A Constructivist and Postmodernist Approach to Mental Health

[DISCLAIMER]

Scenario

Imagine that you and I attend the shooting range (also known as a firing range, gun range, or shooting ground, which is a specialized facility, venue, or field designed specifically for firearm usage qualifications, training, practice, or competitions). In this scenario, we’re shooting pistols.

When engaging paper targets, we detect light audible sounds which indicate the impact of bullets (rounds, as of various types of metal, to be fired from a firearm). Crack, crack! When interacting with metal targets, we hear slightly louder indicators of bullet impacts. Ping, ping!

Depending on how close we are to our targets, we may even receive superficial wounds from shrapnel (shell fragments of ruptured bullets). Being studious observers of safety measures, we move further away from our targets, as not to become injured (sustain inflected bodily pain).

Given this relatively brief scenario, do you know why I took time to elaborate on specific terms? Why did I also choose to provide written representations of bullet impacts (i.e., crack and ping)? I did this, because I maintain that the words we use matter.

Similarly, this is how I approach care for mental, emotional, and behavioral health (collectively “mental health”). Namely, when practicing Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), developed by the late psychologist Albert Ellis, I invite others to consider their word use.

REBT

For context, REBT is a psychotherapeutic modality that serves as one of the original forms of Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT). Principally, it uses two major tools which afford people the ability to engage unhelpful beliefs so that fallible human beings can stop upsetting themselves.

First, REBT uses the ABC model to illustrate that when an undesirable Action occurs and you Believe an unhelpful narrative about the event, it’s your unfavorable assumption, not the occurrence itself, that causes an unpleasant Consequence. This is known as self-disturbance.

In particular, there are four predominate irrational beliefs which people often use to upset themselves: global evaluations, low frustration tolerance, awfulizing, and demandingness. When contemplating these unproductive beliefs, think of the acronym GLAD (as indicated below).

Additionally, 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.

For instance, when shooting rounds at metal targets (Action), you may hear an audible indicator of a bullet impact that makes a “ping” sound (Consequence). From an A-C viewpoint, metal ammunition striking metal targets causes audible sounds.

Still, from a B-C outlook, when metal ricochets off a metal target and injures you (Action) while you Believe, “Shooting is worthless [G], and I can’t stand being injured [L], because it’s awful receiving shrapnel wounds [A], as life must be safe [D],” then you’ll self-disturb (Consequence).

Addressing how people upset themselves with unhelpful attitudes, the ABC model incorporates Disputation of unproductive philosophies of life in order to explore Effective new beliefs. Whereas rigid beliefs cause self-disturbance, flexible beliefs result in an un-disturbed condition.

The process of challenging personal scripts can take longer than I care to demonstrate herein. Thus, in the interest of time imagine that instead of self-disturbing you use rigorous Disputation and come up with the following Effective new beliefs:

Shooting isn’t actually worthless. In fact, I value learning self-defense through use of a firearm. Also, it isn’t that I can’t stand being injured, as evidenced by my ability to tolerate that I’ve received shrapnel wounds. Although I may not like that this has happened, I can stand it.

Also, shrapnel wounds are inconvenient, though they aren’t awful. As well, who says that life must be safe? Besides, I’m statistically less likely to die from a non-suicide injury at a gun range than I am by a common in-home occurrence, such as slipping in the shower. Yet, I still shower!

Second, REBT uses unconditional acceptance (UA) to relieve self-induced suffering. This is accomplished through use of unconditional self-acceptance (USA), unconditional other-acceptance (UOA), and unconditional life-acceptance (ULA).

Whereas the ABC model is a scientific approach to wellness, UA serves as a philosophical method for un-disturbing yourself. I view the former as an abortive approach to disturbance and the latter as a preventative method. Of course, not all REBT practitioners use the same style as I.

With my approach to REBT, I incorporate author Stephen Covey’s concepts regarding the circles of control, influence, and concern, as well as an area of no concern. UA maps onto the circle of control (USA), circle of influence (UOA), and circle of concern and area of no concern (ULA).

