Category Archives: Cognitive Behaviorism

Cognitive Behaviorism: An Abridged History – 2.0

Cognitive Behaviorism, Paradoxes in Everyday Life, Subjectivity and Objectivity, , , , , , ,

For years, cognitive behaviorism has been the self-proclaimed leader in psychotherapy, citing numerous studies to back that claim. That approach has touted its superior effectiveness in treating a variety of mental disorders. Its list of “evidence-based” applications has grown so broad that you’d think it’d cure all that ails you. Like other movements, it has tended to overreach its utility by trying to be all things to all people. In the words of a folksy adage, “When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.”

Putting Cognitive Behaviorism in Perspective

We can gain perspective, though, by placing cognitive behaviorism in its historical and cultural context. In doing so, we can better appreciate both its promises and its limitations in resolving particular problems of living. This exploration will allow cognitive behaviorism to assume its rightful place among other approaches to life’s adversities. We can then see this therapeutic model as but one set of tools in the tool chest. This perspective will then allow us to apply its strategies and techniques to the appropriate situations. Likewise, we can expect to find that other therapeutic approaches are more relevant for other circumstances.

The Broader Historical Context

Cognitive behaviorism is, first of all, a product of Western civilization. As such, it inherited a perspective that evolved out of the Renaissance and the later Industrial Revolution. This orientation ushered in a philosophical  inquiry into how we know anything with any certainty. This laid the groundwork for logical empiricism as the basis of the scientific method. That particular ideology viewed the application of logic to observable data as the basic path to knowledge. Within psychology, the school of behaviorism embraced that philosophy to guide its research and practice. This is a rather abbreviated outline of a centuries-long process, and the following sections will flesh this out.

The Rise of the Scientific Perspective

With the Renaissance and the later Industrial Revolution, Western culture shifted from a faith-based to a science-based view of reality. In doing so, our civilization has exhibited a bias toward the scientific objectivity that has fostered unprecedented advances in science and technology over the past 500 years. This perspective questioned the assumptions of the older world view, including the belief in an omniscient and omnipotent Being running the show. It even called into question the reality of our own existence. In the 17th Century, Rene Descartes proposed a logical proof of our existence, declaring, “cogito, ergo sum.” (“I think, therefore I am”). Later philosophical thought gave primacy to the objective perspective by viewing rationality as the arbiter of factual certainty.

Toward Logical Empiricism

Philosophical inquiry became focused on understanding the path to knowledge (i.e., epistemology, as it is known in philosophy). Thus, it is more of a philosophy of science, rather than a broader philosophy of life. Within this movement arose branches of rationalism, empiricism, and skepticism, all embracing objective perspectives on reality. Logical empiricism took this outlook on knowing to its natural conclusion. This school views knowledge as being accrued through applying principles of logic to shared sensory experience. Thus, private personal experiences are not to be trusted, as they cannot be validated by others. Well, so much for introspection! And metaphysical constructs? Logical empiricists considered these non-sensory (and perhaps nonsense?), and thus unworthy subjects for philosophical or scientific analysis.

The Emergence of Psychology as a Scientific Discipline

During the Industrial Age, psychology emerged from its philosophical roots to proclaim its legitimacy as a scientific pursuit. In 1879, Wilhelm Wundt established the first psychological laboratory, in Leipzig, Germany. He and his followers pursued the methodical study of human experience, including sensations, thoughts, feelings, and memories. Subsequent psychological research further developed an experimental approach to the pursuit of knowledge. This trend culminated with the American Psychological Association adopted the Scientist-Practitioner model in 1949. They thus formalized science as the basis of applied psychologists’ practice. This meant that scientific research was to provide the foundation for clinical psychologists providing psychotherapy and psychological assessment.

Experimental Research vs. Case Study

Thus, the methodology of experimental psychology came to overshadow the more subjective case study approach. In the process, the objectively-oriented psychologists viewed the insights attained from case studies as mere anecdotal evidence. At best, psychologists viewed these as a source of hypotheses to be tested in more formal experiments. In this way, objective data replaced clinical intuitions as the gold standard for psychological knowledge. Psychotherapy came to be viewed as an application of scientific knowledge, rather than a healing art. Psychologists devised controlled experimental designs to establish that a particular therapeutic approach meets the “evidence-based” standard for efficacy. This emphasis on objectivity has largely relegated the more subjective exploration of the complexities of the human condition to the arts and humanities.

The Rise of Behaviorism in Psychology

From within the broad discipline of psychology emerged the school of behaviorism, with its more stringent research standards. This branch found guidance through its strict adherence to the tenets of the logical empiricism. In particular, it viewed knowledge as accruing through applying principles of logic to shared sensory experience. According to this standard, the earlier introspective methods of Wundt and Tichener were dismissed as objectively unverifiable. That is, the researchers could record, but not validate, their subjects’ report of private experiences. (This is by definition, because if it could be verified, the experience would no longer be considered private).

