An Arbitrary Principle

[DISCLAIMER]

When providing psychoeducational lessons on Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), a form of Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT), I teach people about two main tools regarding this psychotherapeutic modality: the ABC model and unconditional acceptance (UA).

First, the ABC model illustrates how when Actions occur and people maintain irrational Beliefs about these events, it’s their unhelpful assumptions – not the actual occurrences – which cause unpleasant cognitive, emotive, sensory, and behavioral Consequences, called “self-disturbance.”

When discussing the matter of irrational beliefs, I invite people to understand what is and isn’t deemed rational. Simply stated, that which is rational remains in accordance with both logic and reason. Perhaps it may be useful to define the terms which comprise this form of belief.

“Logic” is a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration. It also addresses the interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable.

In common parlance, a principle is merely a comprehensive and fundamental assumption. Still, according to one source, “A principle may relate to a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of beliefs or behavior or a chain of reasoning.”

“Reason” is a statement offered in explanation or justification. In simple terms, it’s the thing that makes a fact intelligible. Unlike what occurs concerning limited time in my sessions with clients, when teaching people about rational thinking through use of my blog, I often use syllogisms.

Generally, a syllogism is comprised of a major premise, a minor premise, and a resulting conclusion. For the sake of argument and understanding, it’s inferred that both premises which lead to a conclusion are presumed to be true.

Bear in mind that the premises in an argument, proposition, or belief of this form will always lead to the conclusion. This is the case even when the premises aren’t actually true.

Equally, in order to be considered rational, the argument, proposition, or belief empirically must remain in accordance with both logic and reason. Otherwise, the proposed syllogism may simply follow logical form while not remaining in accord with reason. As an example:

Form (modus ponens) –

If it is true that p, then it is also true that q; p; therefore, q.

Broken down into its specific premises, this form of syllogism is as follows:

Premise 1: If it is true that p, then it is also true that q.

Premise 2: It is true that p.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is also true that q.

A simpler form of writing this type of syllogism is as follows:

If p, then q; p; therefore, q.

Before demonstrating a sample of a modus ponens syllogism, I’ll briefly provide context to the illustrative example I’ve chosen to use herein. According to one source:

While you might not personally consider your average 18-year-old a full-fledged adult, 18 is a pretty magic number in the U.S. [United States]. It’s the age when you can vote, go to war, work full-time, and move out of your parents’ house. Why is this the case? While you might think there’s some sort of biological or traditional explanation, that’s not the case.

The 26th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 1, 1971, lowering the voting age for all U.S. citizens to 18 years of age. Previously, that age was 21-years-old. “Old enough to fight, old enough to vote” was the slogan used at the time. Thus, a person is an adult at age 18.

Syllogistic example –

If I’m old enough to be conscripted to fight and die in a war on behalf of the U.S., then I preferably should be able to cast a vote as to whether or not my preferred presidential candidate is in favor of war.

I’m old enough to be conscripted to fight and die in a war on behalf of the U.S.

Therefore, I preferably should be able to cast a vote as to whether or not my preferred presidential candidate is in favor of war.

This modus ponens syllogism follows logical form. As well, even though it uses a preferential should belief—which is flexible in nature—the U.S. Constitution was amended in support of 18-year-olds being recognized as adults. Thus, the syllogistic proposal is also reasonable.

Still, a preference-based belief is arbitrary (based on or determined by individual preference or convenience, rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature). Per one source, when used legally, “arbitrary” means based on individual discretion rather than a fair application of the law.

Noteworthy, one source states that human brain development isn’t complete until near the age of 25 years, specifically regarding development of the prefrontal cortex. That’s the area of the brain associated with higher-order cognitive functions, such as risk processing.

Thus, it’s understandable how people self-disturb with Belief-Consequence (B-C) connections related to the ABC model when using arbitrary beliefs. Remember, REBT theory maintains that there aren’t Action-Consequence (A-C) connections which result in self-disturbance.

In particular, there are four predominate irrational beliefs which people often use: global evaluations, low frustration tolerance, awfulizing, and demandingness. When teaching about these unproductive beliefs, I think of the acronym GLAD, of which demands are mostly used.

It’s worth noting that the two forms of should, must, and ought-type demands with which people most often self-disturb are associated with use of absolutistic and conditional should beliefs. Generally speaking, these serve as rigid commands used toward oneself, others, and life.

Although still serving as a form of prescription rather than description, flexible use of preferential, recommendatory, ideal, empirical, moral and ethical, and legal should beliefs doesn’t necessarily cause self-upset. Here, rigidity versus flexibility makes a difference.

