When I was a child my late mom often used the same question to assess my intelligence—the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. I suspect members of Generation X are familiar with this crude assessment.
As an example, when wanting to participate in an activity with other children, I implored my mom to change her mind through use of argumentum ad populum—the logical fallacy of appealing to the majority.
Suppose that I wanted to see a particular film. I’d say, “Please? Other kids get to watch it!”
Realizing that my argument wasn’t rational—that which is in accordance with both logic and reason—my mom would typically respond by asking, “If the other kids jumped off of a cliff, would you follow them?” Her crude intelligence test is represented in the following syllogism:
Form (disjunctive) –
If p is true, q is not true.
Example –
If it’s true that other kids would jump off of a cliff, it isn’t true that you should follow them.
Even in childhood I could understand my mom’s reasoning. Of course, being the rambunctiously-behaved child I sometimes was, I’d intentionally respond to her question with an obvious lie. “Yes, if there was water at the bottom of the cliff,” I’d reply.
I was fooling no one with my evident ploy to get what I wanted. Therefore, more times than not, my mom would offhandedly reject my counterclaim and dismiss my request. After all, I wasn’t basing my appeal on rational or intelligent premises.
Thinking about this matter over four decades since, I contemplate my approach to the practice of rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). In particular, I ponder the circumstances of people with whom I’ve worked and who are either considering marriage or who have already married.
With this deliberation, I turn to the authors of Create Marriage who in the sixth chapter of their book pose the question, “Can we be intelligent about marriage?” Given the assessment tool of my mom, simply because many people foolishly decide to marry, should you follow them?
Make no mistake about what I’m asking herein. I’m not inferring that all decisions to marry are foolish. Rather, I’m remarking on the reported 40-50% of first marriages in the United States (U.S.) which end in divorce. Can people actually be intelligent about marriage?
According to the authors of Creative Marriage, a text that was published in 1961 (page 76):
[N]one of us can be too intelligent about marrying. In our society, we tend to follow our feelings into marriage—to marry for love—rather than contracting what might be, from a social, economic, or intellectual point of view, a “worthwhile” relationship. But feelings are both the cause and effect of actions; and as our active experiences change, our feelings change. They, in turn, lead us into still different actions.
I appreciate how the authors qualified their answer. After all, getting and staying married isn’t as simple a matter as proposing that if so many other people who’ve chosen to marry wind up getting a divorce, should you follow them?
Rather, the authors frame their response through a Western perspective. For instance, having been born and raised, and having lived in the U.S. for the majority of my life, I understand the normalization of a romanticized version of marriage.
The narrative goes something like this: you meet someone and fall in love while experiencing euphoric joy and pleasure which can result in unwavering commitment to one another with relative ease; or, if you don’t experience such bliss, you ditch your spouse and keep looking.
That isn’t an intelligent or rational approach to marriage. An arguably healthier method would be to approach marriage as a contractual agreement, something similar to an economic partnership. This is one reason why contemporary jargon for romantic relationships refers to this alliance as a partnership.
When I used to practice couples psychotherapy, I wasn’t surprised to discover how few people intelligently approached marriage in such a manner. Thus, when foolishly marrying based on feelings, intimate partners would often grow apart, as their marriages would eventually collapse.
This is one reason I appreciate a major aim of REBT: to help people get better and not merely feel better. Staking claim to one’s ever-changing feelings isn’t a practice in getting better with life.
Arguably, that’s akin to tying a rope around one’s waist, as the other end is attached to someone else who is jumping off of a cliff. Your feelings are one way in this moment, though they’re subject to change in the next moment.
Therefore, actually getting better involves tolerating and accepting undesirable, challenging, and often monotonous experiences in life, because this is part of the human condition. Without this understanding, marriage after marriage will inevitably dissolve.
Of course, what I’m suggesting herein isn’t meant to imply that feelings have no meaningful role to play in a marital partnership. Clarifying this point, the authors of Creative Marriage state (page 76):
If the basic trend of events in our lives moves in such a way as to lead us apart in marriage, to develop in us feelings which are antagonistic to our mate, then it is not very realistic or intelligent for us to stay married. If, on the contrary, the basic course of events in our lives is favorable to our marital partnership, and strengthens our feelings of love and companionship, it is realistic and intelligent for us to stay married.
Intimate partners can experience a wide range of emotions in marriage, many of which are healthy, desirable, joyous, and pleasurable. One key to success in this endeavor is to approach marriage as intelligently as possible.
Simply because one’s religion, culture, society, family, or other entity prescribes that marriage should occur doesn’t ensure success in a pair bond any more than flapping one’s arms after having jumped off of a cliff when in pursuit of others who first jumped will guarantee safety.
Personally, intelligence when marrying wasn’t even a consideration. For many clients with whom I’ve worked, a similarly unhelpful approach has been used.
What will your method of marital success be? Irrespective of whether you’re looking to get married or you’re already wedded, can you be intelligent about marriage? If you’d like to know more about approaching marriage in a rational manner, 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:
Ellis, A. and Harper, R. A. (1961). Creative Marriage. The Institute For Rational Living, Inc. Retrieved from https://www.pdfdrive.com/creative-marriage-e184052310.html
Freepik. (n.d.). Full shot bride and groom posing outdoors [Image]. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/full-shot-bride-groom-posing-outdoors_57310915.htm#fromView=search&page=2&position=42&uuid=64fb6428-067c-429d-96db-cb416982815b
Hollings, D. (2024, October 27). Correlation does not imply causation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/correlation-does-not-imply-causation
Hollings, D. (2022, October 5). Description vs. prescription. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/description-vs-prescription
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. (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, October 30). Luv(sic). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/luv-sic
Hollings, D. (2022, June 23). Meaningful purpose. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/meaningful-purpose
Hollings, D. (2024, March 25). Normalization. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/normalization
Hollings, D. (2023, September 3). On feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-feelings
Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist
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, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought
Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism
Hollings, D. (2023, February 16). Tna. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/tna
Logically Fallacious. (n.d.). Appeal to common belief. Retrieved from https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Common-Belief
Petrelli Previtera, LLC. (n.d.). Divorce statistics. Retrieved from https://www.petrellilaw.com/divorce-statistics-for-2022/
Comentarios