The Black Box of Private Experience

The strict behaviorists proclaimed that data without external validation was neither reliable nor meaningful. They considered the mind as a “black box,” concealing its contents and providing no real explanations. The behaviorists considered only the subjects’ observable behaviors legitimate targets for investigation. This methodology excluded private experience (i.e., thoughts, feelings, sensations, memories, and associations) from study. Within this constraint, behavioral psychology adopted a cause-and-effect analysis of the relationship between the environment and the behavior. In learning theory, behaviorists view behaviors as conditioned responses to external stimulus situations and reinforcement histories. Note how all these factors can be witnessed directly and consensually validated.

Enter the Cognitive Behaviorists

The cognitive behaviorists, though, reintroduced one type of private experience, cognitions, as a legitimate object of inquiry. They challenged the behaviorists’ suspicions about the validity of private experience by assuming that their subjects were reporting the truth. The “truth,” though, had one major qualification. That is, cognitive behaviorists assumed the subjects’ were reporting their own truths. These were descriptions of their own private thoughts and beliefs, even if not objectively true. Thus, cognitive behaviorists could count their subjects’ self-report of  experiences as publicly verifiable, even if their experiences weren’t.

Irrational Personal Truths

In fact, the cognitive behaviorist based their therapy on the discrepancy between their clients’ personal truths and objective reality. With public consensus defining this reality, beliefs contrary to this shared reality were considered irrational. Therapists adopting this approach proposed that their clients’ irrational beliefs were causing them emotional distress. Thus, cognitive behaviorists opened up the “black box” of the mind to rediscover the inner life that had been ignored or rejected as irrelevant. In doing so, they fudged on the strict empiricism of the radical behaviorists and the earlier logical empiricists. They still retained an objective bias by focusing on the issue of rationality in their clients’ beliefs, rather than paying comparable attention to the more subjective memories, emotions, sensations, or perceptions.

Objectivity over Subjectivity

Even with its acceptance of private experiences as a legitimate object of study, cognitive behaviorism remained true to logical empiricism’s vision of knowledge. That is, it viewed knowledge as being attained through applying logic to shared sensory experience. In assuming this approach, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was extending the challenge that the Age of Reason had posed to the Age of Faith from the broad cultural level down to the individual level. In this case, rather than challenging the dogmas of religion, as Copernicus and Galileo had done in displacing the earth from the center of the universe, cognitive behaviorists were analyzing and challenging the idiosyncratic belief systems of the various individuals seeking their aid and counsel.

Humans Viewed as “Naive Scientists”

An early pioneer in cognitive behaviorism, George Kelly, presented a view of individuals as “naive scientists” who develop and test the validity of their belief systems about their world. This tenet served as a foundation for the cognitive behavioral therapies later developed by Aaron Beck, Albert Ellis, and others. Counselors and therapists using this approach judged the validity of their clients’ beliefs by the same standards of logical empiricism that they used in their own scientific research.

Cognitive Behaviorism and Freudian Psychoanalysis

A contextual review of cognitive behaviorism would be incomplete without reference to Freudian psychoanalysis. This earlier model of psychotherapy had upset Victorian sensibilities by addressing human sexuality as central to the human condition. Behaviorism did not challenge Freudian theory for its emphasis on sexuality per se. Rather, it challenged its use of various metaphysical constructs (e.g., libido, the Oedipus complex, the death instinct, the unconscious). Behaviorists argued that these concepts were so removed from sensory experience that they could be neither proven nor refuted. Thus, behaviorism did not actually disprove Freudian psychodynamics. Rather. it moved to dismiss the case on procedural grounds. Namely, behaviorists argued that the intangible Freudian concepts lacked the observability required by logical empiricism. In this way, cognitive behaviorism was able to dismiss the animal nature in humans without “getting its hands dirty.”

The Problem of Emotional Distress

That still left the realm of the emotions to address. since clients were seeking therapy, not to correct their irrational beliefs, but rather to alleviate their emotional pain and suffering. While the Freudian psychodynamic model views distressing emotions as a manifestation of frustrated instinctual drives, cognitive behaviorism considers these feelings more as byproducts of irrational belief systems.

Beyond Cognitive Behaviorism

Behaviorism has since evolved beyond the pure cognitive behavioral model in what has been characterized as the “third wave” of behaviorism. These newer approaches have delved further into the “black box” of the mind. Marsha Linehan’s dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), Stephen Hayes’ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), and Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) have all expanded their scope beyond the narrow focus on thoughts through the analytic lens of rationality.

