Albert Ellis - Not understanding

Hi,

New to the PsychCentral forums - and I have been doing research on REBT therapy lately. I have been suffering from depression due to some life losses and circumstances lately and I have been looking into different therapies. I have a burning questions here - has anybody experience Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy? All I can see on Google about it is so much Albert Ellis who founded this therapy. When I research the therapy - I do not understand why Ellis is so revered as he tended to be very abrasive on his patients - calling them names - forcing them at times to accept what he said - arguing with them sometimes viciously - calling people who are romantic - "love slobs" and the like - swearing at national Psych forums. I can't understand why he was so revered - as a person with depression/OCD and a lot of struggle in my life - this is a major turn off for me for this school of therapy and I do not at condone the way he and some the people who run the Institute tend to express their ideas onto those who are treated with this. They call us "irrational" and "disturbed" in our thinking and yet all people like myself want to do is love other people and be loved and lead decent lives. Why this is made fun of by Ellis in some of his writings, songs, and films I am at a loss to understand. I don't get why Psychology in general tends to have such a reverence for him when most of them would never treat a depressed patient or talk about them in this manner. Anybody have any insight into this or am I just putting myself out on a ledge?

Never heard of REBT and happy for that, however there are several other modalities out there that appear to be helpful. I try not to focus on the worm in the apple.... I hope you have or find a T that isn't practicing REBT.

I am wary of REBT also. Anything I've read about Ellis is abrasive. Maybe it attracts practitioners because it feels more satisfying to belittle your patients and "force" them to see "reality". The harder road is patience and the push pull between progress and gentleness.

With so many useful forms of therapy, why focus on REBT?

REBT is a precursor to CBT. It is behaviorally oriented therapy and actually makes a great deal of sense. My therapist uses a combination of behaviorally oriented therapies along with other types also. I've learned a great deal and have made great progress. I don't really know much about Ellis himself, but he isn't the only famous therapy guru who is known to be a bit of a jerk so I don't worry to much about him in particular. Sometimes the "founders" of things are themselves completely off the wall, but their ideas can be quite useful. Weird how that works.

Thanks, Sierra-- I didn't realize there was a connection between CBT and REBT. REBT sounds way more confrontational, but that may just be Ellis?

I have a T that is more CBT oriented than my other, more psychodynamic T.

CBT has worked for me in terms of faster results and more practical steps towards goals. Psychodynamic feels "deeper" to me though. I find both valuable

Not really confrontational, except perhaps learning to confront your own thinking I guess. Try not to confuse the messenger with the message. Here's a PC article that quickly explains REBT:

Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy | Psych Central

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.

This might be of interest! Ellis is a jerk but most of the founders are- like Chris said already

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My long term T (the one I had many a problem with - but over it now!) was trained in REBT. She specialised mainly in treating people who had OCD. I did not have OCD. When she applied her method to me I often did feel very invalidated and criticised just for having feelings. It might have just been me and my experience of REBT, but it was pretty awful and, for me personally, very unhelpful.
I see it as a reasonable way to deal with everyday non-urgent worries - but I wonder if some T's think they can apply it where it's not appropriate (effects of trauma for example). That's when it's not the right thing.

If you want to see Albert Ellis in action, take a look at the famous Gloria videos:


Gloria was a real patient who had counseling sessions with 3 different psychologists, each of whom demonstrated his own school of therapy. The other two therapists were Carl Rogers (humanistic therapy) and Fritz Perls (Gestalt therapy). Honestly, in contrast to Fritz Perls, Albert Ellis doesn't look so bad anymore

Fritz Perls was an absolute bulky but his therapy worked on her, he got her out of her victim mentality and got her so enraged he empowered her

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^That's a good point. Sometimes... though very rarely, imho... the ends do justify the means.

I was thinking about this and it came to me that all of this "thinkers", "creators", "inventors" generally are pretty out there personality-wise, and the hand down their ideas to the people in the trenches (the therapists, the teachers, the engineers, etc.) to work out the kinks, make their ideas actually practical and workable, modify their errors, etc. It may take a great deal of eccentricity to come up with this stuff, and it takes others to modify that eccentricity into something that might come of practical use.

I think you and Lola have great points - I am just taken aback by how the Psychology field seems to think this guy was a god and he spent his life belittling people who who simply had belief systems that involved feelings and emotions and even a moral system. I've always thought that the field was way more evolved than that. But you both bring up great points.

I get that part about the "jerk". What I am taken aback about is that Psychology Today described him as "the greatest living psychologist" prior to his death in 2007 (at least according to his Institute). I mean I think the therapy in combo is a great idea but the field really viewed this guy as a God among men and he was just, to use a word they don't like people to use, "awful" in some instances. Ugggh. And it is weird how that works - totally and annoying.