In my syllogistic example, I illustrated a form of preferential should belief. Now, allow me to demonstrate use of an absolutistic should belief that serves as a self-disturbing arbitrary principle. Before doing so, some context is necessary. According to one source:

Back in 2021, [rapper] Bhad Bhabie turned 18 — and decided to celebrate by joining OnlyFans just a few days after her birthday (as one does). As it turns out, slightly weird men were waiting, and she profited immensely from their creepy energies.

She now revealed in an Instagram story just how much she earned in the months following, with her earnings between April 2021 and November 2021 being around $38 million before taxes.

Given that the author of this source chose to label “men” as “weird” and “creepy,” one presumes that an absolutistic should belief underlies this individual’s sentiment. In specific, this sort of syllogistic moral and ethical proposition can cause self-disturbance.

A moral is a person’s standard of behavior or belief concerning what is and isn’t acceptable for the individual and other people. As such, morals generally 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 one pledges to live.

For the sake of illustration, suppose that the author of the aforementioned source observed that men paid for cybersex services regarding Bhad Bhabie (Action). The author then hypothetically used a GLAD narrative with which she self-disturbed, as indicated by the acronym’s letters:

“Weird and creepy [G] men, who I can’t stand [L] when they engage in terrible [A] cybersex behavior, absolutely shouldn’t [D] objectify 18-year-olds! Despite being considered adults in the U.S., people who are 18 don’t even have fully developed brains,” she ostensibly Believed.

With that GLAD philosophy of life, the author then experienced ruminating thoughts (cognitive), anger (emotive), and tingling in her extremities (sensory), as she wrote and posted an article condemning “men” (apparently the entire cohort) as “weird” and “creepy” (Consequence).

Consider that there was no A-C connection at play. For instance, it isn’t as though mere observation of men behaving in one way or another (Action) actually caused the author’s extremities to tingle (Consequence). That would be illogical and unreasonable (irrational).

Rather, a B-C connection is how this form of hypothetical self-disturbance occurred. Addressing how people upset themselves with unhelpful attitudes, the ABC model incorporates Disputation of unproductive assumptions in order to explore Effective new beliefs.

Without demonstrating an entire dialogue of how unhelpful assumptions are challenged when using REBT, suppose that I saw the author for mental, emotional, and behavioral health services. During our hypothetical session, I unrelentingly Disputed her GLAD narrative.

Then, she adapted an Effective new belief by concluding, “Although the men who engage in cybersex services with newly-turned 18-year-olds preferably shouldn’t do so, it isn’t as though I’m the moral arbiter of the universe. Besides, consenting adults may do as they please.”

The second main tool of REBT is UA, as a means to relieve 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. Rather than using rigid self-narratives one can instead consider flexible UA attitudes. 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.

Suppose that when hypothetically seeing the author of the aforementioned source, she demonstrated effective use of UA. This can occur as either a preventative or abortive practice in regard to self-disturbance (i.e., with or without practice of the ABC model).

Imagine that the author helpfully concluded, “I have no control over the behavior of others [USA], although I may have some influence [UOA]. Rather than disturbing myself, I’ll simply accept that in an imperfect world people will behave in ways which I don’t prefer [ULA].”

Given the two main tools of REBT which I’ve addressed herein, I now invite you to contemplate what beliefs are being used to self-disturb – and how individuals may un-disturb themselves – in regard to rapper Lil Tay. According to one source:

Controversial star Lil Tay has prompted fierce backlash after revealing her staggering OnlyFans earnings with her 5.7 million Instagram followers - just hours after turning 18.

The controversial influencer wasted no time launching an OnlyFans account - dropping the link just after midnight on her landmark birthday.

She claimed the content was taken at exactly 12.01am, calling it ‘freshly 18’ content and adding in her bio: ‘Please don’t tell my mom.’

Lil Tay promised fans glimpses of her ‘birthday suits’ and, within just two hours of joining the adult content platform, she had 100,000 subscribers.

By the third hour, she had raked in over $1 million, posting a screenshot of her earnings with the caption: ‘We broke the f**k out of that OnlyFans record.’

But her announcement immediately prompted disgusted followers to brand the news as ‘deranged’ and slammed subscribers.

‘You’ve been watching her since she was a child, and the second she turns 18, you’re throwing money at her?’ one user wrote.

Another added, ‘Whoever is paying y’all some f**kin creeps and weirdos.’

“Creeps” and “weirdos” sounds familiar, doesn’t it? It’s almost as though these ad hominem attacks are stand-in arguments when people otherwise have no rational propositions to offer. Given your new familiarity with REBT tools, can you identity an arbitrary principle at play?

Intertwined with sentiment from the second source is a self-disturbing, absolutistic should belief. Using the inference of a modus ponens syllogism, persons in the article essentially believe, “If people are attracted to newly-18-year-olds, then these individuals shouldn’t be so ‘deranged.”

