The ABC’s of REBE - Rational Emotive Behaviour Education

Rational Emotive Behaviour Education (REBE) is a powerful teaching tool to use in the classroom at any level. It is based on REBT (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy). It’s been around a long time, and  started out as RET (Rational Emotive Therapy) in the 1960’s.

Dr. Albert Ellis created the theory and his counselling paradigm, the ABC Theory of Emotional (and behavioural) Disturbance, provides us with a framework for our teaching and counselling practice. As with all effective teaching it helps to know what we are doing and why. So, step one in our learning journey would be to understand what the ABC Theory is.

ABC easy as 1,2,3…

It might appear easy, but there’s more to it than meets the eye. And therein lies the genius of Albert Ellis as he took all his reading, thinking and psychotherapy practice and put it into a little package, a formula for us to use in the classroom. Indeed, Albert Ellis said a long time ago that:

‘The future of psychotherapy is in the school system.’

So, acquaint yourself with the ABC theory and begin your learning journey and remember whilst you may readily understand what the model is on first impressions, it will take a lot longer to fully appreciate what it means and this will come with practice and again as Ellis said we all need to ‘practice, practice, practice’ to get better at what we do.

And the other Albert, Albert Einstein said:

‘If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.’

The ABC Theory has a lot of layers to it and when you get to the point where you can do as Einstein said, you’re on your way. And of course, we never stop learning and the more we engage with the ABC Theory the more we will learn and discover!

The ‘A’ bit

‘A’ represents whatever happens that may evoke some kind of emotional and behavioural response to it e.g., I didn’t do so well in my driving test. Or at school a child is not included in a game at lunch break, or a child finds that when she looks in her school bag at recess, her drink and snack is not there! Any happening or event is the A component of the ABC Theory, the Activating event.

The ‘B’ bit

‘B’ represents what we believe; our personally constructed philosophy, what we think about ourselves, others, and life in general. The beliefs we have may not be something we are aware of and the ABC Theory helps us to identify what they are and to decide if they are helpful or unhelpful.

Ellis called unhelpful thinking irrational as it stops us achieving our goals i.e., for happiness and success. And helpful thinking, he called rational thinking. Any thinking, rumination about or perception, interpretation of an event or happening is the B component of the ABC Theory, what we Believe.

The ‘C’ bit

‘C’ represents how we respond emotionally and behaviourally to an event, A. When a child is not included in a game at recess for example, the event A of the ABC Theory, how she might feel and behave is the C component of the ABC Theory. Does she feel a little disappointed or does she feel enraged? What does she decide to do? How we might feel and behave in response to A, the Activating event, is the emotional Consequence of A.

And there’s more ... The D, E and F bits! 

‘D’ represents the process of challenging the identified beliefs at ‘B’ which are causing us emotional and behavioural distress at C. This stage of the ABC’s, the ‘D’ bit, stands for Disputation, where we challenge (Dispute) the veracity of what we believe at B. Are you still with me? It’s worth persisting so on to the ‘E’ bit!

‘E’ represents a new way of seeing or thinking about things because we’ve learned to appreciate that what we believed at ‘B’ of The ABC Theory, is not helpful as it is associated with extreme emotional and behavioural upset. Once we identify the habits of thinking that ail us, and we work hard to dispute them, we can replace them with more helpful, rational ones. We have a new and improved way of regarding or thinking about uninvited happenings, new effective rational thinking E.

‘F’ represents a new, improved better way of Feeling about things at A, because the irrational beliefs we once held at B of the ABC model, have been challenged (disputed) and changed to more rational ones.

And there we have it, the ABC Theory of Emotional (and behavioural) Disturbance … and the D’s, the E’s, and the F’s!

A simple example of the application the ABC (& D and E) Theory for your consideration follows.

A - A driver on the road lets someone in who doesn’t acknowledge the courteous act.

B – The driver thinks, ‘How rude! He should have waved back. What an #$%^&!!’

C- The driver feels extreme annoyance and anger and waves his fist at the other driver.

D – The drivers thinking at B is challenged e.g., why should he have waved back? Could there be any reasons why he didn’t? Is it so bad that you can’t stand it? Can you think of other things that could happen worse than this? Where do you think this sits on your catastrophe scale?

E – Next time emotions are kept in check because the driver now thinks, ‘people don’t always have to do what I think they should. This is not a big deal so I won’t make it one. He’s not ‘bad’ because he didn’t acknowledge me.’

F – The driver experiences a modified, improved way of feeling about what’s happened as at B, irrational beliefs have been identified, challenged and changed.

Know your ABC’s (and D’s and E’s)!

There are many articles available that will help you develop a greater depth of understanding and appreciation of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy and its application in schools through Rational Emotive Behaviour Education. I can recommend some articles that will help you on your learning journey which you can request via the email address provided.

So, think about the above and consider if it is something you can work with in your teaching or counselling practice. Does it sit well with what you know about Social Emotional Behaviour Wellbeing teaching and learning? Can you incorporate your new learning into current practice?

