Rational Versus Irrational Thoughts and Beliefs

[DISCLAIMER]

Photo credit, fair use

During my relatively brief stint as a DJ of electronic dance music (EDM), I mixed a track by Ferry Corsten and Tiësto (collectively forming trance project Gouryella). That song was called “Gouryella” (1999), and I received positive responses from those to whom I provided mix CDs.

Now, I imagine one of those CD recipients sitting to discuss the track with a robot that functions with artificial intelligence, artificial general intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, a large language model, a chatbot, etc. How would the person adequately relay fondness for the song?

Could the individual express herself in a manner that was understood by the robot, devoid of sentient emotion, bodily sensation, or human behavior? Perhaps the robot is programmed to use only simulated cognition which is rational (in accordance with both logic and reason).

“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.

“Reason” is a statement offered in explanation or justification. In simple terms, it’s the thing that makes a fact intelligible. Unlike what occurs with 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, supposition, thought, 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.

Example –

If a robot is programmed to rid the world of cancer, then the robot will kill everyone that has cancer. A robot is programmed to rid the world of cancer. Therefore, the robot will kill everyone that has cancer.

This syllogistic example follows logical form. However, I argue that from a human perspective it isn’t reasonable. This is because the inferred meaning related to ridding the world of cancer relates to the preservation of life. Thus, killing everyone that has cancer defeats the purpose.

Given this understanding about rational thinking, one may begin to comprehend the difficulty faced by one of my mix CD recipients sitting to discuss the significance of “Gouryella” with a robot. At some point, logic and reason reach a limitation when a preference is used.

Further contemplation of this matter raises an important point regarding my approach to Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT). When providing psychoeducational lessons about this psychotherapeutic model, I find it useful to differentiate between rational and irrational beliefs.

Already, I’ve discussed what comprises a rational or irrational argument, proposition, supposition, thought, or belief. Still, it may be worthwhile to distinguish between thoughts and beliefs.

A “thought” is an individual act or product of thinking. A “belief” is a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in a person or thing.

Whereas a thought is merely a fleeting idea, a belief is a thought that one strongly holds as true and that influences one’s perspective and behavior. Essentially, a belief is a thought that has been affirmed and integrated into one’s cognitive framework. It’s considered true, though not perfect.

When teaching principles of REBT, I invite the clients with whom I work to consider that thoughts are descriptive and beliefs are prescriptive. Comprehending the distinction between description and prescription is important for understanding the process of self-disturbance.

For context, 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.

Noteworthy, there are four major irrational beliefs people often use: global evaluations, low frustration tolerance, awfulizing, and demandingness. When contemplating these unproductive beliefs, think of the acronym GLAD. For instance, consider the following examples:

(G)lobal evaluations – “Life isn’t worth living if I have cancer.”

(L)ow frustration tolerance – “I can’t stand having cancer.”

(A)wfulizing – “It’s awful having cancer.”

(D)emandingness – “I mustn’t have cancer!”

In the context of upsetting oneself, an individual can go from use of GLAD beliefs to a mad, sad, or other unpleasant disposition rather quickly. Ergo, the process of upsetting oneself with these unfavorable beliefs is referred to as “self-disturbance” in REBT.

As an example, the person who received one of my mix CDs may think that “Gouryella” is a good song. Yet, this person’s friend believes, “Corsten and Tiësto are worthless humans [G] who I can’t stand [L], because “Gouryella” is terrible [A] and it mustn’t [D] be celebrated at all!”

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.

Merely thinking (describing) that “Gouryella” is a good or bad track is a matter of personal taste. This isn’t necessarily rational. However, using GLAD beliefs (prescribing) about the song is what causes self-disturbance. This is a matter of irrationality.

Because appreciation for “Gouryella” isn’t entirely rational, at some point in the descriptive chain (which may be based on logic), one’s reasoning for use of logical form tends to breakdown. For instance, consider the following imagined dialogue with a robot:

Mix CD recipient: I prefer “Gouryella” to most other EDM tracks released in 1999.

Robot: Why?

Mix CD recipient: I like how the tempo varies. I also appreciate how the track is paced. Oh, and I like how momentum builds to a crescendo, achieves a temporary break, holds the listener’s attention while subtly stating “Gouryella”, and then picks back up where the beat broke.

Robot: Why is that preferable?

Mix CD recipient: Because, while the beat is somewhat predictable – which is common for trance tracks – the song hold’s my attention nonetheless. I find it quite mesmerizing.

Robot: Don’t other trance tracks follow the same musical scheme?

Mix CD recipient: Well, yes. I guess.

Robot: Then what makes “Gouryella” any different from other trance tracks?

Mix CD recipient: It evokes pleasant memories of joyous and pleasurable moments on various dancefloors in the late ‘90s.