An Eastern Influence

These behavioral schools have drawn upon Eastern influences in developing the practice of mindfulness as cornerstones of their approaches. DBT and ACT have also deviated from behaviorism’s logical empirical foundations by addressing values and emotions. For example, they have espoused a paradoxical juxtaposition of acceptance of the current situation and commitment to change. Both of these approaches seek to cultivate a tolerance for normal suffering by incorporating the Buddhist principles of the Four Noble Truths into their perspective and practice. This contrasts with CBT’s reliance upon logical analysis to temper, if not eliminate, the negative emotions associated with the irrational beliefs.

Venturing into Subjectivity

With ACT, the challenges to the clients’ dysfunctional outlooks on life are conveyed not just through the objective lens of logic, but also through the subjectivity of analogy and metaphor. With such significant departures from the philosophical underpinnings of behaviorism, this “third wave” of behaviorism actually appears to be more of a hybrid of behavioral and experiential approaches to psychology, rather than simply an evolved behaviorism.

The Further Modification of Behaviorism

Even with these deviations from behavioral orthodoxy, the cognitive behavioral establishment has not declared these “third wave” approaches heretical. Rather, traditional cognitive behaviorists have tolerated the reformed schools and even introduced mindfulness techniques into their own practice. Traditional CBT has tended to import the techniques without incorporating the underlying principles that have supported these practices through the centuries. Such modifications strike me as akin to morphing an elephant’s trunk onto a horse: there just doesn’t appear to be a smooth integration.

An Alternative Perspective: The Way of Paradox

Now, where am I going with this review? What’s my angle? You might note my domain name is roguepsychologist, and wonder what I am up to. And you would be quite right! By placing a school of thought within a cultural context, we recognize its relativity. It takes its place among various perspectives. We can then compare the perspectives, thus revealing their limitations as well as their strengths. Such is my strategy in challenging the position of cognitive behaviorism as the prevailing model of psychotherapy.

When Life’s Paradoxes Cause Distress

While CBT provides a valid approach to alleviating distress resulting from unrealistic expectations and other irrational beliefs, this approach does not appear relevant for reconciling oneself to the inherent paradoxes of the human condition. And I would not be exerting such energy in my challenge if I did not have an alternative perspective to set forth. And in doing so, I would pose the following questions: What if the structure of our reality were not logical and rational? What if it were paradoxical, instead? And if so, how might we engage in its structure, not in the most reasonable way, but in the most enriching manner?

Beyond the Familiar Ground of Cognitive Behaviorism

I grant that the “third wave” of behaviorism has blazed a trail into this frontier (from the behavioral perspective, that is), leaving behind the familiar path of logical empiricism. Yet while this is foreign territory to the behaviorists, it is homeland for others who are steeped in experiential and humanistic traditions, particularly existentialism. I must also acknowledge that I have been relatively unfamiliar with the intricacies of these “third wave” schools, such that I was going about reinventing the wheel according to my specifications, with their ideas perhaps having some influence in the background.

Approaching Paradox from an Experiential Perspective

The “third wave” of behaviorism has thus approached the integration of behavior and experience from a behavioral perspective. In contrast, I have ventured out from a more humanistic and existential outlook for my synthesis. The tracks are parallel and at times crossing, though coming from different directions.

In developing my ideas, I cannot identify all the works that have influenced my formulations. I have attempted to give credit where credit is due, yet the linkages are not always that clear. Some of them are no doubt locked away in my own “black box.” On this website, I have aimed not so much at introducing new material. (I’ve looked everywhere under the sun, to no avail.) Rather, I seek to integrate behavioral and experiential aspects of life. Furthermore, I attempt to integrate psychological and philosophical material as a coherent whole. Hopefully, I can do so in a compelling and engaging manner.

Philosophers Calvin and Hobbes

With that being said, I want to credit the 20th/21st Century philosophers Calvin and Hobbes, as interpreted by Bill Watterson. (They are not to be confused with John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes of earlier times). Through their fumbling meanderings, they often exemplify the human struggle with the various paradoxes of life. Similar to the DBT and ACT approaches, they grapple with the paradox of being and becoming. Here, the challenge is the simultaneous acceptance of the current situation and the commitment to change. Calvin and Hobbes also explore other paradoxical dualities, such as order and freedom, security and excitement, and individuality and belonging. You can find links to these works in my web posts – but you’ll have to look for them!

For Further Exploration, . . .

If these issues appeal to you, I’d refer you to my other posts on my website. These include my home page, About “A Rogue Psychologist’s Field Guide to the Universe”. Or you’ll find a somewhat more detailed account in Beyond Rationality and into the Realm of Paradox.  I have two other posts, Living Rationally with Paradox and Muddling Down a Middle Path, which address these issues. Yet another post, Vicious Cycles Patterns in Relationships 2.0, integrates the behavioral and experiential components addressed in this article.

