Irrational Ideas (Dr Ellis, Rational Emotive Therapy)

To speak plainly, on one idea here: what's to say that my irrational beliefs have not been formed by repetition (ding ding ding) and thus need to be challenged and changed for my own good?

Who is to say that your beliefs are irrational in the first place?

They may be unhelpful but there are plenty of unhelpful thoughts that are not irrational...

Also... Does challenging help change them?

That is something that is open to question...

In fact...

Those are the things that I'm meaning to question.

Sometimes people find that challenging the thoughts does lessen their hold.

And in those cases I want to say TERRIFIC!!!!! If it works for you then embrace it.

(Though I still don't like calling the beliefs 'irrational')

But when it doesn't work...

Well...

Too many therapists conclude that that is because the client 'isn't doing it right' and that they therefore cannot help them...

> Another factor here is that theorists and therapists tend to present the very simply A causes B causes C, etc. formula to clients because it's assumed that this is a more effective way of getting the point across, and that most people have little or no interest in exploring the ambiguos landscape of cognition/affect/physiology/behavior relationships. (And, I think the total lack of interest shown by other members to our discussion illustrates this nicely.)

Yes. Part of the 'dumbing down' of the mentally ill perhaps... perhaps... I'm all for simplification if it ASSISTS with understanding. But the trouble is that the simplification is fairly grotesque in the sense that it distorts things into falsehoods. But if it helps... Well... That is probably justified (to a certain extent) on pragmatic grounds. But... My problem comes when therapists deny the clients phenomenology because the phenomenology is ruled out by their grotesque simplification of a theory...

But... Yes... Theory interests me more than most...
Probably because... My phenomenology... Seems to be a direct counter-example to their theory. And while they can disregard my phenomenology (not having direct access to it and all) I am not so easily convinced that it is in error...

> Yes, but the 95-98% of people who do not fear airplane crashes have had such vicarious experiences as well. What makes me different? That's the really interesting question.

Yes. That is an interesting question...

> (I'm not saying CBT offers the definitive answer, just that it offers one that makes sense.)

What is the CBT answer? Because you endorse some 'irrational' belief or other? How is this an explanation? Doesn't it shuffle it back one step... Why do I endorse this 'irrational' belief whereas others do not?

>>Whats with the urge to have yourself described as 'irrational'?
> No urge at all. In fact, I never called myself irrational. I said that I had an irrational fear.

Why is your fear irrational?

> Big difference. In fact, it illustrates a certain cognitive distortion quite nicely. I recognize that I have an irrational fear, but if I made the jump to "I'm an irrational person" I would feel much, much worse about myself.

Hmm. But what is an irrational person if it is not a person who is inclined to irrational beliefs / feelings / behavings?

Just like... What is a kind person if it is not a person who is inclined to behave kindly towards others?

Why am I irrational if I conclude I am an 'irrational' person in the former case, yet I am a psychologically healthy person if I conclude I am a kind person in the latter case?

Is it the reasoning (rational vs irrational) that is different?
I don't think so...

> Flooding and graduate exposure for sure.

Yes. I could be wrong... But I think that is the lay of the empirical land...

> A good CBT therapist would recommend them too--hence the 'B' in CBT.

Yes. Though not in strict 'cognitive therapy'

> But how do these techniques work?

Heightened physiological arousal (ANS activity) is thought to be a requisite for an emotional state. So... In flooding you are confronted directly with what you are afraid of. Eventually... Your ANS 'poops out' which is to say your body gets tired and you don't have heightened ANS activity. One cannot be in an intense state of distress indefinately. And when the body poops out eventually... The fear is extinguished.

These techniques work with animals hence we do not need to appeal to cognition to explain how they work...

> The work with acceptance is really interesting. I've done a little reading, but I have to catch up.

Yeah. I haven't read much. I've read Linehans treatment manual for borderline personality disorder but that is round about it...

[on a tangent if one was able to post a link to amazon books via this site then this site would make... I think it is 10% of the price of the book if a poster was to buy the book via the link at no added cost to the poster. if posters here made an effort to buy their amazon books via links from this site then it could be a profitable way of making some money for the emergency fund thingimie at no additional cost to the posters here. i think you contact amazon for details on that...]

> Since most people come to therapy because they "feel bad" and they don't want to feel bad anymore, I think the idea of acceptance would be a tough sell--then again, there's an awful lot about this concept that I don't understand so I could be looking at it all wrong.

well... if you are able to accept something... acceptance is change. because if you are able to accept something... then you aren't distressed by it.

> For what it's worth, my own view of things is that thoughts, feelings, behavior, and physiology are all part of an interdependent and interacting system and that when one changes, it necessarily changes the others.

Though of course... You can think through a number of thoughts... Logical axioms or something... Without that leading to a change in ones emotional or physiological state. But yes... There are complex interactions between these things... The hard part comes with... Attempting to specify the nature of their interaction in a little more depth. And along the way... Avoiding falsehoods....

