Does Anybody Listen When You Cry?

Deric Hollings
4 hours ago
9 min read

When providing psychoeducational lessons on Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), I teach people about the ABC model of self-disturbance (how people upset themselves through use of irrational beliefs). Now, I’ll address a finer point of this psychotherapeutic model of wellness.

For context, REBT uses the ABC model to illustrate how 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. That negative outcome is disturbance.

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

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.

An absolute must narrative is, “You absolutely must do as I say!” A conditional should narrative is, “Either you should do as I say, or you should be punished!” Significantly, in REBT literature, demandingness of this sort is said to function as a primary appraisal mechanism of disturbance.

Global evaluations (i.e., self-downing, other-downing, and life-downing), low frustration tolerance (also known as frustration intolerance), and awfulizing (e.g., terrible, horrible, etc.) function as secondary appraisal mechanisms. Together, GLAD will make you sad or mad, etc.

Noteworthy, with my approach to care for mental, emotional, and behavioral health (collectively “mental health”), I invite people to consider mental scripts which are rational (in accordance with both logic and reason) – especially regarding events which correlate with strong feelings.

Logic is the interrelation or sequence of facts when seen as inevitable or predictable, and reason is a statement offered in explanation or justification. As such, I often use syllogisms (deductive schemes of formal argument consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion).

Importantly, a syllogistic statement, proposition, or belief may be logical while simultaneously unreasonable. In this case, even though the logic consequentially follows (the conclusion is a necessary and inevitable result of previous facts or premises), it’s considered irrational.

While still functioning as prescriptive rather than descriptive, flexible use of recommendatory, preferential, ideal, empirical, moral and ethical, and legal ought beliefs won’t inevitably cause disturbance, as they may align with distress. Thus, rigidity versus flexibility makes a difference.

As well, a rigid form of irrational belief results in self-disturbance (e.g., rage) while a flexible form of rational belief results in self-distress (e.g., righteous indignation). Ergo, what one thinks, feels (i.e., emotions and sensations), and behaves reveals what type of beliefs are being used.

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.

Remarkably, natural forms of distress are tolerable (e.g., mild anxiousness, sorrow, frustration, annoyance, disappointment, etc.). Even though unnatural forms of disturbance are also tolerable (e.g., enragement), my approach to REBT seeks the outcome which is more likely to be endured.

Now, I offer a finer point of understanding in regard to the ABC model. In particular, I invite you to consider use of a disjunctive syllogism—a conditional form (rational or irrational) that uses a disjunction with two alternatives (disjuncts), eliminating one, and forcing the conclusion.

Form –

Either p, or q; not p; therefore, q.

Example –

Major premise: Either you’ll practice REBT, or you’ll continue self-distressing or self-disturbing.

Minor premise: You won’t practice REBT.

Conclusion: Therefore, you’ll continue self-distressing or self-disturbing.

Presuming you comprehend how disjunction impacts beliefs, I now invite you to consider that when listening to an electronic dance music (EDM) DJ set by Aneya Rose, I heard her spin the track “Empty Skies” (2026) by Korolova and Switch Disco. For context, the lyrics state: