In my role as a psychotherapist, I assist people with the examination of beliefs which are of an irrational variety—not comporting with logic and reason. As an example of how this is accomplished through use of psychoeducation, consider the following syllogism:
Form (modus ponens) –
If p, then q; p; therefore, q.
Example –
If a tree falls in a forest when no one is around to hear it, then the fallen tree doesn’t make a sound when hitting the ground.
A tree falls in a forest when no one is around to hear it.
Therefore, the fallen tree doesn’t make a sound when hitting the ground.
The major (p) and minor (q) premises follow a logical path. However, the conclusion isn’t reasonable. Although there are arguments to be made from the position of metaphysics, I maintain that a recording device doesn’t satisfy the “no one” element of the syllogism.
Thus, from a scientific point of view, an audio and visual recording device could test the hypothesis proposed in the major premise. As the inanimate object captures the sound of a fallen tree having hit the ground, the minor premise is rejected.
Therefore, although the syllogism follows a logical path, it isn’t reasonable. That which doesn’t comport with logic and reason is irrational. This is one way in which I practice Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) when working with clients.
Specifically, 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.
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, if a tree falls in a forest (Action), a sound is produced as it impacts the ground (Consequence). A-C connections of this sort occur in the naturalistic world.
Now suppose that when discovering that I reject the metaphysical argument of the tree-forest syllogism (Action), you unhelpfully Believe, “Deric shouldn’t be so skeptical, because it’s awful not to be open-minded.” What may be the outcome of your unproductive assumption?
Because of your rigid Belief, in consideration of the B-C connection, you’ll likely disturb yourself into an angry or perhaps disgusted disposition (Consequence). This is precisely how people upset themselves from a psychological standpoint.
It’s worth noting that there are different variations of should, must, and ought to statements, of which only two generally function in a self-disturbing B-C manner. These variations are as follows:
Self-disturbing shoulds:
Absolutistic shoulds – These self-disturbing beliefs are inflexible, commanding, and largely unhelpful. As an example, “Under absolutely no circumstances whatsoever should you disagree with anything I have to say within this blogpost!”
Conditional shoulds – Like absolutistic shoulds, these self-upsetting assumptions are rigid, authoritative, and mostly unproductive. For instance, “If you want me to like you, then you should agree with what I have to say in this blog entry.”
Not self-upsetting shoulds:
Recommendatory shoulds – These recommendation shoulds aren’t absolute or conditional, as they typically don’t cause self-disturbance. As an example, “I recommend that you should regularly practice REBT, though you don’t have to do so.”
Preferential shoulds – Somewhat similar to recommendatory shoulds, preference-based shoulds aren’t self-upsetting. Unlike recommendations which mirror a form of advice, preferential shoulds merely suggest a preferred option. For instance, “I’d prefer that you should think logically and rationally, yet I understand that rational thinking isn’t the default nature of fallible humans.
Ideal shoulds – This form of should expresses that given circumstance X, then result Y should ideally occur. As an example, if clouds are gray and I hear thunder, I may conclude, “Ideally, it should rain soon.”
Empirical shoulds – This type of should conveys a point in regard to an outcome. It outlines that what occurred actually should’ve occurred. For instance, “Given that the car was traveling at a velocity of 100 miles per hour, it should’ve been damaged when striking a brick wall. That’s exactly what happened, too.” Sometimes, empirical shoulds are referred to as laws of the universe shoulds.
Moral and ethical shoulds – This form of should relates to moral (of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior) and ethical (based on morals, conforming to accepted standards of conduct) consideration. Although people can and do self-disturb with these shoulds when applied to others, maintaining personally moral and ethical shoulds doesn’t necessarily lead to self-upset. As an example, “I believe it’s wrong to murder people [moral]; therefore, from an ethical standpoint, I shouldn’t commit criminal homicide.”
Legal shoulds – Legal matters are often predicated on morals and ethics. Nevertheless, this locale-specific form of legal should or shall narrative addresses what is mandated by law. According to one source, “In just about every jurisdiction, courts have held that ‘shall’ can mean not just ‘must’ and ‘may’, but also ‘will’ and ‘is’. Herein, I’ll expand upon this form of should in context of the United States (U.S.). According to one source:
The Second Amendment (2A) to the U.S. Constitution states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Debates continually revolve around its intent, what comprises such a militia and the extent of its protection of individual rights to own guns.
The 2A mandate is a straightforward and negative right. This means that it obliges inaction of the U.S. government. Therefore, U.S. citizens shall not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed—encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.
Inaction is forthright measure. For instance, suppose that you have a civil right not to have your bodily autonomy infringed upon. There’s genuinely no need for much debate concerning this matter.
