According to Google’s artificial intelligence overview, the phrase rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic is:
[A]n idiom meaning to make small, insignificant changes to a situation that is already facing a major, unavoidable problem, essentially wasting time on trivial matters while ignoring the real crisis; it implies that these efforts are futile and won’t prevent disaster.
I think of this idiomatic expression when teaching people of my approach to Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT). Namely, the psychoeducational lesson regarding the is-ought problem, as it pertains to demandingness, comes to mind.
Not to oversimply this topic, the late philosopher David Hume essentially stated that a person cannot derive an ought from an is. This means that when faced with truth and reality (is), an individual cannot rationally demand what ought to instead be the case.
For instance, imagine that you were a passenger on the Titanic as it began to sink (is). Rather than using your remaining moments to seek proper safety measures, you instead unproductively demanded, “This ought not to happen, because I don’t want this ship to sink!”
Your futile efforts wouldn’t improve matters, because what is—the Titanic slowly submerging into the North Atlantic Ocean—has nothing to do with what you believe ought to instead occur. Thus, you may as well rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic, because that’s equally nonsensical.
Noteworthy, the ‘R’ in REBT represents the term “rational”—that which is based in accordance with both logic and reason. In my blog, when instructing people about what constitutes rationality and irrationality, I typically make use of a syllogism such as the following example:
Form (hypothetical) –
If p, then q; if q, then r; therefore, if p, then r.
Example –
Premise 1: If I’m on the Titanic as it’s sinking, then I stand the risk of dying.
Premise 2: If I stand the risk of dying, then the Titanic ought not to sink when I want to live.
Conclusion: Therefore, if I’m on the Titanic as it’s sinking, then the Titanic ought not to sink when I want to live.
Here, both premises lead to a conclusion and follow logical form. However, the second premise uses an unreasonable demandingness belief that is carried over to the conclusion.
Thus, the proposed belief isn’t empirical—capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment. In order to be considered rational, a belief empirically must remain in accordance with both logic and reason.
How might the syllogism be corrected in order to represent an empirically sound belief? Consider the following rational proposal that doesn’t violate Hume’s is-ought problem:
Form (hypothetical) –
If p, then q; if q, then r; therefore, if p, then r.
Example –
If I’m on the Titanic as it’s sinking, then I stand the risk of dying.
If I stand the risk of dying, then I’ll be disappointed while passing away and simultaneously wanting to live.
Therefore, if I’m on the Titanic as it’s sinking, then I’ll be disappointed while passing away and simultaneously wanting to live.
Ships sink and people die (is). Neither of these truthful and realistic facts of existence necessarily rely on what a person believes ought to instead occur. To put a finer point on this lesson, while invoking the name of the late psychologist Albert Ellis who developed REBT, one source states:
Only in the realm of thought do things not logically follow from what comes before. Ship happens. A perfect example is the Titanic which sank due to a plethora of reasons. Looking back it follows logically that it sank given those reasons.
Which is not to say that its sinking was inevitable. Any one of those factors could have occurred differently, and perhaps in an alternate timeline or universe, they did, but in this one they didn’t, thus, logically, the ship sank.
Why? Because in this universe, that’s the way the cookie crumbles (i.e. that’s the way life is). “The past is passed.” So said Albert Ellis. And immutable.
Ultimately, when experiencing a problem (is) and unhelpfully demanding what ought to instead be the case, it’s as though you’re rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic by nonsensically disturbing yourself when you’ll soon be overtaken by the undesirable event.
Rather than illogically and unreasonably doing something that essentially contributes nothing in the way of help toward resolution of the current problem, perhaps you could use the ABC model or unconditional acceptance. This is akin to searching for a lifeboat as the Titanic sinks.
Of course, the choice is yours. If you opt to self-disturb (is), then who am I to rigidly demand that you ought not to do so? Rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic, if you please.
If you’re looking for a provider who tries to work to help 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 try 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 trying to help you to feel better, I want to try 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/
Freed, K. (2024, February 2). I thought on “Once it happened, it had to happen – the logic of acceptance.” REBTDoctor. Retrieved from https://rebtdoctor.com/once-it-happened-it-had-to-happen-the-logic-of-acceptance/
Hollings, D. (2024, October 18). ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/abc-model
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, 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. (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. (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. (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, 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. (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. (2025, January 2). The choice is yours. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-choice-is-yours
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. (2024, October 20). Unconditional acceptance redux. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-acceptance-redux
Wikipedia. (n.d.). David Hume. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Titanic. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic
Zzyzx01. (2023, February 24). Photo of stacked deck chairs on the promenade deck [Image]. Ships of Scale. Retrieved from https://shipsofscale.com/sosforums/threads/titanic-deck-chairs.11467/
Comments