P.S. You can find more information here https://debbiejoffeellis.com/ and here www.rebtnetwork.org

Giulio is an ED.D. candidate at the University of South Australia. He is a student counsellor and specialises in Rational Emotive Behaviour Education. He is also a consultant to schools in counselling-based behaviour education systems in school. He is the author of two self-published teacher/counsellor resources; People and Emotions and Have a Go Spaghettio! both endorsed by Dr. Albert Ellis, creator of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy. He is a member of the International Committee for The Advancement of Rational Emotive Education. Email: lozzog@gmail.com

What’s Unconditional Self- Acceptance?

This is warts n’ all acceptance of all the things that make up the complexity of the ‘self’,  a term we use when referring to the ‘me’ we understand ourselves to be.

We decide who we are, how our ‘selves’ are constituted, by processing and interpreting the information we glean from our environment. How do others esteem me? Do they like me?

Does my self-assessment, my own estimation of my worth, depend on the assessments of others? Or do I accept that any clanger, rejection, or failure don’t or can’t in themselves define me in a global sense i.e., my total worth or value.

If we tend to over rely on others estimation of us, we have reached a stage of ‘needing’ rather than ‘preferring’ that others view us well e.g., likeable, respected, esteemed, funny, smart.

‘I need you think I’m OK for me to be OK.’

A student once asked me if he was a good boy. I asked what he meant and he said I like it when people say I’m a good boy. I asked him how he knows when he is a good boy and he said when people ‘tell me I am.’ I asked him when he is most likely to be told he is a good boy and he replied, ‘when I do something good’ (what others expect me to do).

‘I can’t disappoint people who expect me to be good.’

He also said that when he does things that others disagree with or who may feel aggrieved about something about him, he thinks he has made them feel that way. I asked him if he thinks that other people’s feelings, like his mum’s annoyance is caused by him and he said, ‘yes.’

‘I make my mum mad!’

What has this person learned about his ‘self?’ He is learning that his worth depends on the assessment of others. He ‘is’ good or bad depending on others estimation of his worth. According to REBT (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy) he accepts his ‘self’ only on condition that he is esteemed well by others. His ‘good’ self exists only if others say it does!

That he has learned to believe that he ‘makes’ others sad or annoyed or angry puts him at considerable psychological risk. He has learned that he is responsible for how others feel and of course this is an irrational belief. He may become hyper vigilant around other people’s sensibilities, not wanting to cause any upset or discomfort to others because he’s responsible for how they feel!

Unconditional self-acceptance regards the self as a composite of too many qualities, characteristics, capabilities etc good and bad and so it doesn’t make sense to abstract one from the many and decide that it defines your you-ness.

‘Today you are You, that is truer than true. There is no one alive who is Youer than You.’ Dr. Seuss

Alas we tend to do this at times but we can self-correct e.g., I am likeable even if others may think otherwise, I am not their opinion of me. So, the warts ‘n all idea means that our OK - ness remains constant even when as fallible human beings we will inevitably stuff up.

But for those young folk who believe their worth is subject to certain conditions e.g.,  how others rate them or how well they perform at tasks, then they will benefit from knowing how they can challenge and change the irrational ideas they may hold to be true about their ‘selves.’

So how can we help young people become the best version of their ‘selves,’ one which will serve them well?

- Talk about thinking, feeling, and behaving, what they are, and how they are each connected to each other. E.g., if I BELIEVE I’m dumb, I FEEL sad and I WITHDRAW.

- We can have helpful or unhelpful ideas about ourselves, others, and life in general, our beliefs.

- We can find out what those beliefs are e.g., ‘if someone doesn’t seem to like me then I am unlikable.’ 

- We can begin to change how we think about ourselves if we learn how to think about our thinking.

Some ideas to teach unconditional self-acceptance:

- Talk about a bike and its general composition, wheels, tyres, frame, spokes etc. If a spoke on one wheel is broken, does it make sense to decide the bike is totally no good and we should get rid of it? Why or why not? One fault doesn’t make the bike (us) worthless

- If we aren’t too good at something, or we didn’t make the soccer team does that mean we are totally useless, that we are totally no good e.g., using the bike analogy above, one of our spokes might be a bit wobbly but the bike’s essentially OK (unless we decide otherwise).

- Place a few dots on a sheet of paper. Look at the page what do we notice. We might focus readily on the dots. We may also notice that most of the page is clear of any dots or blemishes. When we self-down we notice only the blemishes and decide they define us (our ‘self’ page is full of dot blemishes), that we are no good. We might however look more broadly and decide that the sheet is essentially blemish less.

It isn’t an either/or proposition, we can’t be totally bad or be totally good, we are just worthwhile, unconditionally because as Albert Ellis (creator of REBT) says, ‘we exist.’

If we consider our ‘selves’ in the context of everything that constitutes our makeup, one fault or failure or blemish can’t represent the whole. In that sense we are always OK and that’s what we teach our young charges when we teach Unconditional Self-Acceptance.

