Predictability of Logic

[DISCLAIMER]

When providing psychoeducational lessons on Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), I find it helpful to use syllogisms when discussing thoughts and beliefs which are irrational (not in accordance with both logic and reason). As an example, consider the following proposition:

Form (modus ponens) –

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

Example –

Premise 1: If you place your hand on a hot stovetop, then you’ll burn your hand.

Premise 2: You place your hand on a hot stovetop.

Conclusion: Therefore, you’ll burn your hand.

Would you disagree with this conclusion? Simply stated, this logical and reasonable proposition is predictable (behaving in a way that is expected). Moreover, it’s a rational statement.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that an outcome is guaranteed. Rather, it simply suggests that the consequences of touching a hot stovetop could lead to a burn. Additionally, when using psychoeducational lessons on REBT, I find it useful to define terms.

“Logic” is merely an interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable. “Reason” is simply a statement offered in explanation or justification.

Bear in mind that the premises (either of the first two propositions of a syllogism from which the conclusion is drawn) in an argument, proposition, or belief will always lead to the conclusion. This is the case even when the premises aren’t true. For example, consider the following:

Form (modus ponens) –

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

Example –

If you place your hand on a hot stovetop, then your hand will freeze. You place your hand on a hot stovetop. Therefore, your hand will freeze.

Of course a hot stovetop won’t cause one’s hand to freeze. Ergo, in order to be considered rational an argument, proposition, or belief empirically must remain in accordance with both logic and reason.

Both the first and second syllogistic examples used herein follow logical form. However, do you consider the premises of both examples to be true statements? More specifically, can you justify the proposal that a hot stovetop would cause one’s hand to freeze?

Has your hand ever frozen when placed on a hot stovetop? Presuming you don’t use delusional beliefs (a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary), then I suspect not.

Here, “psychotic” merely infers the exhibition of or that which suggests mental or emotional unsoundness or instability. In this blogpost, using logic, I’m making a case for rational thought and beliefs. Now, allow me to provide reason for doing so.

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 (a proposal taken as granted or true) and not the occurrence itself that causes an unpleasant Consequence.

For instance, consider the term “hotheaded” as meaning that one is easily angered. The ABC model demonstrates that rather than an Action-Consequence connection, it’s one’s own Belief-Consequence (B-C) connection that results in a hotheaded outcome.

As an example, suppose that someone insults you online (Action) and you unfavorably Believe, “People shouldn’t be rude and it’s awful when worthless people insult me, because I can’t stand being disrespected!” Your unhelpful conclusion then causes anger (Consequence).

Is the self-narrative used for this example in accordance with both logic and reason? Perhaps it may be useful to dismantle the belief structure to illustrate how the predictability of logic works, so consider the following proposition:

Form (hypothetical) –

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

Example –

Premise 1: If worthless people insult me, then it’s an awful experience that shouldn’t happen.

Premise 2: If it’s an awful experience that shouldn’t happen, then I can’t stand it!

Conclusion: Therefore, if worthless people insult me, then I can’t stand it!

Do you agree that you can tolerate and accept people, who are merely fallible human beings and not worthless, when they behave poorly or in a manner that you find unpleasant when online? Understand that I’m not asking if you like or love when this occurs. Let’s not be absurd.

Rather, I’m merely asking if you can endure when people behave in undesirable ways. If you answer in the affirmative, then the predictability of logic used in the final syllogism isn’t reasonable. Therefore, the hypothetical belief used in the last example is irrational.

If you’re able to grasp this psychoeducational lesson on B-C predictability of logic, then you’re likely an appropriate candidate for the practice of REBT and not self-disturbingly hotheaded. Would you like to know more about rational living? If so, I look forward to hearing from you.

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

Photo credit, fair use

References:

Freepik. (n.d.). Concept of person suffering from cybersickness and technology addiction [Image]. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-ai-image/concept-person-suffering-from-cybersickness-technology-addiction_204411964.htm

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. (2025, January 28). Consequence-free environment. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/consequence-free-environment

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

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, 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, 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. (2025, March 9). Factual and counterfactual beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/factual-and-counterfactual-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, 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. (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. (2025, March 16). Hypothetical syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/hypothetical-syllogism

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

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. (2025, March 16). Modus ponens. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/modus-ponens

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

Hollings, D. (2023, March 20). Practice. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/practice

Hollings, D. (2024, January 1). Psychoeducation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychoeducation

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. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance

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

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