The circle of control encompasses only oneself, the circle of influence encapsulates elements which may be subject to one’s sway, the circle of concern engrosses most matters one can imagine, and the area of no concern relates to all content which isn’t yet imagined, as follows:

Imagine acknowledging that you have very little control and influence over most matters in life (USA), and that it’s highly unlikely you’ll be able to influence most people in the way that you desire (UOA). Oh well, too bad!

Additionally, given that life is impermanent and uncertain, you’ll instead focus on that which you can control: your reaction to the inevitable unpleasant events which life has to offer (ULA). Congratulations! With this imagined acknowledgement, you’ve successfully used UA!

Constructivism and Postmodernism

Earlier, I said that “UA serves as a philosophical method for un-disturbing yourself.” As REBT incorporates Stoicism, humanism, and existentialism, as well as Epicureanism and hedonism into this form of CBT, it also draws upon elements of constructivism and postmodernism.

Constructivism –

There are arguably three main types of constructivist forms which apply to REBT. The first relates to constructivism regarding the philosophy of education, about which one source states:

Constructivism is a theory that suggests that learners do not passively acquire knowledge through direct instruction. Instead, they construct their understanding through experiences and social interaction, integrating new information with their existing knowledge. […]

Constructivism in education is rooted in epistemology, a theory of knowledge concerned with the logical categories of knowledge and its justification. It acknowledges that learners bring prior knowledge and experiences shaped by their social and cultural environment and that learning is a process of students “constructing” knowledge based on their experiences.

While behaviorism focuses on understanding what students are doing, constructivism emphasizes the importance of understanding what students are thinking and how to enrich their thinking.

At the shooting range, I may appeal to behaviorism (the study of objective, observable facts rather than subjective, qualitative processes, such as feelings, motives, and consciousness). As an example, I may say, “I see you’re pulling your shot to the left,” as I highlight what you’re doing.

Alternatively, from the perspective of constructivism regarding the philosophy of education, I may say to you, “What was going through your mind as you were shooting and pulling shots to the left?” as I highlight what you’re thinking in an attempt to enrich your cognitive processes.

When providing psychoeducation (instruction about mental health matters), I use this first constructivist description quite often. The second constructivist type that applies to REBT is constructivism regarding the philosophy of science, about which one source states:

Constructivism is a view in the philosophy of science that maintains that scientific knowledge is constructed by the scientific community, which seeks to measure and construct models of the natural world.

According to constructivists, natural science consists of mental constructs that aim to explain sensory experiences and measurements, and that there is no single valid methodology in science but rather a diversity of useful methods.

They also hold that the world is independent of human minds, but knowledge of the world is always a human and social construction. Constructivism opposes the philosophy of objectivism, embracing the belief that human beings can come to know the truth about the natural world not mediated by scientific approximations with different degrees of validity and accuracy.

I go back and forth regarding my appreciation and contempt for this form of constructivism. For instance, something is subjective if it is dependent on minds (e.g., an opinion about one’s performance at the gun range). From this outlook, the B-C connection causes self-disturbance.

Alternatively, something is objective if it can be confirmed independently of any minds (e.g., the fact that one’s bullet impacted a metal target). From this perspective, the A-C connection independently confirms that metal ammunition striking metal targets causes audible sounds.

My view departs from some constructivists in that, mainly within academia and throughout the mental health field, many people apparently subscribe to the illogical and unreasonable (collectively “irrational”) notion that virtually everything is a social construct. That’s delusional!

For the sake of rational argument, suppose that when at the firing range someone turns toward you, unloads a magazine of ammunition in your general direction, and you’re struck by multiple rounds. A deluded constructivist may claim that your experience is a mere mental construction.

I’ll take no part in this radical form of constructivism. Thus, I consider subjective and objective experiences which constitute truth about reality. Yet, I’ve no interest in entertaining absurdity (the quality or state of being absurd—ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous).

