Irrational Ideas (Dr Ellis, Rational Emotive Therapy)

I have to say that these last few statements DIRECTLY apply to some things I've seen about my therapy recently.

I used to get frustrated at t because he wouldn't be more outspoken and simply state what I should think...point me to "normal" so I can adapt that thinking. LOL. I am able to look back and know that t, all this time, has simply maintained the position of a guiding light of stability and REFUSED to let me do anything but figure out almost EVERYTHING on my own.

Looking back, I'm so thankful because those are the things that have stuck with me. I've managed to break a couple of abusive relationships that would be almost impossible to break had I not been able to decide on my own that my beliefs there were hurting, and not helping, me.

Ben, you speak of effectiveness when one is allowed to "examine their own beliefs and decide on their own whether or not those beliefs are working for them". I'm proof positive of that. I cannot believe the massive changes in self since I've finally "seen" that my beliefs weren't working for me and were actually hurting myself and others.

I think, looking back, that t could not have handled that more perfectly. He had me explain my wants, needs and goals, then remained that gentle, but consistent, guide as he forced me to figure out on my own how to get there and what I had to change to arrive. He gave me a few suggestions in there, but they were few. He more questioned why my thinking was as it was, so that I in turn was questioning the why's and wherefore's and figured out that my thinking was more result of abuse and not what applies to my world today.

It's an amazing journey.

KD

Ironically, I found myself thinking of this on going debate because I called one of my thoughts stupid and T called it irrational instead. Gee, like that's any nicer than just plain calling it stupid. Unfortunately, I forgot what the thought was. I don't even remember if it even made the honor of my 8 to 9 thought list of what I would call my negative thoughts that I would like to get rid of. Since I am already familiar with the concept, I just agreed. I assumed that she knew I was already familiar with the concept since I had previously mentioned my negative thinking a lot.

> I don't even remember if it even made the honor of my 8 to 9 thought list of what I would call my negative thoughts that I would like to get rid of.

> Unfortunately, I forgot what the thought was.

unfortunately???

sounds like it worked ;-)

No. We just seemed to wonder around all over the place in what we were talking about. I felt like falling asleep at one point. So I think I must have just lacked focus some today. Besides, I was finding it hard to pay attention when she started talking so much.

Perhaps not whether or not the belief is useful or not, as to whether we label it as irrational, but if that belief (for the past, developed in the past, useful in the past) is detrimental to us now, in the present. We do have many "beliefs" I think that were formed from the past, but because they no longer are "active" in the present but just "are" doesn't hurt our having them.

It's the ones that do injure us psychely... or even physically... that we have to counter. ?

In CBT circles, there are two dimensions of thought: validity and utility. Validity is whether or not a belief is true; utility is whether or not it's useful. Different therapists have different beliefs about validity and utility...recently, a lot of therapists are looking only at utility. They don't believe in truth, so trying to figure out whether or not someone's beliefs are true strikes them as a waste of time.

Ellis is big on "rational" talk, but surprisingly he's really talking about utility. To Ellis, a rational belief is a helpful belief, and an irrational belief is an unhelpful one.

utility vs truth...
depends on your theory of truth.
the 'pragmatic theory of truth' considers that something is true if and only if it is useful.
but most people consider that truth and utility are two different things that should be kept seperate.

i remember attending a class on 'cognitive behaviour therapy'. the lecturer asked what you would do if someone said they believed they had no friends.

one person launched into an analysis of how you would get the client to change that belief...

i said that before you launch into changing it you should assess it for truth.

it may well be the case that the person has no friends. in which case... it would seem to be more profitable to work on things they could do in order to meet some people in order to make friends.

i think... there are probably a variety of beliefs that while being true are unprofitable (not so useful) to dwell on. that being said, trying to change those beliefs would seem to be an exercise in self-deception where someone would be encouraging someone to lose their grip on reality...

i can't see how that would be either useful or true...

and it would seem to me to undermine the clients view of the world which would be counter-productive with respect to self-esteem etc.

regarding the 'forgotten' belief...
if it doesn't recur then the 'problem' would seem to have vanished...
if it does recur then it can be looked at...

sometimes the hardest thing is figuring out a more useful alternative...

