I once suggested to a client that a significant amount of content I’ve observed on Reddit appears to be that related to psyops (psychological operations)—government use of a person or phenomenon to influence a population’s opinions and attitudes. Of course, this is conjecture.
I once worked adjacent to a United States Army psyops soldier and the tactics he deployed on the population of Peru echo sentiment I’ve witnessed on Reddit. Nevertheless, I enjoy surveying the social media platform, though I don’t feed the monkeys when at the proverbial circus.
Through passive observation, I recently came across a post from an individual that I’ll anonymize in a photo for this entry. It’s not my intention to scrutinize the fallible individual, yet I find value in assessing the apparent beliefs which may underlie content of the post.
Before addressing this matter, it may be of some use to familiarize you with the psychotherapeutic modality I practice and which informs my perspective. Herein, I’ll view the issue through the lens of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT).
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.
In particular, there are four predominate irrational beliefs which people use: demandingness, awfulizing, low frustration tolerance, and global evaluations. Addressing these, the ABC model incorporates Disputation of unhelpful assumptions in order to explore Effective new beliefs.
Regarding demandingness, which is the main source of disturbance addressed herein, there are generally two varieties of should, must, or ought-type narratives people use to self-disturb. These self-upsetting beliefs relate to absolutistic and conditional should statements.
Concerning the former, a person prescriptively demands, without exception, that something should or shouldn’t occur. For example, under no circumstances should my romantic relationship end!
Pertaining to the latter, an individual’s demanding prescription, without condition, is that something should or shouldn’t happen. For instance, I shouldn’t allow myself to experience joy or pleasure unless I’m in an intimate partner relationship.
Whereas a demand is rigid, a desire is flexible. Demandingness prescribes, desiring describes. The former mechanism irrationally self-disturbs, the latter element is in accordance with logic and reason, thus rationally tolerates and accepts.
Although technically serving as should-type narratives, use of personal recommendatory, empirical, legal, preferential, moral or ethical, and idealistic shoulds isn’t necessarily something that causes self-upset. Personal prescription is the distinction worth considering in this regard.
As an example, because I don’t want to be electrocuted, I shouldn’t jam a metal object into a 220-volt electrical outlet. If you choose to do so, that’s on you. Personally, doing so isn’t a healthy option.
From a psychological standpoint, people upset 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.
For instance, consider the outcome of the aforementioned A-C electrical outlet scenario. In any case, people tend to misunderstand how the A-C and B-C connections relate to the naturalistic (real) and psychological (perceived) world.
As an example, if you suggest to your boyfriend that you wouldn’t consider him for a friends-with-benefits (“fwb”) relationship (Action), he may request space away from you to process the matter. (Consequence). From an A-C outlook, speech may result in undesirable outcomes.
Still, if you unhelpfully Believe, “Under no circumstances should that have happened to me,” then you’ll likely disturb yourself into a frightened disposition (Consequence). From a B-C perspective, absolutistic shoulds can result in unpleasant outcomes.
Thus, when using REBT with individuals, I help people to stop upsetting themselves through use of B-C connections, though I can’t fully resolve their A-C connections. Inferring to your boyfriend that he’s not physically or sexually attractive is something I may be able to help with after the fact, though not in the moment.
Regarding inferences, I stated in a blogpost entitled Inferred Meaning:
[A]n inferred meaning concerns the idiomatic act of reading between the lines. For instance, if you say, “I hate people who drive slowly in the fast lane,” I may deduce that your inferred meaning relates to the belief that people shouldn’t, mustn’t, or oughtn’t to inconvenience you.
Likewise, in a blog entry entitled Distorted Inferences, I stated:
[S]ometimes people disturb themselves not solely by what they Believe (B) about an Activating event (A), though they become upset when using distorted inferences—misleading conclusions based on illogical and unreasonable information—concerning the point of A rather than B.