When Thinking Distorts Feelings

Cognitive Behaviorism, , , , , , , ,

Emotions tend to be looked upon unfavorably in a society that puts a premium on rationality and objectivity. Feelings are often seen as clouding one’s thinking, such that it is not uncommon to hear phrases like, “Let’s be rational about this,” and “You don’t need to be so emotional.”

Yet when functioning properly, our feelings are adaptive in directing our responses to various events in our daily lives. For example, love draws us toward our partners and others who are likely to be supportive of our endeavors. Anxiety urges the exercise of caution, stepping back from situations to assess the danger before engaging. It encourages a “look before you leap” attitude. Sadness often times stops us in our tracks, which enables us to take some time to grieve our losses before moving on, so that we do not carry that “extra baggage” with us. Anger encourages us to confront others who challenge our well-being, either by threatening harm or by interfering with our pursuits. Disgust repels us from situations we find noxious, whether physically or emotionally.  In all these examples, emotions play an adaptive role in living secure and rewarding lives.

Yet our feelings do not always function properly. At times, they may be so numbed or muted that we become complacent and avoid responding to situations that need our attention. At other times, our feelings may be “over the top,” too intense for us to utilize properly. That may be somewhat akin to having a jackhammer when a situation calls for a simple hammer. Often, it is not our emotions, but our thinking that is the culprit. Our attitudes shape our feelings toward others, events, and things, in terms of both quality and intensity. We have various sayings that illustrate this phenomenon, such as “seeing the glass as half empty or half full,” “making a mountain out of a molehill,” “seeing the silver lining of the dark cloud.” Such outlooks can have a dramatic impact on one’s feelings, which in turn can have a major impact on whether and how one responds to a given situation.

If we look at stress as an accumulation of various feelings in response to various challenges in living, we come to realize that the level of stress we experience from a given event is not so much determined by the event itself, as it is by our perception and interpretation of that situation. In other words, it is the meaning that we attach to the event that shapes the types and intensity of feelings we experience from it.

Another way of looking at emotions is the analogy of potential energy, such as from gravitational pull. The force of water flowing downhill can be either destructive or constructive. When there is too much water, such as with a downburst, a flash flood can bring pervasive destruction to all downstream from it. Building a dam, on the other hand, not only offers a safeguard against the destructive floodwaters, but also provides an opportunity to harness the energy in generating electricity. Following this analogy, we can work at developing healthier outlooks toward the challenging events in our lives, so that we can make adaptive use of our emotions in guiding our actions, rather than having our feelings, supercharged by maladaptive attitudes, lead us to actions (or inaction) that we later regret.

While these unhealthy attitudes can interfere with our response to events by numbing or shutting down our emotions, this exercise will explore various attitudes that wreak havoc by intensifying the feelings. Here, we will follow the format used in my previous blog, Rationalizations Used to Minimize and Deny Substance Problems, which explores a positive application of the cognitive behavioral approach in challenging various types of rationalizations. The following table presents various types of rationalizations in the first column, while proposing healthier alternative perspectives in the second column.

Challenging Unhealthy Attitudes

[ezcol_1half]Perspectives That Intensify Our Emotions[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Perspectives That Temper Our Emotions[/ezcol_1half_end]

[ezcol_1half]The “Egocentric Imperative”: perceiving a situation from only one’s own point of view, often viewing other perspectives as wrong or inferior, if recognizing them at all[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end] Recognizing that there can be various legitimate points of view on a subject, without viewing any of them as inherently right or wrong[/ezcol_1half_end]

[ezcol_1half]Assumed Intent: taking things personally, such that one interprets others’ actions as intended to do us harm[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Working at understanding the differences and resolving the problem or conflict, with more of a focus  on the present and future[/ezcol_1half_end]

[ezcol_1half]Conditional Assumptions:   assuming that certain relationships imply specific obligations across   the board (the “fine print” in the relationship contract) (e.g., “If you   really loved me, you would . . .” Or “if you were a real friend, you wouldn’t   . . .”n[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Recognizing that we all must balance being-for-others with being-for-ourselves, and that others are   free to choose when to be there for us and when to be there for themselves, and that there are usually no hard-and-fast rules to determine the correct   choice at any given time[/ezcol_1half_end]

[ezcol_1half]Assigning Blame:   focusing on who is at fault for a given situation, typically focusing on the past[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Working at understanding the differences and resolving the problem or conflict, with more of a focus   on the present and future[/ezcol_1half_end]

[ezcol_1half]The “Fairness Doctrine”:  expecting fair treatment as an automatic or guaranteed right that we are entitled to, almost as if it were a law of nature[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Recognizing that fairness is a social convention adopted to help us get along with one another, and that advocacy is required not only to establish one’s rights, but also to maintain them[/ezcol_1half_end]