and beating yourself up for holding 'irrational' or 'unuseful' beliefs... is only going to lead to pain...

regarding utility...
if you focus on the belief...
how do you feel in response?
what kinds of things do you have urges to do / what kinds of things are you likely to do in response?
are those responses helpful or harmful to you?

i guess that would be one way of figuring out utility...

i've changed my display name
(just so people don't think they are going crazy)
lol

sorry... as an example of true beliefs that might not be so useful...

there was a study (sorry can't recall reference) that found that people with depression tended to have more realistic self-assessments than people who had more healthy self esteem.

it might possibly be the case that reflecting too much on current assessments...
leads to depression (ie is not useful to focus on)
even though...
some of those assessments are true.

(or it might be the case that considering that those negative self assessments would ALWAYS obtain into the future was what was unhelpful to them...)

anyway... that might be an example of an unhelpful truth... if there are unhelpful truths... then i wonder what should be done about those???

I don't think I would like it if my T was to call a true belief an irrational belief. If it is true, then I think I or who ever the client is will probably want to change the situation. For example, I have only three friends. If I said that to her, she shouldn't say that is an irrational belief. If I say that there is something wrong with me because I only have three friends, then I would want her to test the reality of the claim to see if there is or not. Perhaps, I need to be more sociable or maybe I'm shy. Maybe, I just don't have much time for socializing due to school and work. I think anyone of these reasons could be true without there being something wrong with me. So that belief could be safely called irrational.

so you think it is about truth?

and false beliefs... are irrational?

i guess that if it doesn't bug you then it doesn't really matter...
but it bugs me a great deal to call them 'irrational' beliefs.
doesn't matter whether they are true or false they are understandable and if you had the same life experiences as me (and the same genetic inheritance) then you too would endorse that belief hence it is a normal or typical response / belief in that sense as well.

but maybe it is because for me (because of philosophy) 'irrational' has all these connotations regarding understandability etc.

regarding the 'something wrong with me' thought...
i'm not sure that would be helpful / useful...
how do you feel if you think there is 'something wrong' with you?

(regardless of whether there is or not...)

is it about reality testing...
or is it about how helpful / harmful those beliefs are to you...

?

Truth? WHO'S truth?

It's easy to think there is only one truth, but we know this is not true

For the example of the person who believes he has no friends, the core difference might be in the definition of a friend.

> Truth? WHO'S truth?

depends on your theory of truth...
sometimes...
there are mind-independent facts...
which make certain thoughts / statements either true or false despite whether anybody appreciates that or not.

(e.g. i have an even number of hairs on my head right NOW)

> It's easy to think there is only one truth, but we know this is not true

do you mean that to be true-for-you
or true for everyone?

(i do love a good paradox)

:-)

> For the example of the person who believes he has no friends, the core difference might be in the definition of a friend.

Ah.

FIRST you have to fix the meaning
(define the term and what is meant by the thought / utterance which resolves any ambiguities...)
THEN you assess for truth / utility...

I said that that way for a reason. The very fact that my truth is not your truth, means there is more than one truth, does it not?

Even "scientific" truth has been known to be adjusted from time to time.... does "your" definition of "truth" allow for change?

It's a very difficult thing, for some, to realize that just because there are different "truths" does not mean that nothing is stable. The approach does not shake your very foundation of beliefs, imo.

Now, how to differentiate between a separation of truths and the rational/irrational beliefs is another item..

> The very fact that my truth is not your truth, means there is more than one truth, does it not?

Not necessarily...

A lot hangs on language.
I could say 'I have no friends'.
Once it has been clarified what is meant by 'friends'
Once it has been clarified who the 'I' refers to
Once it has been clarified precisely *when* is meant

then the statement is either true or false
(regardless of whether we believe it to be true or false there is a fact of the matter that lies beyond what we believe to be the case)

> Even "scientific" truth has been known to be adjusted from time to time.

I would describe that situation as follows: Sometimes scientists think they have discovered a truth but over time... turns out they were wrong. They didn't discover a truth at all. in fact... they believed something that was false. happens all the time ;-)

in philosophy we distinguish between two different fields of study / two different topics / issues:

metaphysics - what actually exists
epistemology - what (if anything) we can know about it.

the only things that can be 'true' or 'false' are utterances (language) and thoughts.