> From a biological standpoint, I don't think it matters much what order they come in.

Well... It matters if you want to know...

> What matters is how people experience these elements phenomenologically.

Yes... Though whether the way things seem to us to be actually maps on to the way things really are is a legitimate question. I just think... That if one wants to deny veridicality of phenomenology... Then one should be particularly careful to check that the theory is plausible and adequate before doing so...

> It seems weird to me that when a person seeks treatment with a mental health professional, the most important factor in what kind of treatment they'll receive isn't the client's preference, the client's personality or temperament, isn't even the kind of problem the client is having...it's the approach embraced by the therapist. (Kind of like if I went to my doctor with a complaint about my back and hips and he responded by examining my ears because his training was in ear, nose, and throat!) Not very "client-centered" methinks.

Yes.

Because... People want to (perhaps even need to) believe their way is the legitimate way / the appropriate way / the best way / the empirically validated way / whatever...

Psychologists
Psychiatrists
Councellors

Tend to each think their way is the best way...
(ego defence?)

And that is to say nothing of the rivalries between sub-fields...

They are slaves to their psychology just as much as we are...
And they may lack awareness...
Display 'irrational' thinking just as much as we do

Though...

If everybody thinks irrationally at times...
What sense is there in calling ours irrational?

?

CBT and the Rational Emotive Therapy also makes me think of a trained monkey. Lately, I find that I think a negative thought and correct for it. Then, I do it again later. I sometimes feel like I am some kind of freak monkey. But, I have to admit. I haven't been able to be sad for no two years or more (ie. qualify for Dysthymic Disorder) for over a decade. However, I wonder if I just created an odd Civil war between the negative thinking side of me and the postive, correct the irrational beliefs side. My psychologist in college had said that he uses what works. Since I do this correcting for negative thinking so well, I suspect he must have used a little CBT or Rational Emotive Therapy. I also find it odd that we discussed the root causes of the beliefs only onced. We spent one session on that.
As for the therapist's school of thought deciding on your treatment, I have seen signs in my courses of teachers encouraging us as students to learn about all the different schools. However, one person will still tend to focus on what they are good at doing. Some Ts may be good at doing some schools. While other Ts are good at other schools. Also, I suspect that that person's experiences, perceptions and beliefs will highly influence his/her treatment choices. So, it is good for us to find the one that is best for us.

Hey there, thanks for joining in :-)

> I wonder if I just created an odd Civil war between the negative thinking side of me and the postive, correct the irrational beliefs side.

Hmm. Can you elaborate on that a little more? I find (and this may or may not be related) that I can end up with opposition between what I 'rationally believe' and what I feel.

So... I can feel really very hurt and sad and angry and confused... Even though 'rationally' I know the person hasn't done anything wrong, and even though I may understand the reasons for their behaviour (and wouldn't wish them to do otherwise given their needs / desires).

So for me the opposition / split is between
thinking
and
feeling

Is this similar to your experience at all... Or is it more a rational / cognitive / thought war between beliefs?

With the monkey thing...

Do you mean that you say things to yourself because they are the 'rational' things to say even though you have trouble uttering them with conviction or true assent?

> My psychologist in college had said that he uses what works.

Yeah. A lot of therapists are into that. I think there is a place for it... It is a pragmatic theory of truth. Something is true because it is useful.

But then they went and found that people suffering from depression tend to have more accurate self evaluations than people who had what has traditionally been considered to be 'healthy self-esteem'. That finding... Seems to require... That 'accuracy' means something like 'correspondance with the way things are in the world'. If we accept their finding... Then it seems that sometimes... False beliefs may be helpful... And true beliefs may be unhelpful.

Personally... I'm rather attached to the truth (whatever that might turn out to be). I'd rather aim for truth than utility of belief. But... I also believe that the truth can be cast in a way... That makes the truth more helpful than a 'convenient' lie... But that is an assumption, yes. And I don't have any more evidence for my belief than they do for theirs.

> Since I do this correcting for negative thinking so well, I suspect he must have used a little CBT or Rational Emotive Therapy.

Maybe. Or maybe you hit upon it yourself. People did manage self-improvement before therapists (TM) were invented ;-)

> I also find it odd that we discussed the root causes of the beliefs only once. We spent one session on that.

I think... I can tell you why you didn't learn much about the root cases of beliefs... Because... Within psychiatry / psychology / councelling... Not very much is known about the root causes of beliefs.

I have studied that. But I have studied it from within philosophy of mind rather than from within psychology.

We could talk about where beliefs come from if you like...

(But it will of course be a theory and so you might want to yell B*ULLSH*T!!! every now and then)

;-)

>I have seen signs in my courses of teachers encouraging us as students to learn about all the different schools.

Sure. But when it comes time to train to practice... When one is practicing under a supervisor or two... One has to do the therapy that one is trained in... And not very many people... Become trained in more than one approach. Of course some people are more open to some of the insights / ideas of other schools than others. But ultimately... One has to do what one is trained in to a very large extent. And in ones training... One might be aware of different schools... But one tends to learn how to practice one in particular.