[ezcol_1half]Dichotomizing: using distinct categories for good vs. bad, right vs. wrong, with black and white   thinking, allowing for no shades of gray[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Recognizing that both sides of an issue can have both positive and negative points[/ezcol_1half_end]

[ezcol_1half]Catastrophizing:   imagining the worst-case scenario and treating it as reality[/ezcol_1half] [ezcol_1half_end]Making provisional contingency plans for the worst, but also considering and planning for other   possibilities[/ezcol_1half_end]

While this table does not present a complete list of the various perspectives which tend to intensify emotions, it covers a considerable portion of them. We can thus use this as a tool for identifying specific perspectives that intensify feelings, much as we identified various rationalizations used to justify problematic use of substances in the article, Rationalizations Used to Minimize and Deny Substance Problems. In the first column is the statement, using one’s own words or thoughts, which tend to intensify feelings. In the second column is the type of unhealthy perspective being used in this statement. Note that if your example does not appear to fit any of the above categories, you are free to come up with your own category. In the third column, you come up with your own alternative perspective that offers a healthier and more adaptive outlook to the situation. You will note that  most of the spaces on the table are empty. This is simply because I have not sought out the input of my “panel of experts” (i.e., clients with whom I work in individual, family, and group therapy, or readers of my posts). This is a project in the making, and I invite readers of the blog to submit your own examples, which I will gladly plagiarize (so as to protect your anonymity, of course). If I do use your example, you should be honored, as it is plagiarism, not imitation, that is the highest form of flattery.

[ezcol_1third]SPECIFIC ATTITUDES   THAT INTENSIFY   FEELINGS[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]TYPE OF FAULTY OUTLOOK[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]CHALLENGING   PERSPECTIVE[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]That jerk has   some nerve pulling out in front of me without signaling. No one gets away   with disrespecting me like that.  I’ll   show him.[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]Assumed  Intent[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]While that is   reckless driving, it says a lot about him, but nothing about me.  I’m not going to let him bring me down to   his level of disregard by reacting to him.[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]She obviously   doesn’t care about me.  She turned down   my asking her out to the movies because she wanted to get together with her friends   from work.  I guess they are more   important to her than I am.[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]Conditional   Assumption, Egocentric Imperative[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]If I wanted to   take her to the movie that badly, maybe I should have asked her a few days   ahead of time, rather than assuming that her life revolved around me.  I’d likely find her to be somewhat boring   if she didn’t have a life of her own.[/ezcol_1third_end]

[whohit]when thinking distorts feelings[/whohit]

Rationalizations Used To Minimize and Deny Substance Problems

Cognitive Behaviorism,

Recognizing Rationalizations

We often use rationalizations to justify unhealthy activities we have difficulty giving up. This is certainly common with substance abuse. We may not even recognize how we are fooling ourselves with our excuses and alibis. If we can recognize our rationalizations, we might catch ourselves before doing further damage. By identifying common types of rationalizations, this blog seeks to support this understanding and to help prevent relapses.

Definitions and Examples

We start by defining “rationalization” and seven common types of rationalization. Note that “rationalization” is the all-encompassing or catchall category, and the other terms are specific types of rationalizations. We also provide examples for each of these types, to illustrate the concepts.

Practicing Identification of Types

We need to practice developing our recognition and understanding of how these rationalizations play out in our lives. For this practice, we have a multiple choice exercise. Readers are asked to identify the type of rationalization that best fits each of the twenty examples. Some of the examples may have two or three more-or-less correct answers, but we are looking for the best specific answer. In other words, you might hit the target, but we are aiming for the bull’s-eye. For example, if you guessed “rationalization” for all the following examples, you would hit the target every single time, but usually not the bull’s-eye.

Of course, the practical application of this exercise does not require the identification of the specific type of rationalization. This aspect of the exercise is introduced simply to engage the participant in a more active manner.

Translating the Rationalizations

The third column of the exercise is a challenge to the rationalization. This involves a translation of what the rationalization really is saying. This typically calls out the absurdity of the rationalization. I have attempted to introduce some humor into the translation or challenge as a method of helping the medicine go down. Recognizing our con-job on ourselves can be a bitter pill to swallow.

The Evolution of This Exercise

This exercise has evolved out of my years of doing substance abuse work in private practice. Several of the examples have come from actual responses given by my clients, whereas others have been adapted or modified from those responses. I have not given specific credit to those clients, as I wish to protect their anonymity. They should feel honored with the knowledge that it is plagiarism, not imitation, that is the highest form of flattery.

Sharing the Insights

If therapists or counselors wish to utilize this exercise, they may do so with the proper recognition of credits.  I would ask that you identify me as the author and www.roguepsychologist.com as the source.

By the way, if you wish to have a list of the official correct answers for the exercise, you’ll have to leave a request in the comment section following the post, preferably with some constructive feedback.  This is just my way of encouraging the readers to interact more actively with this site.

