Well it has been nine years since I posted here. I have been working on several other sites. But I am a procrastinator.
I was also working a nasty night shift. It is not the hours worked but how my sleep patterns were distorted. However procrastination was not my prime problem but depression. In fact i believe procrastination is the schema maintenance mechanism of depression. I am working on a site dedicated to that. I will list it here when I feel it is ready. (By golly procrastinating on that too).
Rational Emotive Therapy And Procrastination
I was enthusiastic about rational emotive therapy. However I found it made me worse! In college I was the go to guy in my fraternity for making goal charts. This is now done by apps. Now I find I detest these. I don’t need a nagging app (or therapist) to push me.
I NEEDED ENCOURAGEMENT NOT ACCOUNTABILITY
I never really got encouragement as that would be so worsey. I will be writing in my other site extensively on
“Rational Emotive Therapy and how I learned to OVERCOME the Eloquent Solution – and you can too!”
Being told that tasks will not perform themselves and that I am engaging in self-pity is not the solution. I am now PROUD to be what Dr. Albert Ellis calls “a big baby”! I have found that making peace with one’s inner child is just as important as being “rational” and disputing.
When therapists tell you that you are a big baby what they mean is you are to follow their inner baby. Pssst we didn’t know that tasks will not take care of themselves?
Wow I never knew that! 🙂 OH MY GOD! You mean my tasks will not magically disappear? Why I never knew that! Yeah right.
We don’t do the tasks because PAIN is associated it the task and not enough anticipated pleasure. Sure we chose a goal to make our lives better. But depression undermines that faith in our ability.
Oh My I said A Bad Word
In the in-group lexicon of rational emotive therapy (now rational emotive behavioral therapy) the word “faith” is a bad word. We are to be trained in the “eloquent solution“. Life is stark, cold and without meaning. It is the highest value to believe this bull sh#t. Doing so makes one part of the “in-group” of elite gnosis!
The Mighty God Of The Eloquent Solution
I have revolted against this cold materialism and agenda of rational emotive behavioral therapy. Yes disputing irrational beliefs is good. But what should we change that belief to?
Various Cognitive Therapies have different beliefs as to what is the correct target belief to accept instead of the dysfunctional belief. I would argue that ONLY political pollsters can conduct a scientific study as ALL CBT type therapies have a-priori beliefs as to what is the functional belief when confronted with a “Activating Event” or in Skinnerian Behaviorism a “stimulus“.
They all agree after the stimulus comes the intervening variable (CBT says thoughts) with the resultant emotions and behavior.
The only way to find out is NOT the didactic method of RET but SCIENCE. Political pollsters are experts at finding the beliefs of identified groups. In the case of psychological dysfunction subjects could be divided into at least two groups.
One group being those who are successful in the presence of a stimulus (activating event) and another group that is not successful (those who want therapy for the problem).
- What are the beliefs in group A who do NOT need therapy as opposed to group B who do desire therapy for a particular activating event or stimulus?
- Are the beliefs in the successful group (A) who do not need therapy homogeneous? Or do they reflect alternative worldviews but still successful?
- IF a CBT type therapy successfully changes Group B (those who have dysfunctional beliefs and behaviors) then are they measuring what they change? Experimental reliability without experimental validity is mere guru talk.
- Thus if a particular CBT style therapy does bring about desirable change in “consequences” (REBT TERM) what exactly was the INTERVENING VARIABLE that was changed? Was FAITH part of this. To believe one has access to a secret GNOSIS aka “eloquent solution” could be a factor of positive change rather than the beliefs or at least part of it. Albert Ellis with his funny vulgar language could be a FAITH OBJECT to a client. So is successful therapy, in part a function of a faith in the eloquent solution and hence a distraction? Is this a non-controlled variable? Thus the need for experimental validity not merely experimental reliability.
Sorry if I went off on the scientific method. But I was burned by certain aspects of rational emotive therapy. I refute it’s dogmatic assertion that it is scientific.
Do all other CBT type therapies fail while RET (REBT) is successful? I doubt it. Thus the prime idea that the intervening variable is what REBT defines as ‘magical thinking” and it’s remedy as the “eloquent solution” is not scientifically validated.
S —–> I (intervening variable) ——R
Only investigation by political pollsters who have no skin in the game can define what is “I”.
All forms of CBT have founders who defined “I” (the intervening variable) by a-priori means. Thus even if successful with clients, faith arousal cannot be ruled out. Even if scientific research validates that the problem is “magical thinking” as defined by Dr. Albert Ellis and successful therapy is the result of internalizing the “eloquent solution” that still does not prove Albert Ellis (or any other CBT therapist) is a scientist. This would be the case even if CBT failed but RET was successful. Ellis preached from day one that the “eloquent solution” is the target intervening variable. Even if research proves him right and other CBT therapies wrong, the means by which Albert Ellis came to this was the didactic method not the scientific method.
Epistemology is not simply science. Albert Elis may have been a God damn good intuitive clinician whose gut reaction was on the ball. He would have found the intervening variable by accident not scientific research even if his patients were successful. REBT’s dire need for certainty, is incompatible research on what the problem group (group B) thinks. He says so from his gut reaction and places his clients in a skinner box with the didactic method. Thus even reinforcing his own a-prior gut reaction.
No Virginia there is no Santa Claus in the didactic method. It is not the scientific method. That is why in a court of law two lawyers argue the didactic method in opposition. But even then their findings are a legal solution but not a scientific one.
The issues with various CBT’s is:
- What does each CBT style therapy declare to be the intervening variable and
- How did they arrive at this conclusion? The didactic method or asking the phenomena a open ended question without didactic method steering toward the therapist value system.
Albert Ellis even tried to convince himself and others that an open marriage is healthy and a committed relationship is fascism! “Love” is a four letter word in sexual relationships with the epistemology of Albert Ellis. Again you can convince anyone about anything with the didactic method as opposed to the scientific method.
Do you believe the world is round? I believe the world is flat!
Why do you believe the world is round? Lets say your answer is X1. My response is Why X1. You respond X2 and I go on and on WHY X2 till we reach your X-Extinction. I merely placed you in a skinner box and did extinction of your verbal behavior and inferred cognitions. THEN I get reinforced and think I am scientific. BS. Rational Emotive Therapists have a dire need for certainty. They give up absolute certainty for scientific certainty. Problem is they do NOT have scientific certainty merely didactic certainty.
BUT DID’T SOCRATES USE THE DIDATIC METHOD?
Sure did and he was NOT a scientist but a philosopher.
QUESTIONS:
- What is the operational definition of one unit of eloquence?
- What is one unit of eloquence called? A volt, om, degree? Maybe an “Ellis-a-tron“?
- What is the instrument of measurement for such a unit of eloquence?
- How many Ellis-a-trons can you stick on the head of a pin?
Conclusion: That REBT is science is errant horse shit of Jehovian proportions that REBT therapists devoutly believe. They suffer from a dire need for certainty. Rather than accept their own cognitive dissonance they instead engage in the defense mechanisms of reaction formation and projection onto religious believers of their own dire need for certainty.