PS Unconditionally accepting ourselves doesn’t mean we elect to remain stagnant and not develop and evolve, to improve ourselves. It isn’t a license to do nothing or to e.g., break the law because ultimately ‘I’m OK no matter what.’ It is a healthy attitude of acceptance of our makeup and to work hard at the things we decide we want to get better at. Get my drift?

Giulio is an ED.D. candidate at the University of South Australia. He is a student counsellor in the public school system and specialises in Rational Emotive Behaviour Education. He is also a consultant to schools in counselling-based behaviour education systems in school. He is the author of two self-published teacher/counsellor resources; People and Emotions and Have a Go Spaghettio! both endorsed by Dr. Albert Ellis, creator of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy. He is a member of the International Committee for The Advancement of Rational Emotive Education.

 

The Life and Legacy of Dr Albert Ellis, Creator of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy

Albert Ellis

Dr Debbie Joffe Ellis agreed to answer a few questions about her mission to keep the work and legacy of her late husband Dr Albert Ellis, creator of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy, alive and thriving. She took time out from her busy schedule to answer some questions.

Giulio: Thanks for the chat, Debbie. Could you give us a snapshot of Dr Ellis’ childhood?

Debbie: His childhood contained a number of challenges. He suffered from various serious and painful conditions, including nephritis and migraines, from infancy onward. Al made a conscious decision that he didn’t want to feel so very sad, hence he found ways to distract himself from the deep sadness such as reading books in the hospital’s children’s library, making up games to play with children in the ward, talking with their visitors, and daydreaming about his baseball heroes and about what he wanted to do when he grew up.

Al was 3 years of age when he taught himself to read with the help of his 5-year-old friend. They would sit on the stoop in front of their building and his friend would read out loud while Al observed and, by doing so, learned to read!

He was a voracious reader, often borrowing books from his school’s library and from the New York public library, and after he’d read every book that he borrowed, and there were no books there that he hadn’t already read - he would re-read the books he’d enjoyed reading previously!

One of his dreams had been to write the great American novel, and he had also said that if he could have afforded to learn music, he would have loved to be a composer/musician. Due to the financial depression of those years, he could not afford to pay for such lessons. He was able to study for his Master’s degree and Ph.D. at Columbia University Teachers College due to his getting scholarships.

Incidentally, I teach two courses at Columbia University: Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT) and Comparative Psychotherapies, in the very building in which Al did those studies! Carl Rogers also attained his degrees there a few years prior to Al doing so.

Giulio: Dr Ellis thrived on thinking, working, creating, and spreading the ‘Gospel of St Albert’. What was his motivation?

Debbie: Indeed, his life was dedicated to helping as many people around the globe as possible, of every culture, gender, religion, or lack of religion, learn that they were responsible for creating their emotional experiences. He taught that it wasn’t their circumstances, but their attitudes and beliefs, which created their emotions.

REBT is incredibly empowering for people who are genuinely wanting to change unhelpful ways, and who are willing to make ongoing effort. Having suffered so much in various ways in his earlier years, he earnestly wanted to make a profound difference to humanity by helping individuals to help themselves to prevent unnecessary suffering.

Giulio: And of course, his sense of humour. How important did he consider humour to be in the therapeutic process?

Debbie: Al considered humour to be very important and very beneficial to people who wanted to not only feel better, but to get and stay better! Humour helps us put things into healthy perspective, helps us prevent ourselves from blowing things out of proportion or minimizing them, and is very beneficial in helping bring equanimity to those who take themselves, others, and life in general tooooo seriously!!!

Giulio: I’ve read that Dr Ellis, when giving therapy, was expert at listening to his clients and parsing out those debilitating beliefs that caused them so much bother, and that he did so with warmth, empathy and of course humour. What can you tell us about Dr Ellis in practice?

Debbie: Yes, Al was a respectful and superb listener. He could practically instantly identify any of their irrational thoughts. Also, he picked up on the nuances of what was said rather than just falling for the literal words and had a very finely tuned intuitive ability that enhanced that.

He demonstrated the power to help, inspire and contribute healing guidance to those who were open to receiving those gifts, utilizing his years of experience, wisdom, knowledge, and compassion.

Giulio: Dr Ellis was originally trained in psychoanalysis in the tradition of Freud and others. He famously said that people felt better when talking to the therapist, but rarely did they get and stay better. The idea that people could learn to help themselves seemed to be a revolutionary idea at the time. Where did this thinking lead Dr Ellis?

Debbie: Yes, he was probably the first psychologist/psychotherapist to encourage self-help for people who were not severely or endogenously disturbed. That added to his unpopularity among many of therapist peers who gave long term therapy and unintentionally (or perhaps some did so intentionally) encouraged clients/patients to develop dependence on them.

The so-called “new age” period that started around the 1960/70/80s contains many Ellisonian elements, as does executive coaching which is very popular these days. Many of the current approaches in psychotherapy are based on, or significantly influenced by, the incredible contributions of my brilliant Al, the pioneering genius, visionary, humanist, scientist, artist, humourist, and so much more.