For the final constructivist form that applies to REBT, I’ll first differentiate between morals and ethics. This is because the concept of moral constructivism empirically requires this distinction.

A moral is a person’s standard of behavior or belief concerning what is and isn’t acceptable for the individual and other people. Morals thus relate to what’s considered good, bad, right, wrong, or otherwise acceptable or unacceptable.

An ethic is a set of moral principles, especially those relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct. Whereas morals relate to what is thought of as pleasing or displeasing behaviors and beliefs, ethics – based on morals – are the social rules by which we pledge to live.

Unlike some people, I see no evidence for objective morality. This is partially because I adhere to the tenets of moral constructivism, about which one source states:

Moral constructivism or ethical constructivism is a view both in meta-ethics and normative ethics which posits that:

1. Ethical sentences express propositions.

2. Some such propositions are true.

3. The truth or falsity of such propositions is ineliminably dependent on the result of a suitable constructivist procedure.

Metaethical constructivism holds that correctness of moral judgments, principles and values is determined by being the result of a suitable constructivist procedure. In other words, normative values are a construction of human practical reason.

It is opposed to all forms of moral realism, which posit that morality is something discovered by the use of theoretical reason, non-cognitivism, which denies that morality can be constructed rationally, and error theory, which denies the possibility of constructing an objective truth.

In normative ethics, moral constructivism is the view that principles and values within a given normative domain can be justified based on the very fact that they are the result of a suitable constructivist device or procedure.

Noteworthy, I apply explanation and justification to my view of morals and ethics. For clarity, explanation answers “how” or “why” something happened (i.e., causal/descriptive), as this form of reasoning focuses on facts and context.

Description of this sort isn’t the kind of cognitive content that inherently causes self-disturbance. Alternatively, justification answers “should it have happened” or “was it right,” as this form focuses on moral or logical reasons to defend an action or belief as good or valid.

This is a matter of prescription. I argue that this description versus prescription distinction is precisely what creates a moral constructivist proposition. When conducting REBT practice, comprehension about each form of constructivism addressed herein may benefit the practitioner.

Postmodernism –

Throughout my blog, I’ve expressed disapproval of many postmodern perspectives. This is because a lot of these views conform to the delusional outlook of philosophical constructivists who deny that there’s such a thing as objective reality. For context, one source states:

Postmodernism encompasses a variety of artistic, cultural, and philosophical movements. It emerged in the mid-20th century as a skeptical response to modernism, emphasizing the instability of meaning, rejection of universal truths, and critique of grand narratives.

While its definition varies across disciplines, it commonly involves skepticism toward established norms, blending of styles, and attention to the socially constructed nature of knowledge and reality. […]

In philosophy, education, history, politics, and many other fields, it encourages critical re-examination of established institutions and social norms, embracing diversity, and breaking down disciplinary boundaries.

Although I didn’t encounter many postmodern thinkers when undergoing graduate studies for counseling, back when I first learned of and devoted my academic focus on REBT, my graduate experience for social work was rife with postmodernist thinkers, about which one source states:

Critiques of postmodernism frequently allege that its scholars promote obscurantism, are hostile to objective truth, and encourage relativism in culture, morality, and knowledge to an extent that is epistemically and ethically crippling.

Criticism of more artistic postmodern movements in the arts have included objections to a departure from beauty, lack of coherence or comprehensibility, deviating from clear structure and a consistent use of dark and negative themes.

A number of my social work academic peers dressed in drab attire, defied social norms (e.g., women growing out armpit hair), deliberately presented information in an imprecise manner, and claimed that valuations in an objective domain were relative to the perspective of an observer.

To use an archaic term, my peers behaved in a crazy manner! Favorably, I was able to tolerate and accept that two-year unpleasant experience. This was accomplished by continuing focus of my academic studies on REBT.

In summary, constructivism views shared ideas, normativity standards, and social interactions as constructing reality and identities. Also, it focuses on how meaning and experience are built through one’s verbal and cognitive framing of a matter (e.g., shooting at the range was fun).  

