by Albert Ellis
By the time he was twenty-three, everyone knew Stevie as an exceptionally shy, inhibited young man. No one doubted his self-hatred. But few realized his underlying grandiosity—his absolute need to be perfect and ideal in every respect and his complete refusal to accept any kind of mediocrity. Only after several months of REBT was I able to show Stevie that he was laying many shoulds on himself. Such as: “I have to be great at every important thing. And when I talk stupidly or badly at all, as I absolutely must not, I am completely worthless. So why, when I cannot speak outstandingly well, try at all?”
At first, Stevie couldn’t admit his perfectionism. But he finally saw his godlike demands on himself. Once he recognized these demands and began to use REBT to dispute them, and once he began to feel that he didn’t have to speak beautifully, he lost his feelings of inadequacy. Even though he still lisped and talked in a high-pitched voice, he stopped withdrawing and forced himself to keep talking and talking—and finally became a good conversationalist.
Not all emotional disturbance stems from arrogant thinking. But much of it does. And when you demand that you must not have failings, you can also demand that you must not be neurotic. Stevie, for example, clearly saw that he was neurotic—and then put himself down for being disturbed and hence made himself more neurotic.
Thus, he told himself, “Other people aren’t as shy as I am. How nutty of me to be so shy when most others don’t have this problem. I must not be!” “How stupid of me to be this disturbed!” So I created a secondary problem—a neurosis about my neurosis!
When you are neurotic, you frequently make yourself that way with illogical and unrealistic thinking. First, you are born with a talent for accepting and creating self-damaging ideas. Then you are considerably aided by your environment—which gives you real troubles (such as poverty, disease, and injustice) and which often encourages your rigid thinking (such as, “Since you have musical ability, you absolutely ought to be an outstanding musician.”).
But neurosis still comes mainly from you. You consciously or unconsciously choose to victimize yourself by it. And you can choose to stop your nonsense and to stubbornly refuse to make yourself neurotic about virtually anything.
You really can?
Yes, that is the main thrust of this book. You can think scientifically. As the brilliant psychologist George Kelly pointed out in 1955, you are a natural scientist. Thus, you predict what will happen if you decide to save money and buy a good car. And, once you decide, you observe the results of your decision and check them to try to confirm your predictions. Will you actually be able to save enough? Will you, if you do not, get a good car? You check to see.
That is the essence of science: setting up plausible hypotheses or guesses and then experimenting and checking to uphold or disprove them. For a hypothesis is not a fact—only a guess, an assumption. And you check it to determine if it is correct. If it proves false, you reject it and try a new hypothesis. If it seems correct, you tentatively keep it—but always stand ready to change it if later evidence against it arises.
This is the scientific method. It is hardly infallible and often produces uncertain results. But it is probably the best method we have of discovering “truth” and of understanding “reality.” Many mystics and religionists have argued that science gives us only a limited view of reality and that we can achieve Absolute Truth and Cosmic Understanding by pure intuition or direct experiences of the central energy of the universe. Interesting theories—or hypotheses! But hardly as yet proved. And most likely we can never prove or disprove them. Therefore, they are not science.
Science is not merely the use of logic and facts to verify or falsify a theory. More important, it consists of continually revising and changing theories and trying to replace them with more valid ideas and more useful guesses. It is flexible rather than rigid, open-minded instead of dogmatic. It strives for a greater truth but not for absolute and perfect truth (with a capital T!).
The principles of REBT outlined in this book uniquely hold that anti-scientific, irrational thinking is a main cause of emotional disturbance and that if REBT persuades you to be an efficient scientist, you will know how to stubbornly refuse to make yourself miserable about practically anything. Yes, anything!
For if you are consistently scientific and flexible about your desires, preferences, and values, you will not escalate them into self-defeating dogmas. You will then think, “I strongly prefer to have a fine career and be with a partner I love.” But you will not fanatically—and unscientifically!—add: (a) “I must have a fine career!” (b) “I can only be happy with a partner I love!” (c) “I am a thoroughly rotten person if I don’t achieve the fine career and great relationship I must achieve!”
REBT also shows you that if you do, somehow, devoutly believe these rigid musts and thereby make yourself miserable, you can always use the scientific method to dispute and uproot them, then begin thinking sanely again. For that is what emotional health largely is—sane or scientific thinking. It is next to impossible, REBT holds, to make and keep yourself seriously neurotic if you give up all dogma, all bigotry, all intolerance. For if you think scientifically, you can accept—though hardly like—unchangeable hassles and stop making them into “holy horrors.”
Of course, you always won’t do this. In no way!
You have as much chance to be a perfect scientist as you have, say, to be a perfect pianist or writer. As a very fallible human being, you’ll hardly reach perfection!
You can strive, if you wish, to be as good as you can be. But you’d better not try for perfection! You can wish for it, prefer to achieve it, and thereby refuse to upset yourself if you fall short. Even desiring real perfection seems futile. But to demand it seems—well, almost perfectly insane! Or, as Alfred Korzybski put it, unsane.