Giulio: Many people were lucky enough to be mentored by him (as indeed was I) and say they stood on the shoulders of this ‘Giant of Psychotherapy’ and Dr Ellis encouraged others. Many counselling paradigms lead back to Dr Ellis’ ABC Theory of Emotional Disturbance, which is why he is considered the grandfather of cognitive therapy. Can you talk to this and also to his generosity and goodwill towards others in the field of psychotherapy?

Debbie: Yes indeed. He was the most generous academic I know or have ever heard of. Anyone, famous in the field or not, who sent him a manuscript asking him for his opinion, would find their manuscript returned within days – full of red markings and suggestions. The famous Dr William Glasser (Choice/Reality Theory pioneer) would often share that he sent his first manuscript for his first book to Al for Al’s feedback, and within 2 days he received it back from Al - practically re-written!

Arnold Lazarus PhD, father of Multimodal Therapy (MT) who first came up with the term ‘cognitive behaviour therapy’, credits Al for pushing him to develop, write and publish on that MT approach rather than to simply work with Al in his institute, as Arnie had originally wanted to do.

Dr Aaron (Tim) Beck, who is often thought of as the father of CT/CBT, used to give credit to Al for being a profound help and influence on his work. Al’s REBT came out in the early 1950’s, and Beck’s in the late 1960s. It is unfortunate that such facts are not being presented sufficiently by some CBT teachers, though there are some who do teach the facts. In Al’s autobiography he included letters between him and Beck. Sadly, many students these days have the wrong impression that CBT came before REBT, and don’t realize how thoroughly CBT is based on REBT.

Giulio: He advocated for the introduction of REBT principles in teaching and learning and said that ‘the future of psychotherapy is in the school system.’ This again was an idea ahead of its time as social emotional behavioural wellbeing programs are now commonplace in schools. Can you talk about his strong desire that REBT become a part of the school curriculum? What benefits did he envisage?

Debbie: Oh yes! He passionately wanted REBT principles taught to as many people as possible - and the sooner the better.
The more rigid a person’s thinking is, the more effort it will likely take for them to change it.

If people learn sound principles in childhood, there is good chance that they will develop into adults with habitual tendencies to think about their thinking (metacognize), catch and dispute irrational self-defeating thoughts, and develop the habit of thinking rationally. As a consequence of doing that, healthy emotions and behaviours are likely.

Also, one of the most important lessons in REBT is to create and maintain unconditional self-acceptance, unconditional other acceptance, and unconditional life acceptance.
In the absence of those attitudes, bullying, self-downing, shame and depression are created - and one or some of those acts, attitudes and emotions can often contribute to, or be present when suicide is attempted. Prevention can be the greatest cure.

Dr Albert Ellis wanted REBT taught in every school! - Not only to students, but also to teachers, principals, admin staff, and parents.

Giulio: Can you provide the reader with information about your work in keeping the legacy of your husband, Dr Albert Ellis alive and thriving, so many years after his passing? You have a busy schedule of teaching, presentations, and workshops. What feedback are you receiving on your travels about REBT and how it is evolving in the present day?

Debbie: It is my passion and mission to do all I can to keep REBT alive and thriving, so that as many people as possible can benefit from it. I love teaching it, presenting on it, writing about it, and practicing it with my clients.

I felt humbled and honoured when I was nominated by Dr Frank Farley and Dr Stanley Krippner this year (2023), only a few months ago, for the American Psychological Association’s International Division’s “Global Citizen Award.”

My late husband entrusted me to continue his work after his passing, he often said so in his final years, and wrote it in various places including in his autobiography. He said he loved the way I communicate (as I loved the way he did!). Certainly, we had different styles, but our love for REBT and our dedication to helping others was one of the many things we had in common.

I am grateful to receive very positive feedback from individuals who attend the events, trainings, and presentations etc. that I present here in the USA and internationally. In recent times I have been invited to speak to groups of people who are dealing with issues of addiction, and some of those attendees shared that what they learned was truly life changing.

Thank you for the powerful work you do Giulio in walking your REBT/REBE talk, and helping, teaching, and inspiring so many people. Thank you for your great questions here and thank you for your part in continuing the legacy of the magnificent Albert Ellis Ph. D!

Giulio: You’re welcome! Thanks, Debbie, for your interest and the work you do and for taking time out for this chat.

Giulio is an Ed. D. candidate at the University of South Australia. He works as a Rational Emotive Behaviour Counsellor at a public school in Adelaide.
Dr Debbie Joffe Ellis is Adjunct Professor at Columbia Teachers College, New York. She is a licensed psychologist (Australia), licensed mental health counsellor (New York), presenter and writer. You can find out more about Dr Debbie Joffe Ellis and her work here: www.debbiejoffeellis.com

My Brain Felt Sad and Then I Cried

Seven-year-old Eabha (Ava) came by my office. She would occasionally drop in to tell me one of her stories or to sing me a song, but she seemed preoccupied and wasn’t her usual bubbly self. She played with a fidget she found in the toy box and after a short while, without looking in my direction said, ‘my dad has moved out and my mum has been crying a lot.’ She continued to play with the fidget.