Types of Rationalizations

Rationalization – an argument that is not quite relevant, used in order to explain away, excuse, or justify a behavior that really doesn’t make sense.
The following are various types of rationalizations, which often are used to justify substance abuse:

Minimization – minimizing or downplaying some aspect of your drug or alcohol use in order to underestimate the likelihood or seriousness of the problem (e.g., “What harm is just one more drink going to do, anyway?”)

Exaggeration – overestimating other aspects of a substance-related incident in order to lessen your own personal responsibility for causing the problem (e.g., “If I’d only fixed that tail light, I would never have been stopped and gotten that DUI.”)

Undergeneralization – failure to recognize the similarity between your own substance-related problems and that of others who abuse or depend on substances (e.g., “I don’t abuse alcohol. It’s not like I drink every day.”)

Overgeneralization – addressing your substance use so broadly as to overlook the particular aspects of it that cause problems (e.g., “Everybody overindulges now and then. I just got caught – that’s all.”)

Faulty Comparison – comparing your own substance problems, use pattern, or drug of choice to something worse in order to make your own problems or responsibility seen minor by comparison (e.g., The cops ought to be chasing the real criminals – robbers, murderers, rapists – rather than picking on ordinary citizens like you and me.”)

Projection of Blame – avoiding or minimizing your own personal responsibility for substance abuse by focusing either on how someone else caused you to behave that way (e.g., “Now, see what you made me do!”) or on how someone else overreacted or responded unfairly to your behavior (e.g., “Those cops hanging out at the strip are just waiting for you to slip up.”)

Denial – overlooking or refusing to recognize your substance related problem, which appears obvious to most people (e.g., the tobacco company executives stating to Congress that “no one’s actually proven that nicotine is addictive.”)

Examples

[ezcol_1third]STATEMENT[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]TYPE OF RATIONALIZATION[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]TRANSLATION OR CHALLENGE[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]”The cops and the courts are just out to get you and your money – that’s all there is to it.”[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]A. Projection of Blame
B. Minimization
C. Overgeneralization
D. Exaggeration[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]”I’d rather feel like a helpless victim of an unfair system than feel guilty about how my drunken driving put others at risk.”[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]”It’s only a short drive. Nothing’s going to happen.”[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]A. Overgeneralization
B. Undergeneralization
C. Minimization
D. Rationalization[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]”I am willing to take repeated risks because I do not believe that the law of averages applies to me.”[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]”I only get drunk when my wife’s busy or out-of-town and the kids are at their mom’s. I’m not hurting anybody.”[/ezcol_1third][ezcol_1third]A. Minimization
B. Exaggeration
C. Projection of Blame
D. Faulty Comparison[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]”I really only care about getting caught, not about how I am letting myself and others down by not taking my recovery seriously.”[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]”Smoking pot doesn’t mess up your driving like alcohol does.”[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]A. Faulty Comparison
B. Projection of Blame
C. Overgeneralization
D. Pot Calling the Keg Black[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]”I’m going to find something else worse to compare marijuana to, so that I can ignore the fact that marijuana impairs functioning, too.”[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]”I’m not an alcoholic – I don’t drink before five o’clock.”[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]A. Projection of Blame
Be. Faulty Comparison
C. Undergeneralizations
D. Exaggeration[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]”I’m only a nighttime alcoholic – that doesn’t really count.”[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]”I can control my drinking if I want to – I’m not an alcoholic.”[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]A. Faulty Comparison
B. Exaggeration
C. Denial
D. Either A or C[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]”Your Honor, I choose to drink irresponsibly – I only abuse alcohol, I’m not dependent on it.”[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]”I know when I’m intoxicated, and I’m actually a more careful driver then.”[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]A. Projection of Blame
B. Rationalization
C. Exaggeration
D. Overgeneralization[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]”I can compensate for my impaired judgment, poor motor skills, and distorted perception when I drink – unlike those amateur drinkers or elderly drivers.”[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]”If you’d get off my back for a change, maybe I’d cut back. Did you ever stop to think of that?”[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]A. Faulty Comparison
B. Projection of Blame
C. Exaggeration
D. Overgeneralization[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]”I can’t seem to find a better response to your criticism than my drinking. By blaming you for making me drink, I don’t have to feel guilty over it.”[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]”It could happen to anybody. Why you giving me such a hard time for a DUI? Everybody makes mistakes.”[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]A. Minimization
B. Undergeneralization
C. Faulty comparison
D. Overgeneralization[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]”In saying I’m like everyone else, I refuse to recognize that I am increasing the chances of my getting into trouble with my drinking.”[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]”I’ll just use this one last time. I’ll start my recovery program tomorrow.”[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]A. Rationalization
B. Exaggeration
C. Faulty comparison
D. Projection of blame[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]”By starting my recovery tomorrow, I’ll never have to quit, because tomorrow is always a day away.”[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]”What harm is one more drink going to do?”[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]A. Faulty Comparison
B. Overgeneralization
C. Minimization
D. Projection of blame[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]”If I just look at one drink at a time, I don’t have to look at the overall pattern of how I get drunk.”[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]”I’m already in trouble now. I might as well go all the way – I’m going to catch hell for it anyway.”[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]A. Overgeneralization
B. Rationalization
C. Projection of Blame
D. Faulty Comparison[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]”I don’t believe in damage control. If I mess up, that’s a good excuse to go all the way.”[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]”Everybody has their own bad habits. I’m no different than anyone else.”[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]A. Minimization
B. Overgeneralization
C. Projection of Blame
D. Undergeneralization[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]”If I say that everyone has their own bad habits, then I can ignore how my drug addiction is ruining my life.”[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]”I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.”[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]A. Denial
B. Exaggeration
C. Undergeneralization
D. Faulty comparison[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]”I’d rather consider myself a victim of circumstances rather than feel responsible for the mess I got myself into by driving while intoxicated.”[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]”I don’t drink anymore than anyone else does, so stop giving me a hard time.”n[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]A. Overgeneralization
B. Rationalization
C. Exaggeration
D. Projection of Blame[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]”All my friends drink really heavily, so I use them as my comparison group, so I don’t have to feel so bad about my drinking.”[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]”Just because I’ve had a few run-ins with the law doesn’t mean that I have a drinking problem.”[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]A. Overgeneralization
B. Denial
C. Projection of Blame
D. Exaggeration[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]”It’s only a coincidence that every time I have been arrested I’ve been drunk.”[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]”If we had only taken the interstate, we would’ve avoided that DUI checkpoint, and I wouldn’t have gotten that DUI.”[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]A. Minimization
B. Exaggeration
C. Overgeneralization
D. Faulty Comparison[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]”If we had taken the interstate, I probably would’ve driven faster and more recklessly, and we might all be dead now.”[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]”If my probation officer wasn’t such a jerk to test me on January 2, I wouldn’t be in this mess.”[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]A. Projection of Blame
B. Minimization
C. Overgeneralization
D. Undergeneralization[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]”Tell me again – how was it that you got on probation?”[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]”Drinking takes the edge off of my social anxiety, so what’s wrong with that?”[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]A. Faulty Comparison
B. Exaggeration
C. Projection of Blame
D. Rationalization[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]”I don’t have the commitment and patience to work on my social anxiety in a healthy way, so I just settle for a temporary quick fix.”[/ezcol_1third_end]