I had REBT once and it was quite confrontational - and Ellis did it in a confrontational fashion. Now - even if you read some of the stuff the Institute puts out - it is really hard-headed, hardcore stuff. Ellis did it that way and that's where I get the "jerk" vibes from in his style. The other stuff seems more reasonable to me in the way it's practiced but I think REBT can be done very sensibly if applied to a patient skillfully and with their values in mind.

I've read this article before - and I realize the messenger/message thing too - but even here these "edicts" as I would call them seem a bit politically correct and harsh - and seemingly brazen means of blowing up people's thinking and some of this to me just seems like it is just a normal, acceptable part of anybody's life and human living. The way it's presented as such seems like it is just pushy and very black and white. But then again, that's the way I've seen Ellis present it and some of the others in the Institute write about them. It could certainly be done with a lot more emotions and a lot less demand of its own, I think.

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!

No, you weren't the only one - my first therapist was in REBT and I felt the same way you did about this person - he was confrontational, critical, shaming, and aggressive. This was for OCD too and over 20 years ago. Perhaps it's softened up a great deal in 2 decades in a lot of practice but I still see in the way the the Ellis Institute demonstrates it that it is still full of fire and brimstone and judgment etc. I see if having practical purpose but not when it is applied as you stated and as I experienced it. Yes, not appropriate at times when it is used as well. Are there many others like you and I out there? As case studies released by the Ellis Institute don't show any dropouts or people who burn out or leave right away when therapy starts due to it being too grating on them emotionally. All success stories - probably normal for any practice anyway so it's hard to tell at all if there have been just as many turned away from this kind of treatment than treated for it. But nobody shows the negative side of their practice results. Only positive. Seems biased.

I remember we had to watch the Gloria videos in my intro to psych class and I was horrified at the rude behavior of Albert Ellis! He hardly ever let Gloria talk, and just preferred to hold forth as if what he had to say was all that was important. I was used to thinking of therapy as being where the client did most of the talking.

After we viewed the videos, our instructor asked us (400+ students) to vote on which of the 3 therapists we would prefer to do therapy with. The overwhelming winner was Albert Ellis! With >90% of the votes... I realized then that my views were the odd ones! The instructor commented that the votes every term turned out that way. People just love Ellis, or his approach, or something...

oh wow, these are interesting to watch. i watched some of each. ellis would annoy me as he's just too focused on being rational. perls was a hoot to watch but probably not easy to have as a T and rogers didn't really give any insight. i kept wanting him to tell her that she can't have it all so learn to embrace the middle ground.

anyway scott, i haven't done REBT but bought a book on emotions that i didn't realize was REBT. i don't know if it would help but you could at least practice the concepts without the annoying T. it was SOS help for emotions: managing anxiety, anger and depression. i agree that sometimes people who accomplish great things do not always have great character. great success requires a lot of confidence & determination and maybe that reduces empathy because the person is so focused on their own goals. that's my 2 cent theory anyway.

Daisy - how did you get over this?

WOW!! That blows my mind!! What the hec - are psychology students just predisposed to flamboyant, controversial, and ego-maniacal types???? Do they just follow some guy like this like some kind of sheep?

Okay - hmmmm - anything is possible - and I see him as possibly being narcissitc and having a cultic feel to himself - why others follow this i don't know and just reading other stuff from REBT tonight and its "moral relativism" there are case studies with the author who is practicing REBT telling a woman who committed infidelity that she definitely did wrong by "her moral system" and that because it's something that keeps her from learning from her mistake, she needs to choose to go by her values and make a decision that is right for her, not because it hurt her husband at all or her relationship with her husband but because it was the right choice for her - not feel guilt because she did anything wrong - because guilt takes away her ability to learn from the mistake. Then - on top of that the therapist tells her regarding guilt, "LOts of people do wrong things and don't feel about them."

[QUOTE=Scott Schneider;3690136]Okay - hmmmm - anything is possible - and I see him as possibly being narcissitc and having a cultic feel to himself - why others follow this i don't know and just reading other stuff from REBT tonight and its "moral relativism" there are case studies with the author who is practicing REBT telling a woman who committed infidelity that she definitely did wrong by "her moral system" and that because it's something that keeps her from learning from her mistake, she needs to choose to go by her values and make a decision that is right for her, not because it hurt her husband at all or her relationship with her husband but because it was the right choice for her - not feel guilt because she did anything wrong - because guilt takes away her ability to learn from the mistake. Then - on top of that the therapist tells her regarding guilt, "LOts of people do wrong things and don't feel about them.