right. But still, they acted destructively in that moment, because they threw overboard from one day to the next what they actually always considered the best.
To that I’d now say, I don’t know if we have to do that, but at least we keep doing that. So from that angle, that’s also a quite normal process, so to speak, that we always also go into evaluation. And at this point it simply always helps, so to speak, to reflect on that, and against the background of the knowledge that we always also get into evaluation, because our brain simply steers that this way, that we’re allowed to accept that on one hand, and not judge it at all, but these evaluations are also always important. They also give us orientation, and help us put certain things into certain drawers. And we’ve talked about that often enough, that it’s also not somehow something negative, but per se also important for us, to have orientation, to have security, to be able to make decisions and, and, and. But if we’re aware of that, then we do have the possibility to get back into a certain self-efficacy here too, and if needed also check whether I’m allowed to make corrections for myself again here too. And that then everyone can also decide for themselves again. That’s a nice point, to really set a point here again, and go into the closing round for today. Marc, Sabine, what are your highlights from the room?
Dear Patrick Wenke, I’ll stop the way I started, and repeat it again. In time the soul takes on the colors of the thoughts. Be mindful with yourselves. Thanks to you for starting the day so wonderfully.
Yes wonderful, thank you so, so much. And I’ll gladly connect with my comment from yesterday. I have the impression that we’re by now shaping quite colorful thoughts and souls, and thereby also a colorful world. Sabine?
I think you can’t add much to that. I can join that. I found the room super interesting. I feel like I’m on such a zigzag path right now, but I find it good to occupy the whole thing constructively with the positive. I think that’s the right way. I wish you all a really great, constructive path.
Yes, wonderful. Thank you so, so much. Really very, very exciting. And we turned in so incredibly many directions, all the way to AI, so to speak. And I hadn’t expected that at all now. But that’s how it is sometimes, that puzzle pieces really just come together. And I find that so exciting. That only reached me yesterday too. And it now fits wonderfully in there too. Otherwise that wouldn’t have popped up at all today. So it’s always exciting to see in which direction these rooms develop through the exchange, through the dialogue, and which intermediate insights we can generate and take with us for ourselves. We can also always let one thing or another sink in again, and go into an evaluation for ourselves again, which is also quite legitimate, and individually for everyone, also context-dependent, also depending on where we currently stand, how we currently classify it, what we’re currently experiencing, may also find its place. And I’m totally looking forward to tomorrow in any case. There we’ll continue with deductive and inductive thinking. What’s behind deductive and inductive thinking, and what’s suited for which context? We want to look at that more closely there. And I’d like to mention here again, again, that on Thursday we have an expert talk with Julien Backhaus. I’m already totally looking forward to that too. There we’ll pick up solution-oriented thinking. So gladly also note Thursday already, in case someone can’t be there tomorrow, to definitely not miss Thursday either. Of course again at 8 here at Deep Talk. I’m looking forward to it, and hopefully see you tomorrow. In this sense, thank you so, so much to all of you.
