In his book Control Theory, Glasser (1984) argues that an individual’s intrinsic motivation and personal attitude have the greatest influence on what the individual will do, say, and achieve. In addition, Glasser declares that individuals are accountable for their own attitudes, actions, and behavior. Ultimately, according to Glasser, “all living creatures, from simple to complex, control themselves.”

Can Words Diminish the Self?

In relation to words, Eleanor Roosevelt presented the following proposition: “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” Long before this statement was presented, children on playgrounds were known (especially during times of “differences of opinion”) to announce the following saying: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me” (Gross, 1998; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985; Teicher et al., 2010).

When this social maxim was known and regularly applied, parents and teachers also used it to help children develop and enhance their self-belief, self-esteem, strength of character, agency, determination, and resilience.

Two Social Universal Truths

The universal insights presented in this maxim, together with the insights of Glasser and the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, affirm two social universal truths: (1) We only have control over our own thoughts and actions and (2), we cannot control the thoughts and actions of others (Bandura, 2006; Glasser, 1984; Masten, 2001; Purje, 2014; Skinner, 1996; Yeager & Dweck, 2012).

Research indicates that these social universal truths appear across philosophy, psychology, sociology, neuroscience, and phenomenological lived experience. They are both intrinsic and extrinsic social features of ongoing individual and social interactions; as noted, one of which we control, and one of which we do not control (Kowalski et al., 2014; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Moran, 2022; Shin et al., 2019; Wang & Yin, 2023).

Control

In terms of control, Skinner (1996) writes that “[c]ontrol is important to psychological functioning. Decades of research in sociology and psychology have demonstrated that a sense of control is a robust predictor of physical and mental well-being.”

This is further supported by the research of Teicher and colleagues (2010), which demonstrates that words can exert measurable psychological and neurological effects. However, even though this is noted and recognized, Teicher and colleagues also point out that this occurrence does not automatically mean that an individual will become a “victim” of those words.

Impact and Identity

According to Teicher and colleagues, the important distinction here is between impact and identity. Impact refers to the undeniable ways in which words can shape emotional and cognitive processes. In relation to identity, the research indicates that identity is not determined by external events but by how individuals consciously interpret, internalize, and respond to them. Which is all about choice (Glasser, 1984; 1998; Purje, 2014).

In this regard, the research is unequivocal: the capacity to note words expressed (verbal or written) does not eliminate the parallel and enduring capacities for strength of character, self-belief, self-efficacy, self-regulation, agency, and resilience. These capacities remain active, available, and always within the individual’s control (Bandura, 2006; Crum et al., 2013; Glasser, 1984; Purje, 2014; Teicher et al., 2010).

Conscious Control

Glasser’s Choice Theory (1998) and Responsibility Theory by Purje (2014) reinforce this by demonstrating that individuals possess an intrinsic and conscious ability to govern their thoughts, interpretations, behavioral responses, and chosen meanings. As such, it is important to note that the mind is a constant active entity under the individual’s control. This aligns with Sartre’s view that consciousness is inherently active and interpretive, that is a self‑directed process grounded in free will (Sartre, 1943).

Research also indicates that if an individual chooses to shift to a state of “victimhood,” this cognitive shift requires an additional, intentional intellectual step, in which self-reflective autonomy and power are being concioulsy relinquished to “third-party blame." Importantly, this same intellectual power can be used to dismiss words (whether presented as utterances or read personally). When this positive self-directed conscious choice and action are applied, the individual is taking control and responsibility for what they choose to listen to or read (Barrett, 2017; Glasser, 1984, 1998; Purje, 2014; Scherer & Moors, 2019).

Deeper Insights

When this self-initiated and reflective power is recognized and understood, deeper insights into choices and consequences emerges. As noted, at the physical level, words as utterances are nothing more than sound waves that carry no meaning until you choose to listen and assign meaning to them (Barrett, 2017; Scherer & Moors, 2019). At the same time – words that are in print – whether in books, newspapers, magazines, or on a digital screen, do not have to be read (Glasser, 1984, 1998; Purje, 2014).

This deliberate, conscious refusal to read or listen is controlled and owned by the self. No one can force you to listen or read anything. Once this is understood and actively applied, the individual possesses the power of intellectual and personal freedom (Barrett, 2017; Scherer & Moors, 2019; Glasser, 1984, 1998; Purje, 2014).

How to Take Control Over What Cannot be Controlled

It is now a self-evident truth that the digital world is a power unto itself, over which you have absolutely no control. You have no control over the system. You have no control over what is published. You have no control over what others choose to write, display, announce or say. At the same time, if you choose to publish anything on social media, you have absolutely no control over how others will choose to respond (Purje, 2014).

So, how do you take control over what cannot be controlled? The answer to that question is presented by the following self-initiated reflective question, as noted in Responsibility Theory: “What am I responsible for, and what power do I have?” Responsibility Theory presents the following self-directing answer: “I am responsible for, and I’ve got the power over what I think, do, say, learn and choose” (Purje, 2014).

Responsibilities, Power, Choices and Consequences

You can choose to publish anything you wish on social media. However, the universal fact is that once it’s published, you have absolutely no control over how it will be received or what responses it will elicit. The responsibility of this choice to publish belongs to you. Whatever consequences follow are now, totally out of your control (Purje, 2014).

You can choose not to publish. You can choose to view anything on social media. You can choose not to view anything on social media. You can choose to comment on what you read or see on social media. However, once you publish anything, you will have absolutely no control over the responses and consequences that will follow.

Wisdom

In all of this, it is important to stay self-aware and to know you are never alone. Should circumstances arise that require further support, use your insight and understanding, knowing that you own and control your thoughts, actions, words and choices. As such, always use this power and insight wisely, which means seeking professional help when required. This choice is at the zenith of your recognized power, insight and wisdom, which you own and control (Purje, 2014).

References

Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164–180.

Barrett, L. F. (2017). How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Crum, A. J., Salovey, P., & Achor, S. (2013). Rethinking stress: The role of mindsets in determining the stress response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 716–733.

Glasser, W. (1984). Control theory: A new explanation of how we control our lives. Harper & Row.

Glasser, W. (1998). Choice theory: A new psychology of personal freedom. HarperCollins.

Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299.

Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.

Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238.

Moran, D. (2022). From empathy to intersubjectivity: The phenomenological approach. In Empathy and the Philosophy of Mind (pp. 1–22).

Purje, R. (2014). Responsibility Theory® (Who’s got the power?). Amazon/Kindle.

Sartre, J‑P. (1943/1956). Being and Nothingness (H. E. Barnes, Trans.). Routledge.

Scherer, K. R., & Moors, A. (2019). The emotion process: Event appraisal and component differentiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 719–745.

Shin, D. W., Yoon, T., & Jeong, B. (2019). The associations of emotion coping appraisal with both the cue–outcome contingency and perceived verbal abuse exposure. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, 250.

Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 549–570.

Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 813–838.

Teicher, M. H., Samson, J. A., Sheu, Y. S., Polcari, A., & McGreenery, C. E. (2010). Hurtful words: Association of exposure to peer verbal abuse with elevated psychiatric symptom scores and corpus callosum abnormalities. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167(12), 1464–1471.

Wang, Y. X., & Yin, B. (2023). A new understanding of the cognitive reappraisal technique: An extension based on schema theory. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 17, 1174585.

Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302–314.