In my personal life, I recently spoke with someone about anorexia nervosa—an eating disorder, occurring most frequently in adolescent girls, that involves persistent refusal of food, excessive fear of weight gain, refusal to maintain minimally normal body weight, disturbed perception of body image, and amenorrhea (absence of at least three menstrual periods).
For the sake of anonymity, I’ll refer to this individual as person X. Suspecting that she exhibits symptoms of anorexia which I also maintained when transitioning from fifth to sixth grade in childhood, I expressed concern for person X.
Dispassionately, she replied, “I love you, I care for you, and I value your opinion. However, I just don’t care. What I’m doing is effective. It works. I’ll stop if I want to, but right now, I don’t want to.”
Regardless of my subjective sentiment for person X, which includes concern for her psychological and physiological well-being, I understood that to her the reply was rational—based in accordance with logic and reason. To understand what I mean, consider the following syllogism:
Form –
Major premise: If A is B, C is D.
Minor premise: A is B.
Conclusion: Therefore, C is D.
Example –
If extreme caloric restriction is responsible for weight loss, anorexia nervosa is an effective weight loss strategy.
Extreme caloric restriction is responsible for weight loss.
Therefore, anorexia nervosa is an effective weight loss strategy.
Keep in mind that I’m not advocating anorexic behavior herein. In fact, citation of person X’s perceivably rational mind frame has little (if anything) to do with morals or ethics; whereas morals relate to principles of right and wrong in behavior and ethics are principles of conduct governing an individual or a group.
Therefore, I’m not expressing whether or not anorexic behavior is good, bad, right, wrong, or otherwise. Additionally, I’m not advising that people should, must, or ought to, or shouldn’t, mustn’t, or oughtn’t to use anorexia nervosa as a weight loss strategy.
Rather, I’m merely stating that per her worldview, person X’s stance comports with logic and reason. I say this, because the antecedent regarding the major premise is affirmed in the minor premise and the consequent is therefore affirmed in the conclusion.
For context, a premise is a proposition antecedently supposed or proved as a basis of argument or inference. Thus, person X’s premises and conclusion are arguably logically and reasonably sound – even if an individual maintains moral and ethical objection to her position.
This is one of the key functions of rational discourse which I think many people misunderstand. Seemingly, a significant number of individuals irrationally believe that in order for an argument to be rational it must meet their approved and subjective standards of morality and ethics.
However, this approach to argumentation is merely a form of hubris—exaggerated pride or self-confidence. Although you may disagree with her stance, person X’s rhetorical argument is sound – when taking into account her subjective worldview.
Of course, this is where rational thinkers may dissent from my perspective. “Deric, people aren’t capable of forming their own moral and ethical codes of living,” an individual may argue.
“Deric, subjective determination of right and wrong assumes a moral relativist stance, and that’s not a rational method of living,” another person may declare.
Herein, I’ve carefully qualified my statements in regard to person X. Although I may believe it’s irrational to starve oneself, person X doesn’t agree. Moreover, she’s not making declarative arguments which apply to you, me, other people, or the world in general.
Instead, person X advocates that in accordance with the values to which she subscribes – even those matters which are self-ascribed – she doesn’t care what others have to say about her body. For me to inflexibly command her to care would arguably be the irrational thing to do.
With this understanding, regardless of whether or not you maintain prideful disagreement, I now shift to a segment of person X’s reply that serves as the foundation of the current blogpost. In particular, I contemplate her statement, “I just don’t care.”
Suppose you attempt to persuade an individual about one topic of another. You use rational argumentation to dispute irrational beliefs, cite valid and reliable evidence to support your stance, and being the fallible human being you are, you use irrational appeals to emotion.
Despite your finest efforts, you’re unable to convince the person of your position. As was the case with person X, the individual with whom you speak ultimately replies by saying, “I just don’t care.” How may you react to your unrealized interest and goal to persuade this person?
This is precisely the sort of scenario I often encounter in my professional life as a psychotherapist. Using the ABC model of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), I attempt to persuade clients to use elements associated with rational living.
