Next, Albert Ellis' essay continues, from above:
MAIN DIFFERENCES FROM
OTHER SCHOOLS
1. De-emphasis of early childhood. While REBT accepts the fact that neurotic states are
sometimes originally learned or aggravated by early teaching or irrational beliefs by one’s family and by society, it
holds that these early-acquired irrationalities are not automatically sustained over the years by themselves.
Instead,
they are very actively and creatively re-instilled by the individuals themselves. In many cases the therapist spends very
little time on the clients’ parents or family upbringing; and yet helps them to bring about significant changes in their
disturbed patterns of living. The therapist demonstrates that no matter what the clients’ basic irrational philosophy
of life, nor when and how they acquired it, they are presently disturbed because they still believe this self-defeating world-
and self-view. If they will observe exactly what they are irrationally thinking in the present, and will challenge and question
these self-statements they will usually improve significantly.
2. Emphasis on deep philosophical change and scientific
thinking. Because of its belief that human neurotic disturbance is largely ideologically or philosophically based, REBT strives
for a thorough-going philosophic reorientation of a people’s outlook on life, rather than for a mere removal of any
of their mental or psychosomatic symptoms. It teaches the clients, for example, that human adults do not need to be accepted
or loved, even though it is highly desirable that they be. REBT encourages individuals to be healthily sad or regretful when
they are rejected, frustrated, or deprived. But it tries to teach them how to overcome feelings of intense hurt, self-deprecation,
and depression. As in science, clients are shown how to question the dubious hypotheses that they construct about themselves
and others. If they believe (as alas, millions of us do), that they are worthless because they perform certain acts badly,
they are not merely taught to ask, “What is really bad about my acts?” and “Where is the evidence that they
are wrong or unethical?” More importantly, they are shown how to ask themselves, “Granted that my acts may be
mistaken, why am I a totally bad person for performing them? Where is the evidence that I must always be right in order to
consider myself worthy? Assuming that it is preferable for me to act well rather than badly, why do I have to do what is preferable?”
Similarly, when people perceive (let us suppose, correctly) the erroneous and unjust acts of others, and become enraged
at these others, they are shown how to stop and ask themselves, “Why is my hypothesis that the people who committed
these errors and injustices are no damned good a true hypothesis? Granted that it would be better if they acted more competently
or fairly, why should they have to do what would be better?”
REBT teaches that to be human is to be fallible,
and that if we are to get on in life with minimal upset and discomfort, we would better accept this reality — and then
unanxiously work hard to become a little less fallible.
3. Use of psychological homework. REBT agrees with most Freudian,
neo-Freudian, Adlerian, and Jungian schools that acquiring insight, especially so-called emotional insight, into the source
of their neurosis is a most important part of people’s corrective teaching. It distinguishes sharply, however, between
so-called intellectual and emotional insight, and operationally defines emotional insight as individuals’ knowing or
seeing the cause of their problems and working, in a determined and energetic manner, to apply this knowledge to the solution
of these problems. The rational emotive behavior therapist helps clients to acknowledge that there is usually no other way
for him to get better but by their continually observing, questioning, and challenging their own belief-systems, and by their
working and practicing to change their own irrational beliefs by verbal and behavioral counter-propagandizing activity. In
REBT, actual homework assignments are frequently agreed upon in individual and group therapy. Assignments may include dating
a person whom the client is afraid to ask for a date; looking for a new job; experimentally returning to live with a husband
with whom one has previously continually quarrelled; etc. The therapist quite actively tries to encourage clients to undertake
such assignments as an integral part of the therapeutic process.
The REBT practitioner is able to give clients unconditional
rather than conditional positive regard because the REBT philosophy holds that no humans are to be damned for anything, no
matter how execrable their acts may be. Because of the therapist’s unconditional acceptance of them as a human, and
actively teaching clients how to fully accept themselves, clients are able to express their feelings more openly and to stop
rating themselves even when they acknowledge the inefficiency or immorality of some of their acts.
In many highly important
ways, then, rational emotive behavior therapy utilizes expressive-experimental methods and behavioral techniques. It is not,
however, primarily interested in helping people ventilate emotion and feel better, but in showing them how they can truly
get better, and lead to happier, non-self-defeating, self-actualized lives.
~~~
To see a very recent counselling
demonstration by Albert Ellis, at the age of 92, please check out this video clip.
~~~
POSTSCRIPT BY JIM BYRNE:
In REBT we try to identify the beliefs (Bs) that clients
are using to upset themselves, and then we try to get the client to change those Bs to something more logical, realistic and
self-helping. This process of "disputing irrational beliefs" - or "debating the client's irrationalities"
to encourage them to change them - is a highly skilled process. It is important that new therapists are trained by skilled
trainers, who can teach them the difference between assertive and aggressive confrontations;
the difference between disputing in an "Adult" fashion, rather then a "Parent"
fashion; and who can teach them a range of skilful questioning and reflection processes.
(The process known as "Socratic questioning" is really a "blah phrase" to which nothing precise
is attached. Plato's-Socrates was not a skilful questioner in a therapeutic sense, in that his goal was to
demonstrate that his interlocutors did not know what they were talking about! Jim Byrne has begun the process
of engaging in a critical enquiry regarding questions and their use, here).
Questions can be used for five basic functions: (1) to focus the attention of the client on something
useful/valuable/interesting, therapeutically speaking; (2) to cause their thinking to start up; (3) to ask
them for information; (4) to give them information, indirectly, by rhetorical inquiry; and
to cause their thinking to come to a conclusion. Those question types can also be combined
into two part questions, e.g. to focus attention and to collect information. (See: Nierenberg, G.I., 1987, The Complete
Negotiator, London: Souvenir Press). Asking clients for "REBT answers" which have not
yet been taught to them seems to me to be futile and abusive!
Beware: Asking questions
can trigger anxious responses in clients. Remember those years of being quizzed in school, so the teacher could "make
you wrong", and your peers could chuckle at your expense? That is still hanging around in the memory banks of many if
not most therapy clients! A bit of empathy should help here.
Some counselling and therapy students worry
about the ethical implications of the confrontation of clients with the unpleasant reality that it is not so much the client's
adversities that are causing their emotional upsets as much as it is their irrational attitudes towards those unpleasant activating
realities. (But, of course, actually it's both!) This question was recently addressed in a Google Answer, here.
Finally, Micah Perkins presents some interesting ideas on how to dispute/debate irrational beliefs here (Disputing IBs, Part 1), and here (Disputing IBs, Part 2).
~~~