So even if you thoroughly read this book and energetically strive to follow its suggestions, you will not become a perfect scientist—or make yourself completely “unmiserable” for the rest of your life. To reap this kind of utopian harvest, try some devout cult that promises pure bliss forever. Science will not. But here is a more realistic REBT plan:
To challenge your misery, try science. Give it a real chance. Work at thinking rationally, sticking to reality, checking your hypotheses about yourself, about other people, and about the world. Check them against the best observations and facts that you can find. Stop being a Pollyanna. Give up pie-in-the-sky. Uproot your easy-to-come-by wishful thinking. Ruthlessly rip up your childish prayers.
Yes, rip them up! Again—and again—and again!
Will you never again feel disturbed? I doubt it. Will you reduce your anxiety, depression, and rage to near zero? Probably not.
But I can, almost, just about promise you this: The more scientific, rational, and realistic you become, the less emotionally uptight you will be. Not zero uptight—for that is inhuman or superhuman. But a hell of a lot less. And, as your years go by, and your scientific outlook becomes more solid, less and less neurotic.
Is that a guarantee? No, but a prediction that will probably be fulfilled.
REBT Exercise No. 2
Think of a time when you recently felt anxious about anything. What were you anxious or overconcerned about? Meeting new people? Doing well at work? Winning the approval of a person you liked? Passing a test or a course? Doing well at a job interview? Winning a game of tennis or chess? Getting into a good school? Learning that you have a serious disease? Being treated unfairly?
Look for your command or demand for success or approval that was creating your anxiety or overconcern. What was your should, ought, or must? Look for these kinds of anxiety-creating thoughts:
“I must impress these new people I am meeting.”
“Because I want to do well at work, I have to!”
“Since I like this person very much, I’ve got to win his or her approval !”
“Passing this test or course is very important. Therefore, I have to pass it!”
“Because thi
s looks like a good job, it is necessary that I please the interviewer.”
“If I win this tennis (or chess) game, I will prove how good a player I am. Therefore, it is essential that I win it and show everyone that I’m really good!”
“This school that I’ve applied to is one of the best I could enter, and I really want to get in it. Consequently, I must get accepted and it would be horrible if I didn’t!”
“It would really be terrible if I had a serious disease, and if I did I couldn’t stand it. I must know for certain that I don’t have it!”
“I treated these people very well and therefore they must not treat me unfairly, and it would be awful if they did!”
In every instance where you have recently felt anxious and overconcerned, look for your preferences (“I would very much like to get this job”) and then find your command or must (“Therefore, I have to get it and I couldn’t bear it if I don’t! ”).
Do the same for your recent feelings of depression. Find what you are depressed about, then persist till you find your should, ought, or must that is creating your depression. Take a look at these examples:
“Because I want this job and should have prepared for the interview and didn’t prepare as well as I must, I’m an idiot who doesn’t deserve a good job like this!”
“I could have practiced more to win this tennis match but didn’t practice as much as I should have, and that proves that I’m a lazy slob who will never be very good at tennis or anything else!”
Find your shoulds, oughts, and musts that recently made you feel quite angry at someone about some event. For example:
“After I went out of my way to lend John money, he never paid it back, as he absolutely should have! What an irresponsible louse he is! He must not treat me that way!”
“I could have gone to the beach on Saturday, but foolishly waited until Sunday—when it rained. The weather should have continued to be good on Sunday. How horrible it was that it rained. I can’t stand rain when I want to go to the beach!”
Assume that most times when you feel anxious, depressed, or angry you are not only strongly desiring but also commanding that something go well and that you get what you want. Cherchez le should, cherchez le must! Look for your should, look for your must! Don’t give up until you find it. If you have trouble finding it, seek the help of a friend, relative, or REBT therapist who will help you find it. Persist!
Also! Assume that your shoulds and musts are, when they defeat you, held strongly, emotionally. And assume that you persistently act on the basis of them. (“Since I cannot be sure, as I must be, that I can win at tennis, what’s the use? I might as well avoid playing it.”) You not only think destructive musts, you strongly feel and act on them. You think, feel, and behave in a musturbatory manner. All three! But thinking, feeling, and acting can be changed. If you see and attack them!
4
How to Think Scientifically About Yourself, Other People, and Your Life Conditions
Let us suppose that I have now sold you on using the scientific method to help yourself overcome your anxiety and to lead a happier existence. Now what? How can you specifically apply science to your relations with yourself, with others, and with the world around you? Read on!
Science, as I pointed out in the previous chapter, is flexible and nondogmatic. It sticks to facts and to reality (which always can change) and to logical thinking (which does not contradict itself and hold two opposite views at the same time). But it also avoids rigid all-or-none and either/or thinking and sees that reality is often two sided and includes contradictory events and characteristics.
Thus, in my relations with you, I am not a totally good person or a bad person but a person who sometimes treats you well and sometimes treats you badly. Instead of viewing world events in a rigid, absolute way, science assumes that such events, and especially human affairs, usually follow the laws of probability.