[ezcol_1third]”I wish my family would get off my case for drinking. I don’t have a problem with it. In fact, I probably wouldn’t drink that much if they just leave me alone.”[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third]A. Faulty Comparison
B. Denial
C. Projection of Blame
D. Both B and C[/ezcol_1third] [ezcol_1third_end]”Alcohol must be pretty important to me in order for me not to see what is rather obvious to others. I’ll just say they can’t be objective about it, so I don’t have to recognize my problems or change my behavior.”[/ezcol_1third_end]

My thanks to the various anonymous donors whose field research and expertise made this list possible. They should view my claiming this as my own work as the highest honor. As Eddie Haskell once said, “Imitation is not the highest form of flattery – plagiarism is.”

[whohit]rationalizations used to minimize and deny substance problems[/whohit]

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Panacea, or Helpful Tool?

Cognitive Behaviorism

For decades, cognitive behaviorists have been touting their therapy as a cure for all kinds of emotional distress. In particular, this approach addresses how irrational thoughts often lead to emotional distress. Then, it challenges those beliefs, which can turn ordinary frustration and disappointment into emotional devastation. This post uses the syllogism to demonstrates that faulty logic through the use of a syllogism. Now, cognitive behaviorists rarely present their challenges in this form. This exercise simply presents their arguments in a more structured manner.

However, we should note that clients usually seek help for their emotional pain, and rarely for irrational thinking. Furthermore, irrational beliefs are not always the primary source of their suffering. Here, logical analysis is of limited value, and other approaches can provide more helpful measures.

The Syllogism – A Useful Tool

For centuries, logicians have used the syllogism to reach valid conclusions on the basis of available knowledge. In particular, this analytic device derives a logical conclusion from two premises, which are typically widely accepted or assumed. The major premise is usually a widely-accepted generalization about characteristics of a class of objects, people, events, etc. The minor premise is often a declaration that a specific object, person, event, etc. is a member of that class. The logical conclusion is that the specific case possesses the characteristics of the class to which it belongs. Within this framework, we can apply the generalizations to particular situations, such as our own life experiences.

