See, there is a huge disconnect in perception here.

Yourself and Phil have reacted to difficulties in life, by externalising them. Somehow, some people when they have had enough of suffering whether it takes days, weeks or months, have an innate ability to push negativity out of themselves and externalise their problems. No doubt you would argue that this is simply a choice, a personal assertion that you take control of yourself and move on.

Others however tend to internalise their problems, when a new problem arises, it becomes more evidence of what they thought about themselves to begin with, and down the spiral goes. They take the blame for the event personally, as opposed to placing the blame upon the event and then changing events. Someone like this will look at the notion of asserting change, and whilst they're not thick and can understand it logically, somehow it doesn't...fit. Of course, as always with the brain, the more you practice something the more efficient you get at it, regardless of whether it's healthy or not.

This makes it difficult for the latter group to model the former group and work out how to pull themselves out of it from what they observe.

I suppose the difference between the two groups is a fundamental sense of identity and self esteem. On Deangelo's Deep Inner Game DVD's they talk about some people having a porous personal boundary, where events are allowed into them to fuck with their reality freely. Whereas more stable people tend to be able to choose what they let in, they know who they are and can usually reject a problem. The same product implied that the only way to build this was to start investing in yourself more, to start building self esteem and identity with one little decision at a time, little steps of courage leading towards a greater sense of self image and esteem to stabilise the foundation of the problem.

PS