Here are the main rules of the scientific method:
1. We had better accept what is going on (WIGO) in the world as “reality,” even when we don’t like it and are trying to change it. We constantly observe and check “facts” to see whether they are still “true” or whether they have changed. We call our observing and checking reality the empirical method of science.
2. We state scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses in a logical, consistent way and avoid important, basic contradictions (as well as false or unrealistic “facts”). We can change these theories when they are not supported by facts or logic.
3. Science is flexible and nonrigid. It is skeptical of all ideas that hold that anything is absolutely, unconditionally, or certainly true—that is, true under all conditions for all time. It willingly revises and changes its theories as new information arises.
4. Science does not uphold any theories or views that cannot be falsified in some manner (for example, the idea that invisible, all-powerful devils exist and cause all the evils in the world). It doesn’t claim that the supernatural does not exist, but since there is no way to prove that superhuman beings do or do not exist, it does not include them in the realm of science. Our beliefs in supernatural things are important and can be scientifically investigated, and we can often find natural explanations for “supernatural” events. But it is unlikely that we will ever prove or disprove the “reality” of superhuman beings.
5. Science is skeptical that the universe includes “deservingness” and “undeservingness” and that it deifies people (and things) for their “good” acts or damns them for their “bad” behavior. It does not have any absolute, universal standard of “good” and “bad” behavior and assumes that if any group sees certain deeds as “good” it will tend to (but doesn’t have to) reward those who act that way and will often (but not always) penalize those who act “badly.”
6. In regard to human affairs and conduct, science again does not have any absolute rules, but once people establish a standard or goal—such as remaining alive and living happily in social groups—science can study what people are like, the conditions under which they live, and the ways in which they usually act; it can to some extent judge whether they are meeting those goals and whether it might be wise to modify them or to establish other ways to achieve them. In regard to emotional health and happiness, once people decide their goals and standards (which is not easy for them to do!), science can often help them achieve these aims. But it gives no guarantees! Science can tell us how we probably—but not certainly—can have a good life.
If these are some of the main rules of the scientific method, how can you follow them and thereby help yourself be emotionally healthier and happier?
Answer: By taking your emotional upsets, and the irrational Beliefs (iBs) that you mainly use to create them, and by using the scientific method to rip them up. By scientifically thinking, feeling, and acting against them.
To show you how you can do this, let us take some common irrational commands and scientifically examine them.
IRRATIONAL BELIEF
“Because I strongly prefer to do so, I must act competently.”
SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS
Is this belief realistic and factual? Obviously not. Because I am a human with some degree of choice, I don’t have to act competently and can choose to act badly. Moreover, since I am fallible, even if I choose always to act competently, I clearly have no way of always doing so.
Is this belief logical? No, because my fallibility contradicts the demand that I always must act competently. Also, it doesn’t logically follow, from my strong preferences to do so, that I have to do so.
Is this belief flexible and unrigid? No, it says that under all conditions and in all ways, I must act competently. It is therefore an un-flexible, rigid belief.
Can this belief be falsified? In one way, yes. Because I can prove that I do not have to behave competently at all times. But the belief that I must act competently implies that I am a supernatural being whose desire for competence must always be fulfilled and who has
the power to fulfill it.
There may be no way to fully falsify this godlike command, because even if I at times act incompetently, I can claim that I deliberately did so for some special reason and that I can always, if I will to do so, act competently. I can also say, “God’s will be done!”—and that, as a child of God, I don’t have to explain why I acted “incompetently.”
Does this belief prove deservingness? No, this again is an idea that cannot, except by fiat, be proven or disproven. I can legitimately hold that because I am intelligent and because I try hard, I will usually or probably act competently. But I cannot show that because of my intelligence, my hard work, my aliveness, my desire to succeed, or anything else, the universe undoubtedly owes me competence. That kind of obligation, deservingness, or necessity clearly doesn’t exist—or else, once again, I would always be competent.
Does this belief show that I will act well and get good, happy results by holding it? Definitely not. If I act competently all the time, I may actually get bad results—because many people may be jealous of me, hate me, and try to harm me for being so perfect. And if I rigidly believe that “because I strongly prefer to do so, I must act competently.” I will at times see that I do not act as well as I presumably must, and will therefore tend to hate myself and the world and make myself anxious and depressed. So this idea won’t work—unless I somehow manage to always act quite competently!
IRRATIONAL BELIEF
“I have to be approved by people whom I find important, and it’s awful and catastrophic if I am not!”
SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS
Is this belief realistic and factual? Clearly not, because there is no law of the universe that says that I have to be approved of by people whom I find important, and there is a law of probability that says that many of the people I would prefer to approve of me definitely will not. It’s not awful or catastrophic when I am not approved of, only uncomfortable. Bad things may happen to me when I am not approved of. But when something is “awful” it is (a) exceptionally bad, (b) totally bad, or (c) as bad as it could be. Being disapproved of by important people may not even be exceptionally but only moderately bad. It is certainly not totally bad—and it could always be worse. So this belief doesn’t by any means conform to reality.