One of my greatest challenges when practicing Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) with clients is getting people to consider that what they believe isn’t the same matter relating to what they know. Often, clients’ belief in knowing is their most significant setback to success with REBT.
A belief is something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion. Here, “true” is defined as being in accordance with the actual state of affairs or a fact. Here, “fact” is something that has actual existence. Here, “actual” relates to reality.
Here, “reality” describes the quality or state of being real. Here, “real” is defined as having objective independent existence. Here, “objective” refers to expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
Thus, “belief” relates to that which one considers to verifiably exist. Nevertheless, not all beliefs are valid—well-grounded or justifiable in accordance with logic and reason (rationality). In fact, I submit that people maintain a significant number of irrational beliefs. This includes me.
Now, I turn to knowing, which relates to having or reflecting knowledge, information, or intelligence. Here, “knowledge” is defined as the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association. This becomes a circular definition at some point.
Still, knowledge may be described as the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. This understanding requires some awareness of epistemology, which is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion. According to one source:
Epistemologists study the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues. Debates in contemporary epistemology are generally clustered around four core areas:
· The philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge, such as truth and justification;
· Potential sources of knowledge and justified belief, such as perception, reason, memory, and testimony
· The structure of a body of knowledge or justified belief, including whether all justified beliefs must be derived from justified foundational beliefs or whether justification requires only a coherent set of beliefs; and,
· Philosophical skepticism, which questions the possibility of knowledge, and related problems, such as whether skepticism poses a threat to our ordinary knowledge claims and whether it is possible to refute skeptical arguments.
Without awareness of epistemology, a person may conclude that one’s belief in knowing constitutes the presence of truth and reality. One who irrationally believes such a thing may further determine that one’s own beliefs are indisputably valid (true) and reliable (trustworthy).
However, REBT theory uses the ABC model to illustrate how when Activating events (“Actions”) occur and people maintain irrational Beliefs about the events, these unhelpful assumptions – and not the actual occurrences – are what create unpleasant cognitive, emotive, bodily sensation, and behavioral Consequences.
Therefore, from a psychological standpoint, people disturb themselves using a Belief-Consequence (B-C) connection. Of course, this isn’t to suggest that in the context of the naturalistic or physical world there is no Action-Consequence (A-C) connection.
Yet, simply because someone maintains a wacky belief (Action) doesn’t mean this irrational assumption then represents truth or creates reality (Consequence). That’s simply not how truth or reality works.
Bastardizing philosopher René Descartes’ axiom “I think, therefore I am” to propose “I believe, therefore it’s true and real” is irrational. This is the paramount challenge I face when working with clients in regard to belief in knowing.
Noteworthy, I assist clients with Disputation of unfavorable assumptions so that they may develop Effective new beliefs. However, we don’t challenge Activating events or the Consequences produced by unproductive Beliefs. This is because disputing truth and reality is akin to the practice of denial, and the ‘D’ in the ABC model doesn’t represent Denial.
Rather, as a formula, the ABC model represents: Action + Belief = Consequence ÷ Disputation = Effective new belief; or A+B=C÷D=E. Therefore, challenge of one’s irrational assumptions is a fundamental element of REBT practice.
One way in which I dispute irrational beliefs is through use of the Socratic method which one source describes as process that “begins with commonly held beliefs and scrutinizes them by way of questioning to determine their internal consistency and their coherence with other beliefs and so to bring everyone closer to the truth.” The following are examples of this method:
· Why do you say that?
· What do you mean by…?
· How does this relate to our discussion?
· What do you think is the main issue?
· Could you expand upon that point further?
· Why would someone make this assumption?
· What could we assume instead?
· How can you verify or disapprove that assumption?
· What would be an example?
· What do you think causes to happen...?
· Why…?
· What other information do we need?
· By what reasoning did you come to that conclusion?
· Is there reason to doubt that evidence?
· What generalizations can you make?
· What are the consequences of that assumption?
· What are you implying?
· How does…affect…?
· How does…tie in with what we learned before?
· What would be an alternative?
· What is another way to look at it?
· How would other groups of people respond and why?
· What might someone who believed…think?
· Would you explain why it is necessary or beneficial, and who benefits?
· Why is…the best?
· What are the strengths and weaknesses of…?
· How are…and …similar?
· What is a counterargument for…?
· Why is this question important?
· What was the point of this question?
· Why do you think I asked this question?
· What does…mean?
· How does…apply to everyday life?
Although people often express to me their belief in knowing, the process of disputation generally reveals logical inconsistencies, unreasonableness, and flawed perspectives of what individuals actually know versus what they believe is true and real. Challenging beliefs is thus a challenging process.
Nevertheless, I remain committed to helping people understand, believe in, and practice techniques of REBT so that they may abandon unhelpful assumptions, which don’t necessarily serve client interests and goals, while replacing these conclusions with more adaptive beliefs.
Noteworthy, I’m not exhibiting hubris (exaggerated pride or self-confidence) regarding my own belief systems and knowledge. I’m as fallible a human being as ever existed. Therefore, I’m not overly confident in my ability to assess truth and reality.
Still, I find it purposeful and meaningful to pursue the challenge of irrational beliefs, continue striving for knowledge, discovering truth and reality, and to help other people practice rational living in this regard. If you’d like to know more about how this is accomplished, I look forward to hearing from you.
If you’re looking for a provider who works to help you understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.
As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.
At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply helping you to feel better, I want to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
References:
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Blog – Categories: Disputation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/blog/categories/disputation
Hollings, D. (2024, April 2). Denial. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/denial
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2022, November 4). Human fallibility. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/human-fallibility
Hollings, D. (2024, January 2). Interests and goals. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/interests-and-goals
Hollings, D. (2023, May 18). Irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason
Hollings, D. (2022, June 23). Meaningful purpose. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/meaningful-purpose
Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing
Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth
Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt
Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance
Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought
Hollings, D. (2022, November 9). The ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-abc-model
Hollings, D. (2022, December 23). The A-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-a-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2022, December 25). The B-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-b-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2022, November 2). The formula. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-formula
Hollings, D. (2024, January 16). Understanding, belief, and practice. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/understanding-belief-and-practice
Hollings, D. (2024, February 23). Wacky beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/wacky-beliefs
University of Connecticut. (n.d.). Socratic questions. Retrieved from https://cetl.uconn.edu/resources/teaching-your-course/leading-effective-discussions/socratic-questions/
Vectorjuice. (n.d.). Cognitive dissonance abstract concept vector illustration. mental discomfort, conflict, missing out, psychological abuse […] [Image]. Freepik. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-vector/cognitive-dissonance-abstract-concept-vector-illustration-mental-discomfort-conflict-missing-out-psychological-abuse-emotional-state-decision-making-experience-abstract-metaphor_12469760.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=0&uuid=5ca23b1a-4778-47d9-a6e6-3aced6f56288
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Cogito, ergo sum. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Epistemology. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Justification (epistemology). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(epistemology)
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Philosophical skepticism. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_scepticism
Wikipedia. (n.d.). René Descartes. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Socratic method. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
留言