Quote:
Originally Posted by Onward2wards
If I am reading this right, REBT asserts that although we have totally natural core desires, it does not follow that they will necessarily be met, and assumptions that they will be met or "must be met" just because they are so powerfully motivating are a problem. This seems reasonable on the surface.
The one possible issue I can see is the danger of going excessively in the opposite direction and inadvertently devaluing these desires themselves - or at least, the person having them. After all, we feel pretty wretched when they don't get met! Calling them "preferences" although factually accurate is a bit simplistic. I can see this possibly being interpreted as a direct and threatening assault on the person, depending on how the process is used. REBT could potentially feel like one's identity being pounded on, unless used carefully. I do take issue with how Ellis apparently used his theory in therapeutic practice.
|
I totally agree as well - that it can be reasonable when presented and that they are way too important to just say they are simply preferences - that doesn't do them justice. And when you look at the actual core of the REBT system - and what it says - no demands, should, musts, oughts, and no moral absolutes, no expectation of being loved or accepted - it's like a bad religious cult. This can be taken to an extreme and you're point is right on!