Otherwise...

It would take forever to train...

Sorry I missed this on my first read through...

> the preceding comment was aimed at my post's lack of relevance to the support mission of the forum...

Do you really think your post (and the way this discussion has turned) is irrelevant to the support mission of the forum?

Support...

How about supporting people to be informed consumers?
How about supporting people to be critical thinking consumers?

How about supporting people to...

Take an active role in their recovery?

Because to me...

That is what these discussions are about.

See...

I think of ideas as abstract objects.

Sometimes people grasp them...
They think them
They say them

But they are abstract objects that are there to be kicked around and thought about and considered and disputed etc...

And that process...

Can be empowering.
Can be helpful.

This process...

Is my therapy.
It is my form of therapy.
It is what helps me get better
(I do not qualify for psychological treatment)
It is what has helped me get better

Am I hurting anyone?
Am I being unsupportive to people
(Rather than ideas which I will critique and question in the effort to obtain truth or at least a considered opinion)?

I wouldn't turn a support thread into this kind of discussion...

(Though might possibly by accident if someone else started it)

;-)

I appreciate that there is a time and a place...

But is there a place for these kinds of threads on these boards or not?

Because if there is not...

Then I shall leave now.

Because this is a part of me.

And I appreciate it can hurt a little when someone questions your beliefs...
And I do try and be sensitive to that...
And it will take some time to know who is okay with this and who would prefer me not to do this in response to their posts
(Comperable to how it takes time to figure who wants support and who wants suggestions / advice)

But can it be figured?

I think I'm okay...

But if this thread is considered unsupportive then please tell me now...

And I'll make a strategic retreat back to boards that shall not be named...

No disrespect...

First off, everyone needs to stop over-analyzing everything I say just because I'm an admin I'm also a member here, and I'm entitled to write stupid things once in a while just like everyone else.

Now, on to business.

Point 1: The simplification of the cognitive model is perhaps part of 'dumbing down' of the mentally ill.
Counter: I disagree. When I go to the mechanic, I don't expect "the truth". I expect a very simplified explanation of the problem in terms I understand. A full explanation of the internal combustion engine, though it would make me a more informed consumer, would be unhelpful and, quite frankly, a waste of my time. Most people that come to counseling for the first time are very distressed, and in my experience are in no mood to take a psychology class. It's not a matter of whether or not they can understand it--I'm sure most could--it's just a matter of whether or not it's helpful. In most cases, I don't think it is.

Point 2: Hmm. But what is an irrational person if it is not a person who is inclined to irrational beliefs / feelings / behavings?
Counter: Am I "inclined to irrational beliefs" simply because I have this one irrational belief? Am I "inclined to irrational beliefs" even if I have ten such phobias? I think not. When you look at all my millions of beliefs ("I believe my wife loves me", "I believe the gas pedal in my car is on the right", "I believe that my furnace heats my house in the winter") you'll see that the overwhelming majority of them are perfectly rational. That holds true for most people, even those that erronously call themselves "irrational". A problem that seems to occur with many people who suffer from mental illness is that they tend to label themselves negatively based on a few negative beliefs/thoughts/experiences but they don't label themselves positively no matter how many postive beliefs/thoughts/experiences they have.

Point 3: What is the CBT answer? Because you endorse some 'irrational' belief or other? How is this an explanation? Doesn't it shuffle it back one step... Why do I endorse this 'irrational' belief whereas others do not?
Counter: Yes, it does shuffle back one step. Often, that's the best way to arrive at an answer. You keep moving back one step until you can't move back anymore. Most of the time, however, this searching for "first causes" doesn't actually help people all that much--at least in mental health. CBT presents and automatic thought arising from an intermediate belief arising from a core belief that arises typically from some childhood experiences. The question that I think is most important, however, is what actually helps? I've been helped with several problems where neither the therapist nor I have any idea what the "first cause" was, and it simply didn't matter.

Point 4: Why is your fear irrational?
Counter: Because there is very little chance that I will actually ever be involved in a plane crash. I accept my phenomenological perspective as valid, but I also believe in an objective reality. When my perspective fails to adhere to objective reality, in those areas I am irrational. (Of course, most CBT folks are confused about objectivist and subjectivist views of the world to begin with, so I don't want to open that can of worms.)

Point 5: "A good CBT therapist would recommend them too--hence the 'B' in CBT." Yes. Though not in strict 'cognitive therapy'
Counter: Cognitive therapy is cognitive in conceptualization and cognitive and behavioral in execution. The preceeding is a paraphrase of A. Beck from the 1960's. Behavioral work has been part of "strict cognitive therapy" from the very beginning.

Much more to write, but my fingers tire

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
wittgenstein said:
But if this thread is considered unsupportive then please tell me now...