Poststructuralism deconstructs meanings, viewing language, power, and dialogue as inherently unsound and subject to critique. As well, it emphasizes power dynamics rather than merely considering shared meanings (e.g., whoever owns the gun range is an oppressive capitalist).

Constructivism builds structures of understanding, as poststructuralism dismantles them to reveal hidden assumptions and power. As both of these philosophical views are worthy of examination, REBT incorporates constructivism and postmodernism into its core theoretical framework.

Specific REBT References to Constructivism and Postmodernism

One obvious challenge to mental health care when using constructivist and postmodernist lenses through which problems are viewed is that these perspectives often view people in accordance to a structure of victimhood. Regarding victim mentality, one source states:

Victim mentality, victim complex or victimese is a psychological concept referring to a mindset in which a person, or group of people, tends to recognize or consider themselves a victim of the actions of others. The term is also used in reference to the tendency for blaming one’s misfortunes on somebody else’s misdeeds, which is also referred to as victimism.

While I often utilize a constructivist approach to REBT, I sparingly use a postmodernist lens. This is because the latter tends to support victimism. Regarding this approach, one mental health resource makes the following claim (page 108):

[N]o culture is homogeneous. It is always fractured at least by age, class, ethnicity, gender and sexuality. It has been within the contradictions between official and unofficial knowledge which are made possible by such fractures in society that alternative ‘deconstructive’ therapeutic practices have developed.

We see this, for example, in the activities of ‘deconstructive’ or ‘postmodern’ narrative or discursive therapists who explore the way the ‘problem’ has become storied into being and internalized by the client.

Practically any problem may be interpreted through the lens of deconstruction—assessing for who’s the oppressor and who’s the oppressed party. Temporarily, I once adopted this paradigm. Still, for REBT practitioners who value this postmodern approach, one source states (page 105):

[REBT] indicates how important irrational beliefs are in creating disturbances about disturbances. It stresses the acquired and innate tendency of people to insist, necessitize, and “musturbate,” and thereby create much of their emotional upsets. It clearly takes the constructivist position that people have the ability to look at their own disturbed thinking, feeling, and behaving, and to proactively change them.

It states that disturbed people can make a profound philosophical change, and not merely alleviate their presenting symptoms but also prevent their acquiring new symptoms. It emphasizes cognitive methods of therapy, but also includes eclectic emotive and behavioral techniques, and makes REBT truly integrative.

It anticipates a postmodern approach to psychotherapy by showing that disturbance is largely accompanied by absolutistic, dogmatic, rigid, necessitizing goals and attitudes, and that emotional health involves flexibility, seeking alternatives, and unperfectionistic wishing rather than demanding. It stresses the importance of treating each disturbed person individually in accordance with his or her leanings and proclivities.

Given this helpful clarification, both constructivist and postmodernist approaches to REBT forego self-victimization. Rather, the competent personal or professional practitioner of REBT learns to un-disturb irrespective of unpleasant events to which an individual is exposed.

This is why one source states, “REBT is simple—and has its complications. It is constructivist and postmodern—and also (hopefully) scientific, practical, and efficient” (page 42). Still, a separate source, regarding postmodern relativism—with which I disagree, states (page 12):

REBT theory espouses postmodern relativism which is antithetical to rigid and extreme views and holds that, as far as we currently know, there is no absolute way of determining reality. This philosophy stops short at saying that there is absolutely no absolute way of determining reality for to do so would violate the central position of postmodernism.

Thus, while REBT puts forward certain criteria to differentiate irrational beliefs from rational beliefs, it holds that these criteria are relative rather than absolute and would be against any such absolute criteria.

Alas, not all REBT developers, theorists, or practitioners agree on the theoretical perspectives which necessitate competent practice of this modality. Nevertheless, another source provides a bit more clarity from my subjective point of divergence concerning the last source (page 36):

REBT theory is based on a theoretical proposition that I have called ‘postmodern relativism’. This proposition argues that phenomena cannot at present be logically or empirically regarded in fixed and unchanging ways and that there, is in all probability (rather than definitely), no absolute way of determining reality.