However, after practicing the skill of life coaching since the 90s and psychotherapy since 2011, I’ve concluded that not everyone who seeks help actually desires assistance with mental, emotional, and behavioral health-related matters. Does this surprise you?
I find that some people truly don’t care one way or another as to whether or not they actually get better in the long run, given that they can feel better right not. For such people, doing the work necessary to alter longstanding and disruptive philosophies of life is undesirable.
Instead, they unhelpfully demand instant results. Therefore, when advocating the uncomfortable and challenging process of change, these individuals eventually admit, “I just don’t care” about what REBT has to offer.
Perhaps you maintain that such people are wrong in their ways of thinking and that they shouldn’t reject the help they originally sought. Setting aside this moral and ethical framework, using a syllogism, let’s evaluate the rhetorical argument used by these hypothetical individuals:
Form –
If p, then q; if q, then r; therefore, if p, then r.
Example –
If I don’t value a model of rational living, then as a self-determined and autonomous individual I can reject the psychotherapeutic modality of REBT.
If as a self-determined and autonomous individual I can reject the psychotherapeutic modality of REBT, then I just don’t care about REBT techniques or practice.
Therefore, if I don’t value a model of rational living, then I just don’t care about REBT techniques or practice.
The logical form of this argument is proper. As well, the reason associated with it may be subjectively valid. Although I may disagree with the outcome, whoever uses this form of argumentation may consider it a reasonable conclusion.
Attempting to refute whether or not the argument is valid or rational would be akin to disagreeing with an individual’s subjective level of pain. I can’t tell person Y that his pain level is a three of ten; whereas one is the least and ten is the worst.
If person Y is the only individual who experiences his subjective pain in this example, he may conclude that he experiences an eight out of ten level of pain. Similarly, if person Y reasons that REBT isn’t valuable to this specific person, he isn’t making an objective argument.
Rather, subjectively, person Y concludes that REBT isn’t something about which he cares – nor should he. If person Y then self-disturbs with unproductive beliefs about various events in life, he’s at liberty to do so. He can behave irrationally when using a subjective and irrational premise.
In conclusion, perhaps it would be useful to put a finer point on person Y’s syllogistic premise. Consider the following:
Form –
If p, then q; p; therefore, q.
Example –
If someone offers something I don’t want, then I don’t care about what’s being offered.
Someone offers something I don’t want.
Therefore, I don’t care about what’s being offered.
This is the crux of persons X and Y’s arguments. From their subjective points of view, they simply don’t care about what’s presented to them. Wonderful! We’ll start from that premise, rather than devoting the precious and finite resource of time trying to persuade these people otherwise.
Using this helpful approach to the matter, I rely upon the REBT technique of unconditional acceptance. I start by acknowledging how little control and influence I have in this life. Then, I tolerate and accept – without unhelpful conditions – that some people truly don’t want help.
Therefore, I stop devoting what little time I have left in this life to attempting to persuade such people. They simply don’t care. Excellent! We’ll start from that premise and I’ll save a lot of time which otherwise would’ve been wasted on attempting to influence someone.
Given the rational argument I’ve outlined herein, in regard to not self-disturbing when people don’t care what you have to say, how might you apply to your own life the information I’ve concluded? If you’d like to know other rational strategies to living, 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:
APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Anorexia nervosa. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/anorexia-nervosa
Freepik. (n.d.). Young woman struggling with an eating disorder [Image]. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/young-woman-struggling-with-eating-disorder_20282379.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=0&uuid=2338aa1f-d5f5-46f6-8c1c-e59e99a593fa
Hollings, D. (2023, October 14). Appeal to emotion. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/appeal-to-emotion
Hollings, D. (2022, May 17). Circle of concern. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/circle-of-concern
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, February 25). Doing the work. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/doing-the-work
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. (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, 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. (2024, March 4). Mental, emotional, and behavioral health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/mental-emotional-and-behavioral-health
Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-and-ethics
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, March 20). Practice. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/practice
Hollings, D. (2024, May 26). Principles. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/principles
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 20). Reliability vs. validity. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/reliability-vs-validity
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. (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, 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. (2024, September 25). Unrealistic philosophies. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unrealistic-philosophies
Commentaires