As an example, you would be presumed to have a negative right in regard to rape—unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent.
I shall not (must not, may not, will not, etc.) be permitted to violate you simply because I disagree with the proposal of your negative right (which isn’t actually the case, for the record). Therefore, your right to bodily autonomy shall not be infringed.
This is a logical and reasonable expectation that is covered under U.S. legal shoulds. In the same manner, and even though people incessantly debate the matter, 2A protection is a legal should on a federal level. Also, U.S. federal law supersedes state law.
Government officials, politicians, and other authority figures don’t have to like or love 2A protections. Nevertheless, they shall not infringe the ability of U.S. citizens to keep and bear arms.
The “arms” element of 2A is what much of the unnecessary debate revolves around. Uncommonly understood, founders of the U.S. formed their own artillery units and owned cannons—of which were even used on their private ships, per one source.
Colonial and early U.S. citizens were able to keep and bear the most advanced arms of their time. Can you imagine the U.S. government honoring 2A to the degree by which authorities didn’t infringe the right to keep and bear the FGM-148 Javelin weapon system?
No? Nor can I. This is because the U.S. government frequently violates this negative right which serves as a legal should or shall mandate. Unfortunately, modern U.S. citizenry 2A protection is continuously violated.
For instance, consider an AR-15–style rifle (which stands for ArmaLite Rifle and not “assault rifle”). According to one source:
There is no such thing as an assault rifle. Even though it is a commonly used term, it is incorrect both literally and grammatically. “Assault rifle” is a media term used to attract attention, and this incorrect term has been normalized for any tactical style rifle.
Despite the irrationality of anti-AR-15 rhetoric, 2024 U.S. presidential election appointee… er… nominee and current U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris recently stated during an interview:
Look, I think for far too long on the issue of gun violence some people have been pushing a really false choice—to suggest you’re either in favor of the Second Amendment or you wanna take everyone’s guns away. I’m in favor of the Second Amendment and I’m in favor of assault weapons bans.
I will set aside pedantic criticism of Harris’s use of vocal fry register that is perceivably an intentional decision utilized to manipulatively elicit emotion from an audience. Because my belief about her vocal tone could be inaccurate, I’ll overlook this critique for now.
Turning to the content of her message, Harris invokes the logical fallacy of false dichotomy which is also known as false dilemma or false binary. In a blogpost entitled Touching a False Dichotomy, I stated:
Narrowing one’s perspective by splitting into extreme or polar opposites may seem reasonable if not given more than surface-level consideration. However, life isn’t as simplistic as the incorrect dichotomies with which we use to relate.
An example of a false dichotomy would occur if I suggested, “You can either love this blogpost or hate it, but you can’t do both.” This either-or distinction is limiting, because there are other options which I’ve disregarded.
For instance, you may neither love nor hate this post. Perhaps you remain indifferent and could care less either way. Regarding my perception of Harris’s voiced perspective, which she termed as a “false choice,” there are either 2A supports or people who want to take away guns.
This claim represents a false binary. As an example, I suspect that many thousands or millions of U.S. citizens remain ignorant (lack knowledge) of the rational argument I’ve outlined herein and in regard to 2A protection.
People X may support what they misunderstand about 2A while also ignorantly advocating that some arms shouldn’t be allowed in the hands of U.S. citizens. The “shall not be infringed” element of 2A be damned! Thus, people X represent a third option to a false choice.
Presumably, Harris is within the cohort of people X. Setting aside my critique in relation to the nonexistence of “assault weapons,” U.S. government officials who advocate bans of specific arms commit the blunder of infringing upon that which shall not be infringed.
Remember, inaction is a forthright measure. All I need to do in order to support your negative right to bodily autonomy is not rape you. This isn’t a difficult standard to uphold. In fact, it takes action in order to violate you. On the other hand, inaction is fairly easy to do. Simply do nothing.
Likewise, 2A protections require U.S. government officials to uphold a standard of inaction. However, Harris apparently maintains a historical pattern of action in this regard.
According to one source, Harris advocated a “D.C. handgun ban” in 2008. Through my practice of REBT, one of the main objectives of this psychotherapeutic modality is to persuade people to change their minds in regard to opting for rational and more adaptive positions.
Therefore, I give Harris the benefit of the doubt about her perceived positional change concerning handguns from 2008 to 2024. Nevertheless, only days ago, she voiced advocacy for “assault weapons bans,” which presumably includes platforms such as AR-15-style rifles.
Such a position represents action, not inaction. Coming from a U.S. politician, Harris’s presumed stance further constitutes favor of oppression (unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power). To understand my position, consider a final syllogism:
Form (hypothetical) –
If p, then q; if q, then r; therefore, if p, then r.