So there may be some truths that we will never know (for example 'phi is infinite' is either true or false regardless of whether we ever manage to construct a proof of that or not)

> It's a very difficult thing, for some, to realize that just because there are different "truths" does not mean that nothing is stable. The approach does not shake your very foundation of beliefs, imo.

depends on how thoroughgoing the relativism is...

most theories... deal with 'relativism' on the level of semantic (meaning / reference) ambiguity.

so once the application / reference / meaning of the statement is clarified...

it is either true or false

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
_Sky said:
The very fact that my truth is not your truth, means there is more than one truth, does it not?

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

No, I don't think so. Your argument begs the question. You present truth as a possession--something you have. Truth is something that exists. What we have are beliefs, which may be true or not. What you're saying is that we have different beliefs. Well and good, but that doesn't prove the existence of multiple truths.

When you argue against Alex, you're making the case for Truth. You are, in fact, saying: I am right and you are wrong about this. You implicitly refer to Truth by doing so. After all, how can you be right and Alex wrong otherwise?

To quote a recent song, "And if you swear that there's no truth and who cares, how come you say it like you're right?"

okay well since we are on the topic ;-)

> Truth is something that exists.

that seems to imply that truth is a 'thing' like a house or a bird or a number...

most philosophers... don't see truth as a 'thing' rather they see truth as a value. hence: truth values.

so...

1+1 has the value 2
and a statement / thought (once the meaning has been clarified) has a determinate truth value

(leaving aside the odd statement that might well be neither true nor false such as 'the present king of france is bald)

it might sound a little picky...

but if truth is a thing then all sorts of problems follow:
what sort of thing is it?
would there be truth if there wasn't language / thought?

relativism is a tricky notion...

'strawberry icecream is better than chocolate icecream'
we might consider that the truth or falsity is relative...
which is to say it is a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact...
but this is a problem of language and we need to translate the language in order to clarify the meaning (and resolve the apparant ambiguity in truth value)
'i prefer strawberry icecream over chocolate icecream'
(where the 'I' refers to me)
that is either true or false. it has a determinate truth value.
when you say it... it is either true or false. it has a determinate truth value. there is no problem here... it is like 'there is a bottle of coke in front of me' might be true when i utter it and false when you utter it. but that doesn't mean that truth is relative... you need to fix the indexical references first (the 'me' and the time that is relevant)

if you say 'no, i meant strawberry icecream is better than chocolate IN GENERAL' then that would translate to 'everyone prefers strawberry icecream to chocolate icecream' and that would be false (because I, for one, prefer chocolate).

if you say 'it is morally wrong to have a slave' then you might want to say that whether that is true or false depends on someones preference. so the statement should be translated to 'i don't think it is right to have a slave'. or maybe the statement should be translated to 'within this particular culture it is considered to be wrong to have a slave'. or you might think that for all people at all times and places slavery is wrong.

that is a matter of controversy...

are there ethical facts that apply to all people of all cultures at all times and all places?

one candidate might be...

'torturing an innocent child for fun is morally wrong'

(of course even if there are universal ethical facts that doesn't say anything at all about whether we can ever come to know them or not. and i can believe in the existence of universal ethical facts without committing myself to the belief that my current ethical beliefs hit upon those universal ethical facts...)

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
> Truth is something that exists.

that seems to imply that truth is a 'thing' like a house or a bird or a number...

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

I disagree. I simply said that Truth exists. I didn't imply it's a thing. (Just as if I had said, "Love exists" or "Hate exists" it would not imply their 'thingness'.)

Looking exclusively at language has been the main thrust of philosophy since the middle of the 20th Century, but I think it's important not to get too caught up in it. It has its place, and it always has, but framing every argument as a language problem is a very narrow way of looking at the world. Relativists (among others) propose that since language is the only way we can communicate about things and concepts, that it's the only reality. When they argue with dissenters, they assume their premises and usually win the argument since one cannot refer to concepts that transcend language with anything but language itself.

Most people throughout the history of the world, however, have believed that Truth does in fact exist and that it transcends language. Relativism basically discards the common experience of humanity.

yeah. truth could exist as a property, a relation, a mathematical function etc and if those count as things then it would seem likely that truth is a thing.