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

No, it's not unsupportive in my opinion. Based on reading several thousand posts, I would guess that most members don't find this conversation terribly useful, but perhaps some do. And I could be completely wrong, too.

In any case, I don't see how this could be hurting anyone, so I see no need to discontinue it.

> First off, everyone needs to stop over-analyzing everything I say just because I'm an admin

Ah. Sorry about that. I wasn't sure whether your comment was intended as a polite warning that this sort of conversation was inappropriate to the boards or whether your comment was intended as supportive to people who aren't much interested in these sorts of conversations... I just wanted some clarification... Thanks for providing that... I didn't mean to jump on you...

> I'm also a member here, and I'm entitled to write stupid things once in a while just like everyone else.

Absolutely I think everyone is entitled to write stupid things once in a while. In fact... I'm sure I use up more than my quota ;-)

> I would guess that most members don't find this conversation terribly useful, but perhaps some do.

My experience of support boards... Is that some people aren't terribly interested in these kinds of conversations, that is true. Some other people... seem to benefit from them greatly, however, and they seem to appreciate the opportunity to think things through... And sometimes... They benefit from thinking critically about their therapy situation etc and they feel less alone and less 'crazy' for going through some of the unhelpful dialectics that can emerge in therapy sometimes. For example... If someone is in the position where they really don't think they endorse the cognitive distortions but where their therapist insists they do... If they are giving themself a hard time for the number of cognitive distortions they think they exhibit... If they find that challenging their thoughts doesn't seem to lead to an alteration in their emotional state... If they find that their therapist or they themself is giving themself a hard time for not doing cognitive restructuring correctly etc etc.

This kind of process can help... One feel less alone. Less like a freak. Less crazy.

At least. Some people find this (and I am one of those). Some people find that they benefit from reading even though they don't join in. Some people find that they don't follow all of the conversation but they may benefit from the odd thing that resonates. Some people find that they disagree and that spurs them onto thoughts of their own and the thoughts that they have help them.

But...

Some people don't like this process that is true.
And my hope is that... Those people are going to be encouraged to put me on ignore if that is the case. That those people are going to be held accountable for their own responses if they respond negatively to my posts. That they will be held accountable / disciplined for lashing out at me, and that the converse of that will also obtain and that I will be held accountable / disciplined if I lash out at them.

That I will not be silenced because other people choose to respond negatively and that conversely that other people will not be silenced should I choose to respond negatively to them.

And I do of course appreciate occasion...
And I would not launch into a theorietical critique on a thread where someone is wanting support.
Or if I did...
I would fully expect to be told that that is inappropriate (either by admin or by a member)
And I would accept that...
And apologise.

We shall see...

Sure am glad we're allowed to write stupid stuff.. though I'm not sure who is, or how to, catogorize anything.

Perhaps there are millions of people living day to day with their own irrational beliefs and aren't having terrible problems (in their ignorance maybe?) But to consider someone who is in therapy because things in their life, their own responses to those events, etc.. well it just isn't all working. That's when it's time to challenge all of thinking... and ferret out those that are irrational.

Since, say, we are the ones in therapy, and hiring someone to give us a different perspective, what does it harm us to change what is considered "irrational?" CBT and RET are not "brainwashing" therefore, a change in thinking is our choice, and once made, can be changed back if it's decided those beliefs were not truly "irrational."

I would like your comments if they were slightly shorter. I'm having trouble reading and comprehending in this state of depression. This is a discussion I'm missing and don't want to!

TC ((witt))

Hey. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to post that speel and run. I wanted to say that because I thought it might help posters here to see where I am coming from (the posters who are still with us). That was my sole intention in posting that.

But as for your comments...

1) Yes. I take your point about the mechanic. And I agree that that is right in most instances. I guess I posted what I did because... Of my experience in therapy where I found clinician's getting frustrated with me because they though I couldn't have been doing the cognitive restructuring correctly because I was experiencing an intense emotional state. Or my experience in therapy where I found clinician's getting frustrated with me because they attributed all these 'cognitive distortions' or 'irrational beliefs' to me that I don't think I held... Or that I held... Only when I was upset. And not... Before... As their theory required of me.

2) I guess what I am meaning to dispute here is the utility (or truth if it comes to that) of calling the beliefs 'irrational' in the first place. They may be unhelpful, yes. But I don't see the sense in calling them 'irrational'. I don't think intensely distressing emotional states... Are a matter of faulty logic. And I think that to say that intense emotional distress is caused by irrational beliefs is to make intense emotional distress out to be a matter of faulty logic.

(It was due to this that I went on to study logic... I thought that if 'irrational beliefs' was the problem then logic would be the cure... I think learning logic has helped me... But after learning some logic... I want to maintain that intense emotional distress is not a matter of logic / illogic.