For context, the American Psychological Association defines derangement as “disturbance in the regular order or normal functioning of something” and that which is “loosely, mental illness or mental disturbance.” In other words, being “deranged” is akin to being insane or crazy.

Being the well-informed reader you are at this point in the blogpost, you likely comprehend that while although arbitrary; the principle of 18-years-olds enjoying most rights, freedoms, liberties, and privileges of other adults in the U.S. is the legal norm. Thus, derangement isn’t applicable.

Still, I suspect that the distorted inferences used by people in the second source relate to the irrational notion that people who’ve apparently subscribed to Lil Tay’s OnlyFans profile are allegedly pedophiles. Addressing this topic in a post entitled The Terms We Use Matter, I stated:

Pedophilia (alternatively spelled paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children […] psychiatric diagnostic criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13 […]

Hebephilia is the strong, persistent sexual interest by adults in pubescent children who are in early adolescence, typically ages 11–14 […] It differs from pedophilia (the primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children), and from ephebophilia (the primary sexual interest in later adolescents, typically ages 15–18).

There’s a case to be made of people who were sexually attracted to Lil Tay when reportedly she “first came to prominence in early 2018 at the age of ten (while claiming to be nine years old),” having awaited her coming of age, as relating to pedophiles, hebephiles, and/or ephebophiles.

However, having waited until Lil Tay became of legal age to function as an adult in order to subscribe to her presumed cybersex content isn’t illegal. Is it morally or ethically questionable? Sure. Dramatic age differences in intimate partner relationships are open to questioning.

For instance, when I was assigned to the Marine Security Guard detachment in Rio de Janeiro, Brasil (1999-2000), I was approximately 23-years-old at the time. One of the women with whom I was sexually involved was 40-years-old. That’s a 17-year age gap.

People were welcome to have questioned our intimate partner relationship. All the same, irrationally believing that such relationships shouldn’t, mustn’t, or oughtn’t to exist is a matter of arbitrary principle. Adding to the information you’ve learned thus far, I’ll explain what I mean.

I recently had a riveting discussion with my friends’ newly-18-year-old daughter, to whom I’ll refer as “Ariadne.” Her self-professed arbitrary principle is that people three years or older than someone who is 18 shouldn’t engage in romantic relationships with the younger individual.

Surprisingly, this was Ariadne’s relaxed standard, as she apparently used to maintain that “if the grades don’t touch, neither should you,” suggesting that dating someone from a different grade level, especially when their grade levels don’t directly neighbor each other, is ill-advised.

Herein, I won’t make the argument in support of someone 18 or older engaging in intimate, romantic, or sexual contact with someone who’s in elementary, middle, or high school—regardless of age. The conversation with Ariadne related to 18-year-olds who’ve graduated.

Rather than disputing her beliefs about this matter by using my Rio personal anecdote, I discussed a woman (“Cafécita”) I met online when I was 36-years-old and she was 19. At first, Cafécita and I engaged in a parasocial friendship. Eventually, she expressed romantic interest.

Discussing this matter with Ariadne, my friends’ daughter expressed discontent. If memory serves, her GLAD-driven B-C connection resulted in the emotion of disgust and recoiling behavior. I then used the Cafécita personal anecdote to challenge Ariadne’s assumptions.

Ultimately, she rigidly insisted upon an arbitrary principle. Apparently, under no circumstances whatsoever should a 17-year age gap occur in an intimate partner relationship with one member who’s 18. When then asked about my Rio relationship, Ariadne replied, “Oh, that’s okay.”

When further pressed on what distinction she utilized, Ariadne expressed that 18-year-olds allegedly have no cognitive, emotive, or behavioral capacity to comprehend the depths of a romantic relationship with someone three-years or older than them. This is an arbitrary principle.

When I inquired about a 25-year-old whose brain development is likely complete engaging in an intimate relationship with someone who’s 42, Ariadne responded, “There’s no problem with that.” When I then incrementally lowered the age below 25, Ariadne was having none of that!

So, too, is how matters unfold when disputing unaccommodating beliefs regarding the clients with whom I work. Some people absolutely refuse to relent on their closely held arbitrary principles. As such, their self-disturbed B-C connections cause reactions, such as disgust.

Ultimately, I remain grateful to have experienced the intimate partner relationship in Rio. Also, I’m thankful for my experience with Cafécita—the last woman with whom I was in love (who’s hopefully the very last woman with whom I’ll be in love)—as I’ve gone my own way.

Likewise, I appreciate discussions, such as that in which I recently engaged with Ariadne. Moreover, I’m glad to have ample training material to help me routinely practice REBT, such as the matters addressed regarding Bhad Bhabie and Lil Tay.