Thus, while REBT puts forward certain criteria to differentiate what are currently known as irrational (i.e. rigid and extreme) beliefs from (i.e. flexible and non-extreme) beliefs, it holds that these criteria are relative rather than absolute.

As I maintain that there’s no convincing evidence to support the notion of objective morality, I cede the aforementioned point of clarification. Also, I maintain that if I were to hypothetically shoot someone in the hand with a pistol, that individual would acknowledge objective reality.

Regarding whether or not my hypothetical behavior would be considered objectively moral, that’s another matter altogether. As demonstrated by my disagreement with other REBT practitioners herein, even Ellis expressed that others disagreed with him (page 22):

Well, it first was Rational Therapy because I wanted to emphasize how unique it was. Because Adlerian therapy is somewhat the same, but it didn’t specifically get your irrational beliefs and show you how to dispute them. So it’s the only one, and I modeled it after philosophy and philosophers are mainly cognitive.

So it could have been called cognitive, but I called it rational, which was probably a poor choice because today, with postmodernism, nothing is really completely rational or irrational. So that was a poor choice.

Then people said, “But you have no feeling in this,” which we did, especially since we have shame-attacking exercises and strong forceful techniques. So Bob Hopper and I, in 1961—he was the first convert to it, the therapist—changed it to Rational Emotive. And for years, then Ray Corsini got after me [saying] “but it’s really Rational Emotive Behavioral,” and this was 10 years later, 1970.

But I said, “It’s so popular and everybody knows it that I don’t want to do that.” But then he finally convinced me that it always has been rational, emotive and behavioral. So I capitulated and some of the people of our own people still don’t like it, but it really is and always has been rational, cognitive and emotive, evocative, dramatic and behavioral. So that’s what it is.

Even to this day, REBT continues to be refined in its implementation by different practitioners. This is why I often express within my blog “my approach to REBT.” In any event, this psychotherapeutic modality incorporates both constructivism and postmodernism in its theory.

Although I favor the constructivist approach while rarely (if ever) using a postmodern frame, I overall value what this model of rational living has facilitated in both my personal and professional life. In fact, I’ve benefited (only slightly) more from REBT than the shooting range!

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/

APA Dictionary of Psychology. (2018, April 19). Behaviorism. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/behaviorism

APA PsycNet. (n.d.). Rational-emotive therapy. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1989-97169-006

Bernard, M. E. and Dryden, W. (2019). Advances in REBT: Theory, practice, research, measurement, prevention and promotion. Springer. Retrieved from https://dokumen.pub/qdownload/advances-in-rebt-theory-practice-research-measurement-prevention-and-promotion-9783319931180-3319931180.html

Comins, J. (2011, June 13). Archiving Albert Ellis: Psychologist and creator of rational emotive behavior therapy. Columbia University Libraries. Retrieved from https://blogs.library.columbia.edu/archivingalbertellis/2011/06/13/robert-a-harper/

Dryden, W. (2009). Skills in rational emotive behaviour counseling & psychotherapy. SAGE Publications Ltd. Retrieved from https://www.pdfdrive.com/skills-in-rational-emotive-behaviour-counselling-psychotherapy-d176204400.html

Ellis, A. and Blau, S. (1998). The Albert Ellis Reader: A guide to well-being using rational emotive behavior therapy. Carol Publishing Group. Retrieved from https://dokumen.pub/qdownload/the-albert-ellis-reader.html

Ellis, A. and Harper, R. A. (2016). How to stop destroying your relationships: A guide to enjoyable dating, mating, and relating. Kensington Publishing Corp. Retrieved from https://www.pdfdrive.com/how-to-stop-destroying-your-relationships-d195171488.html