3) I guess I was thinking of the 'shuffling back one step' as being akin to...
what does the earth rest on?
the back of a turtle
what does the turtle rest on?
the back of an elephant
what does the elephant rest on?... etc etc ad infinitum...

i think this kind of explanation is a pseudo-explanation...
in the sense that you invent (or posit) one entity that is prior in order to explain something. but then the entity that is posited requires an explanation in turn... and then one posits another entity...

and so really one is no further ahead.

but yeah...

i am in a thinking -> feeling -> behaving mood today ;-)
i do see the sense in it at times...
maybe the issue is that...
even once you have a grip on the 'cognitive distortions'
even once you have a grip on that...
oftentimes people can still be left with a problem...
very nearly the same problem they started with...
and...
additional problems with beating themselves up for their 'irrational' thoughts...

4) your fear is irrational because there is little chance you will be involved in a plane crash...

so fear is only a rational response to likely danger?

i guess it depends on what you mean by 'rational'
if a response is understandable then i consider it 'rational'
i think it is understandable that you are afraid of flying (given your past experiences etc etc)
i therefore think it is rational that you are afraid of flying...

but...

i think it is more helpful to say that it may well be unhelpful to you to have a fear of flying. and that... if that is something that you find... that it is unhelpful to you... that it is problematic in your life... then it may well be productive / worthwhile to attempt to change it.

perhaps that is the 'same thing in different words'
perhaps...
i like to think it is a similar thing
but the advantage...
is that it is not judgemental

5) ah practice... i am a theorist i guess... so in practice... there aren't any strict cognitive therapists?

Hey. Yeah my posts do get long, don't they... I do have a tendancy to get a bit carried away... I'm still trying to figure the most readable format for my posts... The text size is very small and I think breaking it down into paragraphs is important... But maybe I get a little carried away with the one line paragraphs... Or maybe... I do just post a lot... Sorry about that.

I guess my issue is that...

The logical structure of the beliefs that are supposed to produce distress (or the evidence / lack of evidence for the beliefs that are supposed to produce distress...

Is the same as that of lots of other beliefs that we have that aren't thought to produce distress...

So... What do the first lot have in common that the second lot don't?

I don't think the logic of the beliefs is any different...
I don't think the evidence / lack of evidence for the beliefs is any different...

So I think it is wrong to call them 'illogical'
I think it is wrong / can be unhelpful to call them 'errors' or 'distortions' or 'faulty' thoughts / beliefs.

They are unhelpful for some people some of the time...

What more needs to be said?

I'm not sure that beliefs can be changed 'at will'...

I'm not sure that...

This is the best approach towards helping people get better.

What I found...

Was...

It felt like the therapist was sitting there on guard with ears pricked and nose quivering just waiting for me to say something that resembled one cognitive distortion or other...

So they could proceed to beat me over the head with my illogic.

That is how it felt.

In the name of helping?

Surely...

There are other ways to help?

Ones that might be more helpful?

I appreciate that not everyone feels this way in response...

But...

The point that some do...

Maybe that indicates that there are problems???

Yes, I think there are other ways to support someone. But isn't there some point that mere "support" isn't helping that person to progress in life, but remain static.

At some point, once they're sure you care, you have to nudge them along. After the trust is built, that is.

If you experienced "therapy" and weren't first supported, and shown caring, and allowed time to build trust in the T, that they know what you are feeling, where you are coming "from"... and they began with correcting, or attempting to lead you into evaluating your thinking... I'm sorry for this.

I,too, had trouble (after my injury) with thinking things being "wrong" versus "right." My T had to lead me to realize that some things just "are" and not necessarily wrong or right.

Just like, imo, there is no wrong or right therapy (assuming, of course that it is recognized as therapy and not some off the wall pervertive program)...there is only therapy that works for some and not for others.

But with that said, I'm no so sure that that isn't the therapy's downfalling... but that a therapy used must find the patient where he/she is, and lead and guide from there.

If a patient isn't ready for a particular type of therapy (CBT, RET which are very tough to work and do!) then a softer approach must be made, for what good is a therapy that doesn't work?

> isn't there some point that mere "support" isn't helping that person to progress in life, but remain static.

maybe. i think it depends on the kind of support. sometimes... i think people have the answer within themselves... and all they really need.... is someone to believe in them and have faith in them... and help them think things through and be a sounding board for that more than anything. i don't know. i imagine different strategies work better for different people. and sometimes... one needs to change strategies.

but as for the 'evaluating my thinking' and 'correcting' my thinking... that implies that there is something *wrong* with my thinking. i don't see why one needs to be confronted with another persons judgement that there is something *wrong* with ones thinking in order to be prepared to working towards something positive.

so much seems to be about...
labelling and judging what is wrong.
and it seems to be thought that one must do that in order to inspire the client to change...
but the client knows things ain't going so well...
that is why they are there for help.
instead of worrying about labelling and judging what the therapist judges to be going wrong... why not just promote positive new ways of doing things.
why condemn the old first?

i think...
that leads to less rapport rather than more...
and i think that in general...
that is the effect of cognitive restructuring.
that it can be counter-productive for a lot of people out there.

and when it does seem to be counter-productive then the client is *blamed* 'well i guess they just weren't prepared to work'

so...

must one internalise a therapists negative judgements...

before one can get better?

i really don't... think so...

i guess i'm interested in theorietical developments...
so interested in the notion of *improving* current theory...
so interested in where current theory might be wanting or lacking or counter-productive...

if it helps you that is a wonderful wonderful thing...
but that doesn't mean it can't be improved on...