Robot: Yet, you state that other trance tracks use similar techniques leading to a similar effect. Correct?

Mix CD recipient: Look, I just like “Gouryella”, okay?

Robot: What do you mean by “like” in this context?

Mix CD recipient: Fine, I’ll search for the exact definition on the Internet. Maybe that will assist with your understanding. [searches for the definition of “like”] Ah, here. When listening to “Gouryella”, I feel attraction toward or take pleasure in the song.

Robot: Your use of the word “feel” is a misnomer. Feelings are either emotions (i.e., joy, fear, anger, sorrow, disgust, surprise, etc.) or sensations (e.g., tingling throughout your body). However, one cannot “feel attraction” in as much as one experiences attraction.

Mix CD recipient: Are you serious right now?

Robot: Yes. Now, returning to “Gouryella”, what do you mean when stating that you like the track?

Mix CD recipient: Fine! I feel joy and I feel the sensation of tingling throughout my body when hearing the song, because I’m attracted to “Gouryella” and the memories associated with it.

Robot: Your response adheres to logical form. For instance, using a modus ponens syllogism (i.e., if p, then q; p; therefore, q), I can determine that you like “Gouryella”. Yet, your reason for liking it does not compute.

Mix CD recipient: I just told you. I have feelings – what you call emotions and sensations – and the experience of attraction to the song. What more reason is there to like “Gouryella”?

Robot: Your justification is subjective. As you’ve used logic, without objective reason, I determine your preference for “Gouryella” as that relating to an irrational fondness for the track.

Mix CD recipient: I think we’re done with this conversation.

Robot: Are you rage quitting [to suddenly stop participating or engaging in (something) in a fit of self-disturbed anger or self-distressed frustration]?

Mix CD recipient: [abruptly walks away]

What I’ve demonstrated herein is the process of disputation. Taking the role of a robot while using questions and statements grounded in both logic and reason, I sought to illustrate how thought-based preferences aren’t necessarily rational.

Moreover, I’ve attempted to reveal how belief-based inferences can cause specific outcomes. In specific, I showed how the mix CD recipient’s self-disturbing or -distressing belief-consequence connection resulted in rage-quitting behavior (i.e., abruptly walking away from a conversation).

In closing, this psychoeducational lesson draws distinctions between logic and reason, thoughts and beliefs, and rational and irrational arguments, propositions, suppositions, thoughts, or beliefs. As well, syllogisms, the ABC model, and a brief example of disputation were illustrated.

Now, I invite you to take into consideration that not all irrational thoughts (e.g., describing “Gouryella” as a good song) or beliefs (e.g., prescribing to rid the world of cancer) are immoral, unethical, or otherwise. After all, many thoughts and beliefs are based on thorough logic.

Nevertheless, it’s important to properly assess one’s reason (justification) for use of a particular form of logic in order to determine whether or not one’s thoughts and beliefs are rational. Even then, as demonstrated in the disputation example herein, not always is one’s reasoning sound.

Therefore, I encourage you to take time during your morning, afternoon, evening, and even nighttime to contemplate what you think and believe. During that time, ask yourself whether or not you’re using rational or irrational arguments, propositions, suppositions, thoughts, or beliefs.

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 the world’s foremost EDM-influenced REBT psychotherapist—promoting content related to EDM, 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:

DjTraker. (2013, June 22). Gouryella Gouryella Original Mix 1999 [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/gR2GE30MEBw?si=ZeG6R-ySUbLGn8wW

Freepik. (n.d.). Human and robot connection (Image). Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-ai-image/human-robot-connection_413069522.htm#fromView=search&page=2&position=44&uuid=31cac308-9860-408b-baef-53162c69c4ac&query=robot+and+human+talk

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. (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. (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, March 12). Distress vs. disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/distress-vs-disturbance

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

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. (2025, May 2). It’s outside of my control and influence. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/it-s-outside-of-my-control-and-influence

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

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

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

Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing

Hollings, D. (2023, September 3). On feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-feelings

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

Hollings, D. (2023, June 3). Perfect is the enemy of good. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/perfect-is-the-enemy-of-good

Hollings, D. (2024, July 20). Perspective shift. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/perspective-shift

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

Hollings, D. (2025, April 25). Preferences vs. expectations. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/preferences-vs-expectations

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

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

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

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

Hollings, D. (2025, January 15). Satisfaction. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/satisfaction

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

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. (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. (2025, July 3). Trust the process. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/trust-the-process

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

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Artificial general intelligence. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Artificial intelligence. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence

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

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Deep learning. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_learning

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Ferry Corsten. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferry_Corsten

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

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Large language model. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Machine learning. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Tiësto. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ti%C3%ABsto