‘Things were not right!’

Eabha stopped playing and then she came and sat down opposite me, settled in her seat, and grabbed a teddy that was nearby. Her eyes betrayed how she was feeling, and I wondered how a seven-year-old processes such a traumatic episode unfolding before her and around her and within her.

I asked her how she was feeling, and she lowered her eyes and said, ‘When my mum told me that dad was leaving my brain felt sad and then I cried.’

I asked what she meant when she said that her brain felt sad. She said that she was thinking about why this happened and if her mum and dad loved her. She said, ‘I was thinking it was my fault.’ I asked her about how she felt when she said, ‘my brain felt sad.’ She said she felt sad and scared. ‘And because you felt sad and scared what did you do?’ I asked. ‘I began to shake, and I went to my room, and I cried,’ she said.

I reflected back to her what she said and asked her if I had her story right. She said I did, and we continued to chat.

‘She knew I was listening.’

I worked with Eabha in a one-to-one counselling situation on occasion and I also had done some work in her class. We talked about feelings and strength of feelings and that they were connected to our thinking and behaving. She understood that feeling, thinking, and behaving were connected to each other. We called unhealthy (irrational) thinking Brain Bully thinking which we agreed made Brain Bully feelings and actions. We called healthy (rational) thinking Brain Friend thinking which we agreed made feelings and behaviours that were helpful to us.

‘Brain Bully thinking makes Brain Bully feelings.’

That Eabha was familiar with these REBT (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy) principles afforded us a common language with which we could talk about our strength of feelings, where they come from and how to work out ways to help Eabha help herself.

Eabha discovered that, for instance, ‘it’s all my fault’ thinking was Brain Bully nonsense. We also agreed that ‘it’s not fair’ thinking and ‘my dad or mum doesn’t love me’ thinking was Brain Bully trying to make her feel worse than she needed to be. We talked about different ways of thinking about things and we decided that what happened was a decision made by adults and that she had nothing to do with it. We also established that her mum and dad would still love her no matter what and that even though they would not be living together she could get used to the idea that she had two places to visit and have fun.

‘Flush stinking Brain Bully thinking down the dunny!’

We talked about bad things that could happen and we decided that there were other things that could be worse than the situation she found herself in. She said that ‘this is really bad, and I wish it didn’t happen but it’s not the worst thing that can happen (compared to other things we talked about).’ Eabha began to look at things differently, more from a Brain Friend perspective and she felt a lot better.

As a rational emotive behaviour counsellor/educator I find it useful to be able talk to children in ways that make sense to them. The idea that their emotions and behaviours are caused by someone or something apart from themselves reinforces the idea that someone or something makes their feelings and behaviours! Hence, they say things like, ‘it made me sad when my dad moved away, and I can only feel happy again if he comes back.’ In adult terms this irrational view could be framed as; ‘Things must be or remain the way they’ve always been. I can’t handle it and I can never be happy again if things aren’t how they must be.’

As it happened Eabha adopted a different view of the situation:

‘Change my thinking and the world changes.’

Did she still feel sad? Yes, she did on occasion, but it had a different intensity than before. She had changed the way she assessed a very difficult situation and in doing so modified how she felt and how she behaved in a self-helpful way.

PS Eabha bounded into my office the other day and said, ‘guess what?’ I said, ‘the sky is blue.’ ‘Mum and Dad are back together.’

PPS. This is a true happening and details have been changed to protect the subject’s identity.

 

Giulio is an ED.D. candidate at the University of South Australia. He is a student counsellor in the public school system and specialises in Rational Emotive Behaviour Education. He is also a consultant to schools in counselling-based behaviour education systems in school. He is the author of two self-published teacher/counsellor resources; People and Emotions and Have a Go Spaghettio! both endorsed by Dr. Albert Ellis, creator of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy. He is a member of the International Committee for The Advancement of Rational Emotive Education.

Breaking Approval Dependence (BAD)

 

Written by a past member of Approvalists Anonymous (AA), a support group for those who are at risk of becoming ‘love slobs.’ An REBT perspective (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy) on this debilitating psychological impediment to happiness and success.

‘I need to be needed. (Oh no you don’t!)’

‘It’s been two weeks since I sat and stewed about how an insignificant other esteems me,’ proclaimed the primary school teacher to the others in the group. Everyone nodded their approval of the reforming approvalist before them, and their fortitude grew as the teacher expounded their newfound belief; ‘what I think of me is more important than how you might assess my personhood.’ ‘Bravo!’ They exclaimed in unison as the AA member added, ‘what you think of me is none of my business!’ As the AA member emerged from the meeting into the cool autumn night, they thought to, ‘I approve of me, and I’m OK no matter what!’

To break a habit of a lifetime is no easy task. There are a few steps to Breaking Approval Dependence (BAD) and it takes considerable focus and energy to move into the zone of unconditional self-acceptance, where you will be inclined to automatically respond to criticism in a healthy and rational way so that your new and rational sense of who you are stays intact. It is essentially a question of finding out why you feel extra sensitive to criticism; what irrational, nonsensical habits of thinking have you constructed over time? Can you challenge their veracity with the clarity of reason and fact, and not indulge in fanciful notions and imagined, pie in the sky concocted ideas?