Hi W,

I'm a bit late on this on, but I've just read through the posts.

There is a problem in labelling certain beliefs irrational. If a person has suffered from severe abuse in childhood, it is perfectly rational for that person to be sensitised to certain situations which will trigger painful feelings and for them to want to avoid them.

There are plenty of 'healthy' people who completely avoid some situations because they have bad vibes about them. That is the working of a rational mind. I know someone who completely avoids alcohol because her late husband died from alcoholism. It's a reasonable choice. There are people who don't go into certain areas of the city, who don't drive at night, who never go into clubs and bars, who don't talk to strangers on the street..... the list goes on.

So, there is reason in reacting to fear. A person who is afraid of panic attacks for instance, is being perfectly rational to avoid flying on an airplane. It makes good sense, and some airlines actively discourage passengers who admit to panic disorder (yes they really do!).

However, as we know, reaction can become overwhelming obsession, and fear can become crippling neurosis. This is where CBT comes in.

IMHO the job of the therapist is to help a sufferer to face up to the fears which debilitate them, and to help them win back their lives. I believe that this involves an acknowledgement that certain aspects of life are indeed very hard for them, and yet they can learn go through it, and thus reduce the symptoms and the fear of the symptoms they suffer.

I have successfully used CBT methods myself to overcome typical symptoms and to achieve difficult targets. I still hold the belief that a person with panic disorder risks great discomfort if they put themselves in a certain spot, and I also hold the belief that I am a person who can deal with that discomfort as and when a panic attack arises. I hold the belief that I have more courage and determination than many 'healthy' people.

I am right to fear my illness and brave enough to face up to it. However, I am in no way silly or misguided to fear the illness. Sometimes panic disorder is a hard battle, and I demand respect for fighting and mostly winning against a nasty illness such as this.

Gosh, I sound like a crusader!

Cheers, M

Well, I personally don't like to use the word "wrong", and was referring to what you (witt) had stated as "wrong." But maybe you were quoting someone else in that use?

I agree that a belief that has cause...well has a reason to exist. However, isn't it still an irrational belief NOW because the cause is in the past? The belief might have protected someone during events, but isn't needed now, and therefore, since it doesn't refer to current life, it's an irrational belief now?

Basic example: You developed a belief that when you heard the door slam, you needed to be on best behavior. But now you feel every door slam needs to result in the same response, when it may only be a broken door, or an excited coworker.

I think I agreed to talk support, if I wasn't clear, I do agree. Therapists don't do anything but talk, really. Challenging what you think (causing you to challenge) isn't a bad thing.

I wonder why there seems to be so much resistance to eliminating some of your beliefs, witt, or at least for you to challenge your own beliefs. IMO, that would be a good focus and discussion, too.

I concur at the statement that a lot of out "irrational beliefs" are based in childhood. I think for myself, I was trying to get my step-father to like me by thinking like I thought he did. If I was like him, then wouldn't he like me? Also, I learned a lot of them or had them reinforced by my classmates in high school. So, I do agree that it might be better to call no longer useful thoughts rather than irrational thoughts.
What I do like about the CBT/rational emotive therapy is that it is handy for choosing to change your beliefs. I tend to also like to talk myself out of believing odd things like that person is mad at me when he acted grumpy towards me. I don't know if he is already having a long day. Or maybe I actually do know that he is having a hard day (my boss one day got grumpy and I knew he was having a hard day and I still thought at first that he was angry with me).
As for the odd fighting/civil war that I referenced, I mean that I sometimes think "I'm stupid." Then I tell myself that I am not stupid because I have a bachelor of science. Then once in a great while, I will think what good is smarts if you cry when stressed? I don't have much of a response for this one. I do this some at work. Sometimes, I do it a lot at work. If I am sad, I do it a whole lot.
Does the thinking cause the sadness or does the sadness cause the thinking? I don't know. I do some negative thinking always. But, I did it a lot more just before I developed the odd sleeping problem. T thinks that I am stressing out which is possible. I tend to get squirrelier when I stress. But, I don't think I've ever managed to do it to this degree.
However, I have seen signs in my own thinking that changing a belief can have a strong effect on the my moods and behavior. I used to believe that people who make more than me are better than me. When this belief was removed by me, I discovered that I thought "I'm stupid" around my sister's house a lot less. More importantly, I was surprised to note that I was much less moody and irritable at her house after this. I thought this was a way cool thing to happen!
As for therapy, one may have to try different types to find the one that works. I would hope that a T wouldn't blame the client for its failure unless the client isn't really working at all. However, it is hard sometimes to know this because so much of the work is internal. So, it can't be seen. I suspect some Ts get impatient or frustrated when they don't see the expected improvement and blame the client. I will still be human even if I do become an addiction counselor. So, I can relate to this predicament. I just hope that a T in that situation would be able to find someone to talk to in order to share their frustration with the lack of progress rather than blame the client. Other times the client might need a push or nudge. I suspect it would be hard to know when a push is needed or just active listening is needed.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I suspect it would be hard to know when a push is needed or just active listening

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post"> Isn't that one of the reasons we pay a therapist, to figure this out for us

IMO using RET or CBT (any type of cognitive behavioral therapy) isn't an overnight change, anyway. It's doing a lot of what I think witt is doing... questioning, learning the lists, allowing the idea of change.. but maybe moreso too.. I know that I know the CBT common distortions... did that change how I respond to these held beliefs? not automatically... it's the knowing such thoughts only do myself harm..and allowing the mind/myself.. to accept it and change over the long haul.

hey, glad you decided to join in :-)

cool post :-)

and...

you didn't judge you or any of your thoughts or feelings as 'bad' or 'irrational'

(it can be done...)

> Well, I personally don't like to use the word "wrong", and was referring to what you (witt) had stated as "wrong." But maybe you were quoting someone else in that use?

i'm not too sure what you mean... do you mean by saying that there is something *wrong*? i guess... in my case what i think is *wrong* is that sometimes i am in a lot of emotional pain :-( but, yeah, maybe its not about something being *wrong* so much as moving from a less prefered state of being to a more preferred state of being.

is that what you meant?

about beliefs...

> isn't it still an irrational belief NOW because the cause is in the past? The belief might have protected someone during events, but isn't needed now, and therefore, since it doesn't refer to current life, it's an irrational belief now?

okay. so that sounds like a theory of what it takes for a belief to count as 'irrational' (in the sense that if this condition is met then the belief counts as irrational though there might be other ways a belief gets to count as irrational too).

so to test whether that is correct... we try and imagine a counter example. which is to say... can you think of a belief whose cause is in the past and the belief refers to the past and yet we do not want to call that belief irrational?

Lets go back to the dog in the skinner box.
tone - shock
tone - shock
at this point
tone - fear
is a rational response...
but at the point the contingency changes
tone - no shock
then to respond with fear is irrational?
does that seem right?

it would seem to be a waste of energy...
it would seem to be needless distress...
but it would seem to be understandable in light of past events...
i'm not sure about calling it 'irrational'.

here is a case of overgeneralisation (though it is not typically considered to be an irrational belief. in fact... you might find yourself being locked up if you DENY the irrational belief).

i have a body and i have a mind (can feel pain etc)
other people have a body
_______________________________________
other people have a mind (can feel pain etc)

i only observe conscious states in my own case.
i only observe a correlation between behaviours and conscious states in my own case.
i observe you have a body...
but to infer you have conscious states...
is the very worst kind of overgeneralisation
it generalises from one instance (your own)
to all other people.

how can we be so irrational?????

yet you are more likely to be locked up if you maintain that other people don't have minds / can't feel pain and thus you can damage their body and it isn't going to hurt them...

bizzare...

whether a belief is the focus of cognitive restructuring or not does not seem to be a function of the 'illogic' of the belief...

it seems to have more to do with whether the belief is useful to the person or not (i think that was what you were getting at)

so my bug is...
if it is more about utility...
then why not just say so?
why the judgement of 'irrationality'
(which, IMO just functions to perpeptuate the stereotype of mental illness as being an 'irrational' and not-understandable phenomena)

?

> I wonder why there seems to be so much resistance to eliminating some of your beliefs, witt, or at least for you to challenge your own beliefs.

i have no problem with either of these...
i do challenge my beliefs..
and i allow others to challenge my beliefs...
but...
i do not take kindly to other people judging my beliefs to be 'irrational'
and i do not take kindly to other people attributing me 'unconscious beliefs' by definition
(bang thump)

:-)

hey :-)

yeah, i think our experiences are one way in which we form beliefs. Philosophers distinguish between two kinds of beliefs: a-priori beliefs and a-posteriori beliefs. Those are the only two kinds there are. a-priori beliefs are beliefs that are arrived at on the basis of our other beliefs (ie as a result of thinking through chains of inference). they are 'prior' to experience. a-posteriori beliefs are 'post' or 'after' experience. a lot of our beliefs are formed in this way... as the result of our experiences (as when we come to believe what we have perceived).

what you say about your childhood does go some way towards making sense of your beliefs. another way we come to beliefs is through a process called 'modelling' so if we hear our father say 'this is stupid' and 'that is stupid' and 'you are stupid' we are likely to 'mimic' and do the same thing ourself.

i cry a lot too :-(
i don't think it has anything to do with how smart one is...
i think a lot of intellectually handicapped people are really very happy and i don't think if i was any smarter i'd cry any less...
but it can be hard when one doesn't seem to be able to stop crying in public :-(
other people... often don't really know how to respond either... which tends to add to the awkwardness :-(

i do notice i think unhelpful thoughts...
and when i notice unhelpful thoughts... i try and replace them with helpful thoughts.

i find... that unhelpful thoughts occur to me mostly when i am tired or in a negative mood / emotional state. that is also when i have the most difficulty replacing those thoughts with more helpful alternatives. sometimes... i have difficulty thinking of more helpful alternatives. :-(

> I would hope that a T wouldn't blame the client for its failure

yeah. but sometimes... this does happen. especially when change is the only acceptable strategy to the therapist...