I’ll say more on inferred meaning in a bit. For now, understanding about the ABC model relates to the distinction between a demand and a desire. When faced with reality, or what simply is, you may unproductively use a rigid absolutistic or conditional statement to self-disturb.
However, if you instead use a flexible desire when faced with what is – perhaps in the form of a could versus should statement – you likely won’t upset yourself. Regarding this matter, 18th-century philosopher David Hume proposed the is-ought problem.
In essence, Hume proposed that one cannot derive and ought from an is. When faced with reality as it is, you cannot demandingly declare what ought to instead be.
As an example, if your boyfriend distances himself from you after your use of an ostensibly insulting comment (is), you cannot unproductively demand that your boyfriend shouldn’t react in such a manner (ought). After all, people are welcome to react to inferred insults however they choose.
Given this perspective of the ABC model, it’s worth noting that when demands and desires come into direct opposition with one another conflict may result. Have you ever experienced conflict from a should that challenged a could?
By “conflict,” I’m referring to competitive or opposing action of incompatibles, such as divergent ideas or beliefs, which represents mental, emotional, physiological, and behavioral self-disturbance associated with an internal demand (ought) and external reality (is).
In REBT, Disputation of irrational Beliefs (oughts) – though not of Actions (is) or Consequences (is) – is used to achieve Effective new assumptions. We don’t challenge reality (is), only misperceptions (beliefs) about what is.
Therefore, when a should demand conflicts with a could desire, the unfavorable assumption is critically assessed. Using a preferential should, the result of a full ABC model exercise should result in a flexible could-type outcome rather than a rigid and absolutistic should-type end.
Furthermore, REBT uses the technique of unconditional acceptance (UA) to relieve suffering. This is accomplished through use of unconditional self-acceptance, unconditional other-acceptance, and unconditional life-acceptance.
Now, I’ll say more on inferred meaning. When recently perusing Reddit, I discovered the following post:
For those unable to view the above image, the Redditor stated:
My boyfriend and I are both 28 years old and together for 2.5 years. Yesterday night we were drinking and one thing led to another and I tried to compliment him by saying he is not someone who I would hookup or be a fwb with but marry. I thought everything was fine but he seemed extremely distraught after that. I realized how he understood it and tried to clarify it but he is still the same this morning. He told me he needs space to think for a while and left the house. All my friends tell me I messed it up and guys tell me it’s not a compliment and most men will understand it differently. I think I destroyed our relationship and I am panicking right now.
I don’t profess to know what the intention of the Redditor was when declaring the aforementioned statement, other than the reported attempt at a “compliment” to the boyfriend. Nevertheless, there’re a number of inferences one could assume (believe) which don’t bode well for the Redditor:
· I’ve had sex with people I consider better than you or who are more my type than you.
· Other men are more attractive than you and I’d consider them for fwb options. Honestly, you’re not that physically or sexually appealing to me. Still, I enjoy that you’re a safe bet, so I’ll stick with you.
· I’ll probably marry you, though I’m not attracted to you more than on a provide-and-protect level. As soon as someone to whom I’m actually attracted comes along, I’ll likely have sex with that person – even if I’ll stay with you for provision and protection.
· Real talk, I’m gonna cheat on you. Wanna get married?
· I’ve had sex with you for two and a half years, mainly for the resources you provide (i.e., time, attention, money, etc.), though you make me drier than the Atacama Desert, so… enjoy the complement I’m giving you by choosing to stay… for now.
· You’re good for pay, not for play. Wait! Why do you want space and time to think??
It isn’t difficult to destroy a relationship, especially one of a romantic nature. If I were fond of advice-giving and someone wanted to ruin an intimate partner relationship with an individual who didn’t practice REBT, I suppose the Redditor’s backhanded “compliment” would be a suitable option.
Good thing I’m not into advice-giving. Rather, I could see myself working with either the Redditor or the boyfriend in regard to this matter. With both individuals, I’d advocate use of the ABC model and UA.