Example –
If the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, then U.S. governmental entities shouldn’t support “assault weapons bans.”
If U.S. governmental entities shouldn’t support “assault weapons bans,” then Vice President Harris shouldn’t be elected to the highest executive office in the U.S., because she advocates oppression.
Therefore, if the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, then Vice President Harris shouldn’t be elected to the highest executive office in the U.S., because she advocates oppression.
The argument I’ve outlined herein is both logical and reasonable, in accordance with the Constitution, and is therefore a rational proposal. Whether or not a largely uninformed and irrationally-minded populous will accept it is another matter altogether.
For the sake of argument, suppose you disagree with my stance. In this blogpost, I’ve carefully outlined how rational arguments function, demonstrated how REBT works, identified how legal shoulds operate, and I’ve provided context in regard to 2A negative right protection.
It isn’t uncommon for clients to receive similar disputation of their irrational beliefs when working with me. Still, some people willfully refuse to change their minds. In essence, they’re wed to their self-disturbing absolutistic and conditional shoulds.
“Deric, I understand what you’re saying and it makes sense intellectually,” an individual may say, “but it doesn’t feel right to me.” I’ll set aside rigorous correction to misuse of “feel” in this sentence, even though feelings concern only emotions and physical sensations.
Alas, I understand how this term is misused in common parlance. Now suppose you’re the person to whom a retort of this blog entry applies. You understand my advocacy for 2A inaction, but my argument doesn’t resonate on an emotional level for you.
This is understandable, as I’m using rational thinking while you’re utilizing irrational emotions. Of course our perspectives will clash! So, too, is the occurrence in psychotherapy sessions when people favor irrationality over rationality. Thankfully, REBT has a technique for use when this occurs.
This helpful psychotherapeutic modality 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.
Using UA, I can tolerate and accept that Harris, thousands or millions of U.S. citizens, and perhaps even you prefer not to live rationally. Importantly, this form of UA is practiced without unhelpful conditions.
Because I use UA with clients who remain willfully stuck in irrationality after I’ve repeatedly attempted to persuade them to challenge unproductive assumptions, I can practice this helpful technique with others. If you’d like to know more about how not to self-disturb in a similar manner, 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:
Gilbert, A. (2020, February 23). Black and white thinking: What it is and why it’s hurting you. Soberish. Retrieved from https://www.soberish.co/black-and-white-thinking/
Harris, K. (2024, September 19). Unite for America rally with Vice President Kamala Harris and Oprah Winfrey (vertical) [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/live/6IUr-O4rogM?si=O59Wz71wkVXM7vqa
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, 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 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. (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, July 10). Ideal should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/ideal-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, May 27). Intellectual vs. emotional insight. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/intellectual-vs-emotional-insight
Hollings, D. (2023, May 18). Irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/irrational-beliefs
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. (2022, December 9). Like it, love it, accept it. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/like-it-love-it-accept-it
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. (2023, October 19). Mockingbird media. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/mockingbird-media
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. (2024, July 10). Preferential should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/preferential-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2024, May 26). Principles. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/principles
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, 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. (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. (2024, September 17). The E-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-e-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2023, August 6). The science. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-science
Hollings, D. (2023, February 16). Tna. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/tna
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
Lambert, K. (2019, May 4). There is no such thing as an assault rifle. The Hamilton County Reporter Newspaper. Retrieved from https://readthereporter.com/there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-assault-rifle/
Plainlanguage.gov. (n.d.). Shall and must. U.S. General Services Administration. Retrieved from https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/conversational/shall-and-must/
Stable Diffusion. (n.d.). Kamala Harris AR-15 vice president home [Image]. Retrieved from https://stablediffusionweb.com/image/17588535-kamala-harris-ar-15-vice-president-home
United States Concealed Carry Association. (n.d.). Second Amendment (2A). Delta Defense LLC. Retrieved from https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/terminology/general-terms/second-amendment/
Volokh, E. (2020, August 26). Kamala Harris on the Second Amendment. Reason Foundation. Retrieved from https://reason.com/volokh/2020/08/26/kamala-harris-on-the-second-amendment/
Wikipedia. (n.d.). AR-15–style rifle. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15%E2%80%93style_rifle
Wikipedia. (n.d.). ArmaLite AR-15. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15
Wikipedia. (n.d.). FGM-148 Javelin. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin
Wikipedia. (n.d.). If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest_and_no_one_is_around_to_hear_it,_does_it_make_a_sound%3F
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Kamala Harris. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Vocal fry register. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_fry_register
Wright, R. E. (2021, June 28). Private cannon ownership in early America. American Institute for Economic Research. Retrieved from https://www.aier.org/article/private-cannon-ownership-in-early-america/
Comments