> unless the client isn't really working at all.

hmm. well... doesn't the point that the client shows up show that they are working to a certain extent? also... change is only one thing to work towards... sometimes when a client doesn't seem to want to work towards change... it can be helpful to switch strategies and work towards acceptance...

> I suspect some Ts get impatient or frustrated when they don't see the expected improvement and blame the client.

yes. probably... especially when they have a supervision team to answer to...

> I will still be human even if I do become an addiction counselor.

:-)
yeah, councellors are human too :-)

is that what you want to do?
good luck with that :-)

I can see that labeling a thought or belief as irrational is a bad idea. I think a T could teach a client to replace unuseful thoughts or negative thoughts with postive thoughts. Also, I think the client should be the main one who chooses what beliefs are changed with the T pointing out some possible candidates.
As for becoming an addiction counselor, I feel that I have the smarts and empathy. However, I am uncertain as to whether or not I would be mentally healthy enough. When my teacher mentioned that, I found myself concerned because I have never really seen myself as mentally healthy or mentally ill. I have always just seen myself as slightly dysfunctional. So the idea of being mentally ill confuses me (my insurance thinks I am). I found myself in class being the odd one out because they were claiming crazy to be this obvious thing. But I was claiming that it is just a matter of degrees. Everyone has "irrational" thoughts and are dysfunctional in some area. The "mentally ill" are just the people with higher distress levels and probably (maybe not always) higher degrees of dysfunction. This odd claim of degrees made me feel very odd but I felt that I had to say it because my fellow classmates might be future addiction counselors, SWs, psychologists etc.

hey :-) yeah i agree... i find myself endorsing enough unhelpful thoughts without having lists shoved in my face and being told i must endorse those particular ones *by definition* ;-)

'slightly dysfunctional' :-)
i like that, i like that a lot :-)

in class...

yeah. i have had similar experiences... i got permission to take a couple papers for non credit and... well... i found it really very hard to shut my trap. because... yeah i think our experience gives us something naturally that people without that experience have to learn...

because... you are right. it is a matter of degree. in fact... i have heard a rumour that there is a major restructuring of the DSM in the pipeline. and what they are going to do... is to get rid of the 'categorical' approach (where you either meet criteria or you do not) and they are going to replace that with a symptom based approach where people meet each individual symptom to a greater or lesser extent.

i'm not sure how that is supposed to go really... i wouldn't think they would list all the symptoms and assess the client on each one... methinks dx would take too long... but i dunno... heard it was in the pipeline anyway. and the very point... was to emphasise that mental illness is just one end on a continuum of functioning, as you note.

:-)

i think... you should do what it is that you want to do and ***** what other people have to say... i mean... maybe you will find that really you don't want to do that... because... it is too hard on you. and that isn't a coment on your mental health. fact is it would be too hard on a lot of people...

i...

thought about being a psychologist...
have thought about being a psychiatrist too...
the latter might possibly be in the pipeline at some point
(mostly because i'm a study a holic and studying for that length of time has terrific appeal)
but...

i think it would be too hard on me.

i love theory :-)
so i confine myself to that...
not so good with the validation :-(
though i see the sense in it...
theory is one thing...
practice is another...
story of my life...
sigh

:-)

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Hopefull said:
I can see that labeling a thought or belief as irrational is a bad idea. I think a T could teach a client to replace unuseful thoughts or negative thoughts with postive thoughts. Also, I
think the client should be the main one who chooses what beliefs are changed with the T pointing out some possible candidates.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Yes, that's pretty much my view too. Certain of our unhelpful thoughts are defensive reactions which are not helping us any more, but harming us. I don't like the word irrational, which implies that there is something loopy about the sufferer, I prefer unhelpful or maybe negative.

If a person had been repeatedly attacked and bitten by the family dog throughout their childhood I would see nothing irrational about them choosing not to have a dog in later life, or even avoiding dogs altogether!

The thoughts we suffer have a rational basis, they are just out of hand and hurting, which is a different thing, IMHO.

Cheers, M

This is one of the reasons I prefer experimental-style Cognitive therapy to the more directive REBT. When people have the opportunity to examine their own beliefs and decide on their own whether or not those beliefs are working for them, that seems a lot more effective to me than a therapist telling them that their beliefs are irrational.