(we have the concept of TRUTH so it must exist as a concept at the very least)

there are indeed limits on the utility of conceptual analysis.

if we are looking at claims about the nature of the natural world then once we have done conceptual analysis to delineate the conditions under which the concept applies (or the statement / thought is true) then we have to turn to empirical investigation of the world in order to assess whether those conditions obtain.

arguments...

may be about more than the state of the natural world, however. in those cases conceptual analysis would seem to play a particularly important role in unearthing contradictions (ie is it possible for omni-god to exist? if not then what sort of thing would it be possible for god to be?).

what do you mean when you say truth 'transcends' language?

do you mean to say that if there was no language then there would still be truths? what if there was no language and there was no thought? what is it that we are to assess for truth or falsity?

Truth does exist. But it encompasses more than a belief,imo. If I say this is my truth, it doesn't have to be a belief just because I hold ownership. A belief is more of something that requires some type of hope or faith, I think. But a truth is more concrete.

Someone could make a statement that everyone can travel to Wisconsin on the train, for example. They state it as a fact, that they belief, and yes, since they can travel to Wisconsin on the train, it is their truth. However, I cannot travel to Wisconsin on the train. My truth is that I am unable to do this. (It's more than a belief, I know that I cannot by myself travel like that.) So the basic truth is ppl who can, can travel to Wisconsin on the train. And it is also truth for the person who first stated it. But it is not my truth. Nothing in this makes their truth wrong and mine right, nor vice versa. Truth just is.

There are not two separate truths in your example, Sky. The statement "Everyone can travel to Wisconsin on the train" is simply false. If a person presents it as fact, they are in error. (If he knows he's in error, then he's telling a lie. If he does not know that he's in error, than he's simply mistaken. In neither case does it become "his truth".)

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
But it encompasses more than a belief,imo

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
I agree. Truth isn't a belief. A belief is something that can either be true or not. In the example stated above, the original person believes everyone can take the train to Wisconsin. This is not true. You believe that you cannot take the train to Wisconsin. This, I think, is also not true because you logically could take the train to Wisconsin. (Someone could drug you, for example, and place you on the train. You'd wake up at your destination, and ta-da: you've taken the train to Wisconsin alone.) The belief that you have that is true, however is probably something along the lines of: If I tried to take the train to Wisconsin alone, XYZ would result and I'd probably get off the train before it left the station.

yep.

I don't quite understand your responses. But, I know that not everyone can take a train to Wisconsin. If a person lived in another country across the ocean from me. then it can't be done.
I tend to believe in truth and try to make my beliefs match reality as best as I can. Is my perception of reality truth? No. I hope that it is closer than it used to be. Besides, I just want to get them close enough to be very functional at work (I think I function well in other areas).
Scientists seek after truth (IMO). However, they tend to present theories because they understand that our knowledge is limited. I suspect we will never fully know truth until God reveals it (assuming my faith in a God is true).
I think philosophers seek after truth. I just tend to get confused by their writings. I have tried to read a few of them and ended up confused.

hey.

if a person lived in another country across the ocean... then they could take a ship or an aeroplane to your country and catch the train from there ;-)

but... perhaps what is meant isn't so much 'possibility' but more along the lines of... it not being something that is practical for everybody...

yeah, i'm getting confused too...

philosophical writing can be confusing...
people typically write with certain audiences in mind (typically professional) and finding stuff that is at a suitable level can be hard.

I'd reccomend checking out the manuscripts from this site:

http://www.galilean-library.org/philosophy.html

they start with a general account on what philosophy is... and they get progressively harder as they introduce terminology etc. it is supposed to be a bit of a mental challenge... but it is not supposed to be incomprehensible.

another point of entry is this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019...e&amp;n=283155

I personally think that it is the best introduction to the subject that has ever been written. You can 'search inside this book' in the amazon link and read some of it.

Happy reading :-)

I really like that first link, Alexandra_k. Some philosophical ideas are just plain hard to understand. In my opinion, though, most wouldn't be that difficult except that philosophers couch them in extremely technical language. Happens in every profession and field of study, though.