Photo credit (edited), fair use
Within my blog, I often use syllogisms as pedagogical tools to enhance the psychoeducational process. According to one source, “Pedagogical tools are designed to convey important lessons and allow people to improve their understanding of a problem or undertaking.”
For instance, consider the following pedagogical tool:
Form –
All A is some B. No B is any C. Hence, no A is any C.
Example –
All emotion is some form of feeling. No form of feeling is any type of belief. Hence, no emotion is any type of belief.
This is a logical and reasonable conclusion. Also, that which is in accordance with logic and reason is said to be rational. Thus, it’s irrational to say something along the lines of, “I feel like you did that to hurt my feelings,” because no emotion is any type of belief.
In fact, a feeling relates to either: 1. Emotion (i.e., joy, fear, anger, sorrow, disgust, surprise, etc.) or 2. Bodily sensation (e.g., tighten or stiffened jaw). If the word “feel” (or any derivative thereof) can be replaced with “hunch,” “thought,” or “belief” (or any derivative thereof), it’s not a feeling.
Briefly, I’ve just demonstrated a psychoeducational lesson about the common misuse of feelings-based language. This was accomplished through use of a syllogism and in accordance with principles of logic and reason.
When teaching Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), I employ use of pedagogical tools to improve understanding about this self-help model for rational living. One such tool that I find helpful is a Venn diagram. According to one source:
A Venn diagram is an illustration that uses overlapping circles to show the logical relation between two or more sets of items. Circles that overlap have a commonality while circles that do not overlap do not share those traits. The Venn diagram was popularized by John Venn in the 1880s.
I suspect that most people who come across this blogpost have seen a Venn diagram before. Providing an example from one source, consider the following Venn diagram that outlines the logical relation between three separate psychotherapeutic modalities:
This example which outlines REBT, developed by the late psychologist Albert Ellis, errs in labeling the model as merely a scientific approach without consideration of philosophical or humanistic underpinnings. Still, I appreciate that it shows relation between different forms of therapy.
Reconnecting with the topic of emotion, I will illustrate how I’d use a Venn diagram with a client to encourage consideration of a third option rather than using dichotomous (“black or white”) thinking. Addressing a relational issue, suppose client X says he either loves or hates his romantic partner.
“Sometimes, it’s like I love her more than anything else in the world,” client X states while adding, “but then, she’ll do something stupid and I just look at her with hatred.” Binary thinking of this sort isn’t entirely helpful. Expressed elegantly, one source states:
The problem with binary thinking is its inaccuracy. Gray areas do exist and are prominent in every issue. It may make us feel better to think about this or that, them or us, him or her, but it’s not how the world works.
The source accurately uses the term “feel better,” as one may feel joy, pleasure, or contentment when thinking dichotomously. However, REBT aims to help people get better, not merely feel better. Thus, I may use the following Venn diagram to demonstrate a third option for client X:
Rather than a this-or-that binary – love or hatred – client X would be invited to consider that indifference to his romantic partner’s “stupid” behavior is a third and viable option. This invitation would be introduced during the disputation of client X’s irrational belief about his partner.
REBT 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 (LFT), and global evaluations. Addressing these, the ABC model incorporates Disputation of unhelpful assumptions in order to explore Effective new beliefs.
Using the tool known as the elegant solution, I’d grant client X’s premise. It very well may be that his relational partner behaves in a fashion that is stupid—marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting.
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.
As an example of an A-C connection, client X’s partner may know better than to run across a slippery surface, though when she ignores such knowledge and runs across a wet bathroom floor (Action) she suddenly falls and scrapes her knees on the floor (Consequence).
However, illustrating a B-C connection, when his partner behaves in a stupid fashion (Action) and client X unproductively Believes, “I can’t stand looking at her, because she shouldn’t be so incredibly stupid,” his use of an LFT narrative along with demandingness results in hatred (Consequence).
Noteworthy, client X’s partner isn’t a stupid person, though she is a fallible human being. Thus, as an imperfect person, she’s capable of making stupid decisions and behaving in a stupid fashion.
Therefore, using the elegant solution, I’d grant the premise that client X’s partner behaves stupidly at times. I’d then dispute the irrational belief (“I can’t stand looking at her, because she shouldn’t be so incredibly stupid”) that stems from a distorted inference (this-or-that binary – love or hatred).
Here’s how client X’s inference influences his belief:
Inference narrative: “Sometimes, it’s like I love her more than anything else in the world, but then, she’ll do something stupid and I just look at her with hatred.” Here, client X infers that he’s capable of only love or hatred, nothing in between. This is a rigidly distorted inference.
Irrational belief: I can’t stand looking at her, because she shouldn’t be so incredibly stupid.” Here, influenced by the distorted inference, client X believes that he literally can’t tolerate viewing his relational partner in her imperfect state, because he demands that she should meet his standards.
Inviting client X to consider that while it’s pleasing to love someone and displeasing to experience hatred for a person, a viable alternative would be to merely maintain indifference toward the stupid behavior his romantic partner will inevitably exhibit in her flawed state of existence.
I’d then explain to client X that REBT uses the technique of unconditional acceptance (UA) to relieve suffering. This is accomplished through use of unconditional self-acceptance (USA), unconditional other-acceptance (UOA), and unconditional life-acceptance (ULA).