‘If you have constructed irrational ideas about yourself, you can deconstruct them!’

Our teacher friend discovered that whilst they might prefer the approval of others, they didn’t need it to consider themselves worthwhile. They understood that this was a belief constructed over time, a thinking rule that was fed by those closest to them. They learned to depend on the approval of those who pinned labels of good, bad, clever, dumb on them, words that could define their worth as human beings.

‘I must not fail, or I’ll let my parents down. They will be disappointed.’

Once they understood that words, positive or otherwise, couldn’t define them and they accepted this to be true, they then began to feel better about situations that might challenge their sense of self. And of course, there was the homework. How else can you deconstruct and replace bullshit ideas about yourself without constant vigilance and introspection? Our teacher made time each day to reflect on the day, mindfully reviewing happenings and their emotional and behavioural response to them. Were they measured? Did they reflect their new ideas about their ‘self?’ Or did they react in a more neurotic manner? Do they remind themselves each day that they are not the opinion of others, and they are not their failings nor are they, their triumphs?

‘Irrational ideas can breech our psychological defences if we are not vigilant.’

The reforming AA teacher understood the power of confidence and self-belief. Each day started with a simple affirmation that no matter what happened, no matter how their foundation belief of unconditional self-acceptance was challenged, they would remain firm in this belief.

‘I’m OK even if others think otherwise.’

This simple statement of self-worth would become in time, an unbreakable and unbreachable belief that would help them forge ahead in their personal and professional world. But there was other work to be done.

The teacher thought, ‘if I’m OK no matter what, and people’s opinion of me, good or bad cannot define me then I want to prove this to be true. I want to put myself in a situation of great discomfort, to challenge myself doing what, until this point, I would always avoid doing.’

‘What risks will I take. How will I walk my talk?’

The teacher liked maths and had some teaching ideas about engaging students, especially those who would recoil at the thought of studying something that they had decided they were no good at. Rather than engage in self-talk that would diminish the teacher’s capacity to successfully present useful ideas to peers in a confident manner the teacher would quietly say:

‘I can do this, and I have the information and the capacity to relate my ideas to others successfully.’

The teacher competently conveyed how maths could be taught in such a way that students of all ages could engage with it. The feedback was positive, and it was particularly pleasing that teachers would adopt the ideas their colleague presented to them, and they would report how successful and effective they were in stimulating student interest and improving maths competency.

‘The teacher continued to seek ways in which their confidence could be tested, professionally and personally.’

One day the teacher stopped for a moment, just after presenting a kickarse workshop on constructivist theory and early childhood acquisition of academic confidence, to reflect on how far they had travelled. The teacher thought, ‘I’ve taken a few risks over the past couple of terms, and I’ve done well in some challenges and not so in others. BUT I am not too scared to try, to put myself at risk. And you know what? I don’t question my worth based on how others might view me or how well or badly I do at stuff. I judge my actions but not myself.’

Unfortunately, the teacher still operated in an environment where ‘who you are’ and not how competent you might be, determined a person’s prospects of promotion, their worth to the organisation.

‘I don’t need their approval (though I may desire it) to know I’m a worthwhile person and teacher.’

The teacher continued to develop confidence and capacity to teach and to professionally develop others. A new job opportunity eventually enticed the teacher away to another position that was better paid; where competency, knowledge and integrity were valued over sycophancy and mediocrity.

On the teachers last AA meeting, group members stood and applauded the teacher who again declared to all that:

‘I have reached a point where I automatically think in positive, rational ways that help me deal with challenges successfully. I can deal with disappointment and criticism in a much healthier way. I am no longer at the mercy of others approval. I approve of myself.’

NB ‘Love slob’ is a term coined by the creator of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy, Dr. Albert Ellis. Approvalists Anonymous is a made-up term and doesn’t exist.

Giulio is an ED.D. candidate at the University of South Australia. He is a student counsellor in the public school system and specialises in Rational Emotive Behaviour Education. He is also a consultant to schools in counselling-based behaviour education systems in school. He is the author of two self-published teacher/counsellor resources; People and Emotions and Have a Go Spaghettio! both endorsed by Dr. Albert Ellis, creator of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy. He is a member of the International Committee for The Advancement of Rational Emotive Education.

 

 

 

'Do you need an ambulance?' When small problems seem like catastrophes

A teacher colleague invested a lot of time teaching her year 3 students that thinking, feeling and behaving were all interconnected. As Albert Ellis, creator of REBT said (I paraphrase here):

‘We make ourselves more anxious than we need to be when we think events and things are worse than they really are.’

The teacher did a lot of groundwork to persuade her young group that they make themselves more upset than they need to be. She read books that had characters who helped themselves get better when they changed the way they thought about something. She reminded them often that it was their/our estimation of an event, how we thought about it that was key. ‘If they came to know this they can do something constructive about their discomfort,’ the teacher thought.