An individual who frequently practices REBT likely understands that there was no legitimate A-C connection concerning what the Redditor stated and the boyfriend’s reaction. “But wait, Deric, up above you said that from an “A-C outlook, speech may result in undesirable outcomes,” you may respond.
Presuming that the boyfriend isn’t familiar with REBT and doesn’t know how to dispute unhelpful beliefs or practice UA, unfavorably inferring that one’s romantic partner is inadequate (Action) may contribute to – though doesn’t cause – Beliefs which result in an unpleasant Consequence.
Thus, if the boyfriend is unaware of the B-C connection, he may unproductively assume that the A-C connection causes self-disturbance. He ostensibly hears his intimate partner’s (unintentional) insult and then requests time and space to process the information.
If the Redditor’s report of the event is accurate, I applaud the boyfriend’s response. It seems more like a logical and reasonable reaction than that pertaining to irrationality.
On the other hand, the Redditor admitted to “panicking” in relation to this matter. Panic is a direct result of a B-C connection. Therefore, if I were to provide the Redditor with behavioral health care services, I’d invite the person to consider the ABC model and UA.
Destruction of a relationship, although not particularly difficult to accomplish, doesn’t have to result if one understands, believes in, and practices REBT. For instance, telling yourself, “My boyfriend could’ve misunderstood me, and there’s no reason why he shouldn’t have.”
This sort and other relationship issues are common in my line of work. If you would like to know more about how to reduce conflict between should and could, thus easing tension between demands which compete with desires, I’m here to help.
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. (2024, July 9). Absolutistic should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/absolutistic-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, August 7). Awfulizing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/awfulizing
Hollings, D. (2024, May 30). Behavioral health care. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/behavioral-health-care
Hollings, D. (2024, July 9). Conditional should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/conditional-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, March 19). Consequences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/consequences
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. (2024, March 28). Distorted inferences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/distorted-inferences
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Empirical should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/empirical-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use
Hollings, D. (2024, May 11). Fallible human being. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fallible-human-being
Hollings, D. (2024, July 22). Flexible use of time. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/flexible-use-of-time
Hollings, D. (2024, April 2). Four major irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/four-major-irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (2023, September 13). Global evaluations. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/global-evaluations
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Ideal should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/ideal-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, May 10). Inferred meaning. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/inferred-meaning
Hollings, D. (2023, May 18). Irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, April 8). It’s on you. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/it-s-on-you
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Legal should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/legal-should-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, December 2). Low frustration tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/low-frustration-tolerance
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Moral and ethical should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/moral-and-ethical-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing
Hollings, D. (2023, September 3). On feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-feelings
Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth
Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Preferential should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/preferential-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, September 15). Psychotherapeutic modalities. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapeutic-modalities
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. (2024, July 10). Recommendatory should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/recommendatory-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, January 4). Rigid vs. rigorous. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rigid-vs-rigorous
Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance
Hollings, D. (2024, April 21). Sensation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/sensation
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. (2023, September 6). The absence of suffering. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-absence-of-suffering
Hollings, D. (2023, April 9). The advice that never was. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-advice-that-never-was
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, December 14). The is-ought problem. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-is-ought-problem
Hollings, D. (2023, February 16). Tna. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/tna
Hollings, D. (2022, July 11). Unconditional acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-acceptance
Hollings, D. (2023, March 11). Unconditional life-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-life-acceptance
Hollings, D. (2023, February 25). Unconditional other-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-other-acceptance
Hollings, D. (2023, March 1). Unconditional self-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-self-acceptance
Hollings, D. (2024, January 16). Understanding, belief, and practice. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/understanding-belief-and-practice
Impressive-Test-1814. (2024, August 7). I think I destroyed our relationship trying to compliment my boyfriend. Reddit. Retrieved from https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueOffMyChest/comments/1em5x6t/i_think_i_destroyed_our_relationship_trying_to/
Wikipedia. (n.d.). David Hume. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
コメント