Disputing REBT
Wednesday, May 11th, 2011Dear [Mentat],
Clearly, Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT) has profound advantages and provides essential tools for thinking ourselves out of many of life’s quandaries. It clearly has usefulness in correcting self-destructive thoughts and subsequent behaviors. So if given the choice between taking psychoactive drugs to quell depressions and using REBT, I’d certainly opt for [Dr. Albert] Ellis’s REBT approach, because I believe his way to be a healthy, more permanent solution, one without negative side effects. But I’m not completely sold on REBT. For the rest of this letter, I’ll present my arguments for disputing REBT.
I read [Ellis's book] How To Stubbornly Refuse To Make Yourself Miserable About Anything, Yes Anything. In fact, I have a copy right here. While this book is quite inspirational, producing that exciting high that most any well-written self-help book does, it seems to make things too simple by offering too little qualification on its numerous very general statements; thus, the price of trying to fit so much information into such a small space. Like you were saying about TV talk shows previously, this book was targeted at the layman, or the least-common-denominator of society, at those people who avoid books with more than two-hundred pages and that contain bigger than two-syllable words. 
So in order to attract as many readers as he could, but at the risk of alienating some of them, Ellis had to limit his depth. A good strategic choice I’d say, because by offering less detail, he’s probably whetted the appetites of more readers than he would have, had he dumped all his REBT material into one voluminous volume. Fortunately though, he has many other, very in-depth publications that do some of the qualifying that this book lacks. But even with its over generalizations, the REBT philosophy is a sound and useful one. We just have to make sure we don’t apply it inappropriately.
While my interest in this piece is in disputing REBT, I’d say that REBT has the greatest potential in helping us find appropriate non-destructive ways of filling level four and five needs (the growth needs), and to teach us how to avoid behaviors deemed destructive to filling those as well as the deficiency needs. REBT also has some applicability at level three in Maslow’s hierarchy, particularly since Maslow himself says that human urges above level one are much more likely driven by cultural influences than by biological mandates. This would make all but our most basic needs for survival more cognitive in nature and thus more amenable (in theory) to adjustment via REBT techniques.
But in disputing REBT, I must point out the strong staying power of cultural influence. Just how much easier is it to change a culturally-instilled proclivity than a biological instinct? I’m not sure. My hunch is that it’s not as easy as most self-help books imply. History would suggest that it’s quite hard in fact; thus the notion that humans are creatures of habit. It’s difficult to undo bad thinking (and habits) when the society around us encourages it.
Peer pressure is a big component in what makes humans so habitual, I think. More specifically, the man trying keep on a healthy diet is constantly picked on and tempted by those not so inclined, or those out to sabotage him. He can go to therapy, apply REBT, and convince himself that under no circumstances is he ever worthless, no matter what his goals. He could review daily the pitfalls of eating badly and the positive outcomes of eating well. But, disputing REBT, the next time he visits a party and people offer him a slab of cake and three scoops of ice cream (peer pressure), he’ll very often find the temptation to binge overwhelming, and succumb to it. Behaviors corrected via REBT seem about as subject to relapse as those exorcised through other therapeutic techniques.
REBTcan work in these situations and often does. But you’ve got to be able to change your environment and the people you hang with too. The rational and emotive parts of REBT, which primarily are confined to the brain can certainly lay a good foundation for more appropriate behaviors. But that behavior part is what really limits how effective REBT can be. Unlike the other two dimensions of REBT (rational and emotive), the behavior part is the most subject to the practicalities and preferences dictated by culture (at least, local culture anyhow). Our dieting man may have good understandings of what to eat and how to put food in the right perspective – that we eat to live and not live to eat. But if he can’t (or won’t) say goodbye to the people blocking his progress, if he can’t stay away from those parties to which his friends are always inviting him, then REBT’s effectiveness is markedly reduced. And over the long haul, its externally observable net benefit may well be zilch for this man.
It may sound easy to replace one’s current friends with more supportive and empowering ones. But it’s not. It takes years to build truly loving associations. There are trust issues to overcome, particularly for women. And when we already have a circle of friends and family who accept us as we are, one in which we feel safe, giving that up for the uncertainty of finding similar acceptance and safety in more supportive circles can be daunting, impractical, and in some cases even impossible. So, while culturally derived behaviors and preferences might seem easier to manipulate due to their lack of clear physical representation in the body, they can still pose insurmountable lifelong challenges just like the biological needs. Unless we can change the culture to which we’re subject, then REBT can only work so well. Its useful limits become more pronounced the lower in the needs hierarchy we go.
Related Posts
References
- Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy definition on Wikipedia
- Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs definition on Wikipedia