She changed her language; rather than asking ‘what makes you angry?’ she would say ‘what are you thinking about what happened that’s making your feelings so strong?’ She didn’t say ‘don’t be angry’ either as she knew her students couldn’t ‘be’ the feelings they were feeling.

How many times do we say ‘it/they/she made me angry?’ Can something ‘make’ us as angry as we feel? And the claim ‘I am angry?’ Does the assertion ‘I am scared’ make sense? Can I ‘be’ the feeling (s) I experience? Food for thought eh?

‘Message to self,’ the teacher would say inside her head:

"Teach the think – feel – do connection. Stop saying ‘it’ makes ‘me/you’ angry. Stop saying ‘good boy/girl’ (doesn’t make sense)"

So the teacher had done a great job of teaching the students that their estimation of events, their perception of what’s happening, had made the strength of emotion they feel about an event and not the thing/event itself. She had acquainted them with the notion that they could have a fair amount of control over how they feel and the actions they take. She asked them questions like:

‘What’s stronger; angry or upset?

Do I feel angry or am I angry? What’s the difference?

‘You make me sad!’ What does this mean? Is there another way to say this?’

 

The classroom discourse moved away from person specific to more behaviour or competency specific i.e. she addressed behaviour and not person in her feedback. She taught her students that what they did was up for assessment but their essence or personhood was not. She weaned herself off of using person specific terms like; good boy/girl, naughty, smart, cute etc. and focused more on what the children did. She was mindful that a person’s worth was a given, that they were always worthwhile whether they did ‘good’ or did ‘bad.’ “Doing ‘bad’ can’t make you ‘bad’” she would start each day by saying and she would add “doing ‘good’ doesn’t make you good either. You are always worthwhile!” This was a constant reminder to students that their ‘okayness’ wasn’t attached to someone’s assessment of their person.

She began to notice that those children who were generally withdrawn or lacking in confidence began to try new things. Some were putting their hands up more to ask questions; they were taking more risks. She asked herself why? But she knew why didn’t she? It was the new and developing regime she had introduced based on the philosophy that:

“People are not disturbed by things, but by the views they take of them.” Epictetus

Her children began to understand that big problems were only as big as they thought or imagined them to be. If a problem was big or not was a decision they could make by assessing its ‘badness’ against other possible happenings. She helped each child to construct their own ‘catastrophe scale’ where possible problems could be organised according to how ‘bad’ they were.

So back to the title of this piece and the ambulance reference. The children were asked in many different situations if what was happening was as bad as they thought it was. Some children referred to their hard copy catastrophe scale (CS), whilst others used the one they carried inside their heads; their virtual CS. If Sofia said ‘I don’t have my hat today and it’s a massive problem because I have to stay in the shade at playtime,’ her CS would tell her that there are far worse things that could happen and her teacher would say ‘Sofia, is it so bad that I should call an ambulance?’

 

  

"The world is neither for you nor against you. It doesn’t give a shit!"​

When I think about this Albert Ellis quote I think of how I have at times been ‘shackled’ to the belief that somehow the Universe is looking out for me and that it should give me what I want; what I believe I need. Such an arrogant position assumes that I’m so important that the universe should always meet my wants and needs; to take care of me and always give me what I must have. I can hear Dr. Ellis say:

‘Well good luck with that horseshit. Let me know how it works out!’

Eleanor Roosevelt said:

‘You probably wouldn’t worry about what people think of you if you could know how seldom they do.’

Again why should other people regard us as we believe we should be regarded; that they meet our need to be noticed and acknowledged, liked or loved?

Dr. Ellis said that we can elect to healthily prefer that significant others esteem us and look upon us favourably, which is a rational perspective according to REBT. In doing so, we acknowledge that there will be those who won’t and we can choose to learn to accept this reality unconditionally. This sensible, self-helpful view, reminds us that the universe will not always deliver to us what we absolutely demand it should, but if we accept that, we will feel better about things, especially when they don’t go our way.

Conversely, to over rely on the approval of significant others to believe we are worthwhile, is taking us into the realms of irrationality or as Dr. Ellis would say, ‘love slobbism!’  This is where our attitude of preferences, transform into ‘must’ thinking; we must get what we believe we must have! Dr. Ellis determined that one who has forged such habits of thinking and believing has developed the debilitating condition of ‘musturbation;’ the tendency to elevate our preferences, wants and desires to ‘must, ought and should’ status!’ What did Karen Horney say?

'Beware the 'tyranny of the should'!

Dr. Ellis also reminds us that whenever we begin to think that someone or something is ‘making’ us angry or sad we are thinking irrationally, as it is our own unrealistic ‘musturbatory’ expectations of life and others that are driving our emotional unease. Do we prefer things to be as we would like them to be or must we get what we must have and is it a catastrophe when we don’t?!