Illustrating how rejection of dichotomous thinking and incorporation of UA techniques may be of some benefit, consider the following Venn diagram:
Suppose client X effectively maintains USA and ULA. He recognizes himself as a fallible human being and affords himself the opportunity to make mistakes without self-disturbing about such instances. Also, he acknowledges his inevitable death and doesn’t upset himself about this truthful end to all existence.
However, client X doesn’t practice UOA. He doesn’t afford his romantic partner the same opportunity to make mistakes as he grants himself. Both are imperfect beings, though only one is given grace in the relationship.
With only USA and ULA working in his favor, and without consideration of a healthy third option instead of using an illogical and unreasonable binary, client X maintains hatred and even disgust for his romantic partner – as demonstrated in the Venn diagram.
It’s therefore plausible that without using REBT techniques client X may eventually develop contempt—lack of respect or reverence for something. According to the Gottman Institute – one of the foremost authorities on intimate partner relationships – contempt is “the number one predictor of divorce.”
Thus, client X has options:
1. Do nothing about this matter and see how things play out.
2. Love and hate with more polar extremity and see if matters improve or worsen.
3. Introduce a viable third option to an unhelpful binary by using indifference to see if this adaptive strategy has any effect. Do this without practice of UA.
4. Introduce a viable third option to an unhelpful binary by using indifference to see if this adaptive strategy has any effect. Do this with the practice of UA.
5. Forego the indifference option and practice UA.
6. Find another romantic partner while keeping your current one.
7. Find another romantic partner after leaving your current one.
8. Place fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and speak gibberish loudly while pretending as though this behavior will change the issue.
By demonstrating a problem of a hypothetical person (client X), I’ve shown how logical relation may be used in accordance with my approach to REBT. Herein, I’ve illustrated pedagogical tools of syllogism, Venn diagrams, the ABC model, UA, and optionality—the potential for options (i.e., list of viable options).
Not everyone with whom I’ve worked has appreciated rational living. Some people openly admit that they’d rather feel better while apparently not seeking to actually get better.
Each of us is a self-determined and autonomous actor. As such, I advocate people pursuing what form of psychotherapy they believe will best serve their interests and goals, even if that belief isn’t in accordance with logic and reason.
Ultimately, I unconditionally accept that REBT isn’t preferable to everyone. Still, if the method outlined herein appeals to you and you’d like to know more, 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:
AEI. (n.d.). About Albert Ellis, Ph.D. Albert Ellis Institute. Retrieved from https://albertellis.org/about-albert-ellis-phd/
Counseling Tutor. (n.d.). Compare and contrast therapeutic models. Amazon. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/CounsellingTutor/CT+Webinar+01+LIVE+/Compare+and+Contrast+Theraputic+Models.pdf
Davoodvandi, M., Nejad, S. N., and Farzad, V. (2018, April). Examining the effectiveness of Gottman couple therapy on improving marital adjustment and couples’ intimacy. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6037577/
Drinko, C. (2024, March 10). How to avoid binary thinking and think more clearly. LifeHack. Retrieved from https://www.lifehack.org/881768/binary-thinking
Freepik. (n.d.). Colorful geometrical shapes with copy space [Image]. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/colorful-geometrical-shapes-with-copy-space_9730507.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=0&uuid=44516e28-2bcd-48fc-956e-addc6a6b4dd0
Gottman Institute, The. (n.d.). The four horsemen: Contempt. Retrieved from https://www.gottman.com/blog/the-four-horsemen-contempt/
Gottman Institute, The. (n.d.). Welcome to the Gottman Institute [Official website]. Retrieved from https://www.gottman.com/
Hollings, D. (2024, May 23). A humanistic approach to mental health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-humanistic-approach-to-mental-health
Hollings, D. (2024, May 22). A philosophical approach to mental health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-philosophical-approach-to-mental-health
Hollings, D. (2024, May 24). A scientific approach to mental health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-scientific-approach-to-mental-health
Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness
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. (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, 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, 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, December 2). Low frustration tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/low-frustration-tolerance
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, January 1). Psychoeducation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychoeducation
Hollings, D. (2023, September 15). Psychotherapeutic modalities. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapeutic-modalities
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. (2024, May 15). Rational living. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-living
Hollings, D. (2024, January 4). Rigid vs. rigorous. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rigid-vs-rigorous
Hollings, D. (2024, May 26). Self-determination and autonomy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-determination-and-autonomy
Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance
Hollings, D. (2024, June 5). Self-help. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-help
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. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism
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. (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. (2023, February 16). Tna. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/tna
Hollings, D. (2022, November 15). To don a hat. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/to-don-a-hat
Hollings, D. (2022, September 19). The elegant solution. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-elegant-solution
Hollings, D. (2022, November 14). Touching a false dichotomy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/touching-a-false-dichotomy
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
Hollings, D. (2022, September 3). You gon’ die: The existential window. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/you-gon-die-the-existential-window
Kenton, W. (2024, March 13). What is a Venn diagram? Components, examples, and applications. Investopedia. Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/venn-diagram.asp
SDS. (n.d.). Pedagogical tools. System Dynamics Society. Retrieved from https://systemdynamics.org/tools/pedagogical-tools/
Wikipedia. (n.d.). John Venn. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Venn
Comments