Feltham, C. (1999). Controversies in psychotherapy and counselling. SAGE Publications. Retrieved from https://www.pdfdrive.com/controversies-in-psychotherapy-and-counselling-d51056396.html

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. (2025, August 26). A preventative approach to self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-preventative-approach-to-self-disturbance

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. (2025, October 19). Adhering to invisible scripts. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/adhering-to-invisible-scripts

Hollings, D. (2025, August 26). An abortive approach to self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/an-abortive-approach-to-self-disturbance

Hollings, D. (2024, November 15). Assumptions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/assumptions

Hollings, D. (2024, August 7). Awfulizing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/awfulizing

Hollings, D. (2023, May 11). Catering to DEIA. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/catering-to-deia

Hollings, D. (2022, May 17). Circle of concern. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/circle-of-concern

Hollings, D. (2024, May 19). Cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/cognitive-behavior-therapy-cbt

Hollings, D. (2024, October 29). Cognitive continuum. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/cognitive-continuum

Hollings, D. (2024, July 11). Concern and no concern. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/concern-and-no-concern

Hollings, D. (2023, April 22). Control. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/control

Hollings, D. (2025, October 3). Control and influence: A soft center and coated in a candy shell. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/control-and-influence-a-soft-center-and-coated-in-a-candy-shell

Hollings, D. (2024, October 27). Correlation does not imply causation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/correlation-does-not-imply-causation

Hollings, D. (2024, September 14). Crazy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/crazy

Hollings, D. (2024, January 7). Delusion. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/delusion

Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness

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. (2025, May 16). Eff the logic. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/eff-the-logic

Hollings, D. (2022, December 26). Elimination of harmful language. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/elimination-of-harmful-language

Hollings, D. (2025, December 4). Empirical dispute. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/empirical-dispute

Hollings, D. (2025, October 21). Epicureanism and hedonism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/epicureanism-and-hedonism

Hollings, D. (2024, April 21). Existentialism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/existentialism

Hollings, D. (2025, December 13). Explanation and justification. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/explanation-and-justification

Hollings, D. (2025, March 9). Factual and counterfactual beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/factual-and-counterfactual-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2024, May 11). Fallible human being. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fallible-human-being

Hollings, D. (2024, May 17). Feeling better vs. getting better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/feeling-better-vs-getting-better-1

Hollings, D. (2025, March 5). Five major characteristics of four major irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/five-major-characteristics-of-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. (2024, April 13). Goals. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/goals

Hollings, D. (2024, August 9). Healthy concern. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/healthy-concern

Hollings, D. (2024, February 24). High frustration tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/high-frustration-tolerance

Hollings, D. (2023, July 13). Holes in the proposal. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/holes-in-the-proposal

Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/

Hollings, D. (2024, October 21). Impermanence and uncertainty. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/impermanence-and-uncertainty

Hollings, D. (2025, September 21). Impugning motive: Swallowing a toad. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/impugning-motive-swallowing-a-toad

Hollings, D. (2024, January 2). Interests and goals. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/interests-and-goals

Hollings, D. (2024, September 26). Interpreted reality. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/interpreted-reality

Hollings, D. (2025, April 23). Judgment. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/judgment

Hollings, D. (2025, March 4). Justification. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/justification

Hollings, D. (2025, October 13). Knowledge, wisdom, understanding. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/knowledge-wisdom-understanding

Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching

Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Lived experience. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/lived-experience

Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason

Hollings, D. (2025, November 25). Logos and natural order. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logos-and-natural-order

Hollings, D. (2022, December 2). Low frustration tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/low-frustration-tolerance

Hollings, D. (2024, March 31). M-m-m-musturbation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/m-m-m-musturbation

Hollings, D. (2022, June 23). Meaningful purpose. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/meaningful-purpose

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. (2025, November 16). Mental health, mental illness, and mental disorder. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/mental-health-mental-illness-and-mental-disorder

Hollings, D. (2024, October 5). Mistaking deductive validity for truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/mistaking-deductive-validity-for-truth

Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-and-ethics

Hollings, D. (2024, September 27). My attitude. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/my-attitude

Hollings, D. (2025, August 2). My philosophy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/my-philosophy

Hollings, D. (2024, July 7). Non-dogmatic preferences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/non-dogmatic-preferences

Hollings, D. (2025, November 3). Normativity standard. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/normativity-standard

Hollings, D. (2024, March 13). Objective morality. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/objective-morality

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. (2025, September 15). One of life’s little inconveniences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/one-of-life-s-little-inconveniences

Hollings, D. (2024, November 18). Opinions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/opinions

Hollings, D. (2025, April 9). Perception, action, and will. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/perception-action-and-will

Hollings, D. (2025, September 19). Power. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/power

Hollings, D. (2024, May 26). Principles. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/principles

Hollings, D. (2023, November 23). Problems. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/problems

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. (2025, August 13). Rational versus irrational thoughts and beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-versus-irrational-thoughts-and-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2024, July 18). REBT flexibility. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rebt-flexibility

Hollings, D. (2024, February 22). Relax your mind, let your conscious be free. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/relax-your-mind-let-your-conscious-be-free

Hollings, D. (2024, January 20). Reliability vs. validity. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/reliability-vs-validity

Hollings, D. (2023, February 17). Revisiting the circle of control. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/revisiting-the-circle-of-control

Hollings, D. (2024, January 4). Rigid vs. rigorous. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rigid-vs-rigorous

Hollings, D. (2024, April 21). Sensation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/sensation

Hollings, D. (2022, September 8). Shame attacking. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/shame-attacking

Hollings, D. (2023, December 13). Social construct. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/social-construct

Hollings, D. (2024, April 21). Stoicism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/stoicism

Hollings, D. (2025, October 27). Suicide and suicide attempts: Jumping out the window. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/suicide-and-suicide-attempts-jumping-out-the-window

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. (2025, October 22). The construct. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-construct

Hollings, D. (2023, August 6). The science. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-science

Hollings, D. (2025, November 6). The senses and self-defense. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-senses-and-self-defense

Hollings, D. (2025, January 16). The words we use matter. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-words-we-use-matter

Hollings, D. (2023, February 16). Tna. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/__tna

Hollings, D. (2025, February 28). To try is my goal. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/to-try-is-my-goal

Hollings, D. (2024, June 14). Tolerance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/tolerance

Hollings, D. (2025, December 23). Too bad. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/too-bad

Hollings, D. (2024, November 1). Useful tools. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/useful-tools

Hollings, D. (2025, February 9). Value. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/value

Hollings, D. (2024, November 24). Values. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/values

Hollings, D. (2022, November 25). Victimhood. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/victimhood

Hollings, D. (2024, September 29). Well, well, well. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/well-well-well

Hollings, D. (2025, April 12). What’s the big idea? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/what-s-the-big-idea

Hollings, D. (2024, April 17). Wishes, dreams, and goals. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/wishes-dreams-and-goals

Miller, A. (2012). Albert Ellis on REBT with Albert Ellis, PhD. Psychotherapy.net. Retrieved from https://www.psychotherapy.net/data/uploads/51102f7bd269e.pdf

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Constructivism. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Constructivism (philosophy of education). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(philosophy_of_education)

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Constructivism (philosophy of science). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(philosophy_of_science)

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Criticism of postmodernism. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_postmodernism

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Epistemology. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Individual psychology. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_psychology#Classical_Adlerian_psychologists

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Moral constructivism. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_constructivism

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Moral nihilism. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism#The_scope_question

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Moral relativism. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Non-cognitivism. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Obscurantism. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantism

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Postmodernism. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Psychology of learning. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_learning#Behaviorism

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Relativism. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Shooting range. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_range

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Stephen Covey. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Covey

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Subjectivity and objectivity (philosophy). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity_and_objectivity_(philosophy)#Objectivism

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Victim mentality. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_mentality