'When people change their irrational beliefs to undogmatic flexible preferences, they become less disturbed.' Albert Ellis

Christopher Hitchens the late renowned author, essayist and sceptic, debated many an opponent, who claimed that his views were offensive and that their feelings were somehow hurt by the points he made in argument against them. His adversaries, in making such a claim, would be met by the classic Hitchens retort:

‘What’s your point? So your feelings are hurt, so what! How does this constitute an argument!’

He would have agreed with Dr. Ellis that people make the intensity of the emotions they feel by the way they might perceive or assess a situation. They hurt their own feelings! As Epictetus said all those years ago:

'People are not disturbed by things, but by the views they take of them.'

What might have Mr. Hitchens’ ‘musturbating’ rivals been thinking? Ellis would say:

‘They were rubbing themselves the wrong way!’

The big bang set the evolution of the Universe and life as we know it in train, and as it expanded chance would have it that a convergence of molecules, carbon atoms and other elements gave rise, in time, to the phenomenon known as Dr. Albert Ellis. How serendipitous! Maybe the World does give a shit after all! 

The Brain and Thinking - early childhood focus

Unconditional Self-Acceptance (USA) is a useful anti self disturbance belief resource developed by the grandfather of cognitive therapy, Dr Albert Ellis. He understood he was imperfect but he determined early on in the piece that despite his flaws he was always OK. OK, according to the gospel of St. Albert meant that he and everyone else could believe their way into unconditionally accepting themselves.

Unconditional self-acceptance renders a person psychologically resistant to the slings and arrows that others may cast their way in the form of put down, harsh criticisms; unfair and damning, and all manner of failings and personal imperfections.

This of course comes with practice and determination, vigilance and hard work. So how does one become self-accepting? This has been the focus of many or most of this blog content e.g Unconditional Self-Acceptance, but in a nutshell USA is knowing that a persons worth is not negotiable; it's a given, we're born with it!

However people are suggestible and are continually making sense of what's happening around them. If we receive information from around us, especially from significant others, which encourages and values our person we can learn to see ourselves in a positive light. If our carers and mentors address what we do and not who we are, we learn not to define ourselves, ascribe our total worth to aspects or personal traits we have developed. Be they good or bad we are not them. We can act badly and not 'be' bad and we can act 'goodly' and not 'be' good.

If on the other hand our mentors and significant others tell us we are bad because we do bad e.g. 'You are hopeless. You never do anything right!' we put two and two together and we compute four to mean, irrationally, that we are bad when we do bad etc.

These ideas can be taught successfully to younger folk in early childhood settings and the video below suggest we start off by establishing that as thinkers we direct and control how we feel and behave in response to life events. Our thinking can be helpful or unhelpful and these and other things will be explored through this video and others which will consider how we can help younger children to be happier and healthier unconditional self-accepters!

The Angry Man

And the world continued to turn. His world turned within that world. In his world everything was neat, tidy, symmetrical, clean, and predictable. This was his template for ‘normal,’ the way things 'should' be. Ordered. His world was the way it 'must' be and the big world beyond was anything but. The tension between what he demanded of the world and how things were in reality was always close to breaking. Taut. Tense. 'The Angry Man.'

We might talk of one world but there are many individually constructed worldviews. Mental health according to Albert Ellis is when we best align our own expectations and demands of self, others and life in general based on what we are most likely to get. If we don't want to feel uncomfortable and if we believe the world should give us what we want and it doesn't there is a disparity between what we want and what we receive! As Ellis reminds us:

'The world isn't for us or against us. It doesn't give a shit!'

The 'Angry Man' had a 'mindmap' of the world that didn't change. Over the years whilst the terrain had continued to modify his map did not accommodate these adjustments. He would demand that the world should be as he demanded it to be to agree with his map, but when his demands were not met he would erupt and cry foul!

He would blame everyone and everything for his anger. He was being done to, the world was against him; he was a victim. His self pity took precedence over everyone else's needs and sensibilities and he would demand that they would deliver what he wanted nay what he must have to feel OK again. His black and white views couldn't allow for any grey or reasonable assessment of situations. He couldn't bring himself to changing his own expectations of how things could be.

The 'Angry Man' in his position of workplace leader would target individuals who would not deliver what be believed he must have. His philosophy of:

 'I must absolutely always get what I want and if I don't the world is a terrible place and these people must be punished!'

Albert Ellis calls this 'musturbatory' thinking where the 'musturbator' thinks in oughts, musts and shoulds. Those who don't provide what he must have are often the target of bullying. The bully believes the victim makes him angry and she therefore deserves to be bullied! His toxicity is palpable and he will go to all lengths to get what he must have!

The 'Angry Man' would never concede that he is responsible for how he feels and behaves because he 'knows' this is not so. 'If only 'they' could see what 'they' are doing. If only 'they' would give me what I want!' is his internal dialogue, on continuous loop in his head. He programs and reprograms what he 'know's' is true by constantly practicing and reinforcing this irrational reality he has constructed.

His world turns within a world that can never give him what he believes he must have, a mismatch of realities that the 'Angry Man' can't understand as he stresses and strains to demand a world that will never (can't) match his own constructed reality.