Each of these elements provides me with improved knowledge, wisdom, and understanding about how to practice rational living. With this comprehension, I’m better able to serve the clients with whom I work and the people who dare to read my poorly written blogposts.

If you’re looking for a provider who tries to work to help you understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.

As the world’s foremost hip hop-influenced REBT psychotherapist, I’m pleased to try to help people with an assortment of issues 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:

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

Arain, M., Haque, M., Johal, L., Mathur, P., Nel, W., Rais, A., Sandhu, R., and Sharma, S. (2013, April 3). Maturation of the adolescent brain. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3621648/

Hollings, D. (2024, May 22). A philosophical approach to mental health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-philosophical-approach-to-mental-health

Hollings, D. (2024, May 24). A scientific approach to mental health. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/a-scientific-approach-to-mental-health

Hollings, D. (2024, July 9). Absolutistic should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/absolutistic-should-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2023, September 13). Acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/acceptance

Hollings, D. (2023, October 15). Ad hominem. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/ad-hominem

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. (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. (2024, July 9). Conditional should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/conditional-should-beliefs

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

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. (2023, September 4). Cybersex. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/cybersex

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. (2024, March 28). Distorted inferences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/distorted-inferences

Hollings, D. (2024, July 10). Empirical should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/empirical-should-beliefs

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

Hollings, D. (2024, September 22). Hermit life. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/hermit-life

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, July 10). Ideal should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/ideal-should-beliefs

Hollings, D. (2025, May 23). Inference chain. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/inference-chain

Hollings, D. (2024, May 10). Inferred meaning. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/inferred-meaning

Hollings, D. (2024, June 15). Innocente (falling in love). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/innocente-falling-in-love

Hollings, D. (2025, January 12). Insane in the membrane. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/insane-in-the-membrane

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

Hollings, D. (2022, November 10). Labeling. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/labeling

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

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

Hollings, D. (2024, June 20). Magical thinking. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/magical-thinking

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, March 16). Modus ponens. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/modus-ponens

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

Hollings, D. (2024, April 9). Moral arbiter. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/moral-arbiter

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, June 2). Nonadaptive behavior. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/nonadaptive-behavior

Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth

Hollings, D. (2025, May 3). Predictability of logic. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/predictability-of-logic

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, March 14). REBT and emotions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rebt-and-emotions

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 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, November 9). Same energy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/same-energy

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. (2024, May 19). Sufferance in the face of sloganeering. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/sufferance-in-the-face-of-sloganeering

Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism

Hollings, D. (2023, September 6). The absence of suffering. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-absence-of-suffering

Hollings, D. (2022, December 23). The A-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-a-c-connection

Hollings, D. (2022, December 25). The B-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-b-c-connection

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

Hollings, D. (2025, July 9). The terms we use matter. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-terms-we-use-matter

Hollings, D. (2024, February 6). This ride inevitably ends. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/this-ride-inevitably-ends

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. (2025, January 9). Traditional ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/traditional-abc-model

Hollings, D. (2024, October 20). Unconditional acceptance redux. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-acceptance-redux

Hollings, D. (2023, March 11). Unconditional life-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-life-acceptance

Hollings, D. (2023, February 25). Unconditional other-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-other-acceptance

Hollings, D. (2023, March 1). Unconditional self-acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-self-acceptance

Hollings, D. (2025, March 11). We live in an imperfect world. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/we-live-in-an-imperfect-world

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

Lane, L. (2023, November 9). Bhad Bhabie somehow raked in $38 million from ‘married’ men after joining OnlyFans on her 18th birthday. UPROXX. Retrieved from https://uproxx.com/music/bhad-bhabie-onlyfans-earnings/

Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Arbitrary. Cornell Law School. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/arbitrary

National WWII Museum, The. (2020, October 28). “Old enough to fight, old enough to vote”: The WWII roots of the 26th Amendment. Retrieved from https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/voting-age-26th-amendment

PBS. (n.d.). Why are 18 year olds considered adults? | Origin of everything. PBS & WGBH Educational Foundation. Retrieved from https://kcts9.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/18-considered-adults-origin-everything/18-considered-adults-origin-everything/

Saad, S. and Chiorando, M. (2025, August 4). Controversial star Lil Tay sparks backlash over her staggering OnlyFans earnings just hours after turning 18. Daily Mail. Retrieved from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-14968991/lil-tay-onlyfans-fan-backlash-reveals-earnings.html

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Bhad Bhabie. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhad_Bhabie

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

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Lil Tay. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lil_Tay

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

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Parasocial interaction. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasocial_interaction

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Prefrontal cortex. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefrontal_cortex

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

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

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ventromedial_prefrontal_cortex