The major premise may also be a generalization established from an earlier inductive logic. Such facts are established as through scientific research. The minor premise

Sources of Irrational Beliefs

Some examples of syllogisms can illustrate this deductive technique. For one thing, it can help us identify possible sources of false beliefs.  At other times, the problem lies in false premises or generalizations. At other times, the difficulty is one of faulty logic. Here, some of examples can be helpful.

Examples of False Syllogisms

EXAMPLE A

Syllogism involving False Assumption
  • Major Premise: Only stupid people make mistakes.
  • Minor Premise: I made a mistake.
  • Conclusion: Then, I guess I’m just stupid.
Syllogism involving Faulty Logic:
  • Major Premise: Stupid people make mistakes.
  • Minor Premise: I made a mistake.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, I must be really stupid.

Challenge to the Irrational Belief and an Alternative Conclusion: Everyone makes mistakes now and then, myself included. Maybe if I try learning from my mistakes, I won’t make similar mistakes in the future.

EXAMPLE B

Syllogism involving False Premise and Logic:

  • Major Premise: Alcoholics drink morning, day, and night.
  • Minor Premise: I never drink before 6 p.m.
  • Conclusion: Thank God I’m not an alcoholic.

Challenge to the Irrational Belief and an Alternative Conclusion: Since not all alcoholics drink all the time, maybe I should consider the possibility that I am a nighttime alcoholic, particularly since I’m so concerned that I’m not an alcoholic.

EXAMPLE C

Syllogism involving False Major Premise

  • Major Premise: All emotional pain is caused by irrational beliefs.
  • Minor Premise: I am really hurting over the death of my spouse.
  • Conclusion: Thus, I must be crazy.

EXAMPLE D:

Syllogism involving Faulty Logic

  • Major Premise: Irrational beliefs can turn normal disappointment into suffering.
  • Minor Premise: I am suffering.
  • Conclusion: Then, I guess I must be crazy.

Note that in the first example, the false belief (i.e., only stupid people make mistakes) and/or the faulty logic (i.e. assuming that I am stupid because I made a mistake, even though smart people make mistakes, too) result in an intensification of the negative self-assessment and its associated negative feelings, such as shame, self-loathing, discouragement, and frustration. This process can “make a mountain out of a mole hill,” whereas the challenge suggests recognizing “the silver lining around the dark cloud.” Note that the second example does not involve an intensification of a negative emotional state, but rather represents a denial of a problem that may well need attention.

Therapy’s Implicit Use of the Syllogism

If you have been in therapy with a cognitive behaviorist, you will recognize that he or she does not conduct therapy by translating beliefs and observations into syllogisms, even if that is the basic process underlying the challenge to one’s belief system. I provide these examples as a way of illustrating how cognitive behaviorists follow in the tradition of the logical empiricists, who view knowledge as attained through applying principles of logic to shared sensory experience.  As we will address later, not all challenges of living are problems which lend themselves to logical solutions, as life involves various paradoxes that defy logical solutions.

[whohit]cognitive behavioral therapy: its relevant application[/whohit]

An Abridged Cultural History of Cognitive Behaviorism

Cognitive Behaviorism

For years, cognitive behaviorism has been a self-proclaimed leader in psychotherapy, citing numerous studies to back that claim. Its list of “evidence-based” applications has grown so broad that you’d think it’d cure all that ails you. Like other movements, it has tended to overreach its utility by trying to be all things to all people. We can gain perspective, though, by placing cognitive behaviorism in its cultural context. In doing so, we can better appreciate both its promises and its limitations in resolving particular problems of living. This exploration will allow cognitive behaviorism to assume its rightful place among other approaches to life’s adversities. We can then apply its strategies and techniques to the appropriate situations. Likewise, we may find that other therapeutic approaches are more relevant for other circumstances.

The  Broader Historical Background

Beginning with the Renaissance, Western culture has moved from a faith-based to a science-based view of reality. One profound trigger for this shift occurred when Copernicus and Galileo challenged Christian orthodoxy by proposing a heliocentric universe. The entire culture appeared knocked off balance by the idea that the Earth revolved around the sun. he changes in perspective have been so profound that conventional thinking has been questioned. In doing so, our civilization has developed a bias for an objective perspective toward our world. Philosophy has reflected this movement, with its schools of rationalism, empiricism, and skepticism.

This shift has fostered the Industrial Revolution, with its unprecedented advances in science and technology. However, the objectivity of science has been less beneficial in understanding and improving the human condition.

We have witnessed such a drift toward objectivity in the emerging field of psychology. Here, the scientific method works fairly well in analyzing human behavior, but less so in understanding human experience. This has led to the developing school of behavioral psychology, with its emphasis on publicly verifiable data. Eventually, some behaviorists recognized that private experience offered some benefit toward understanding human activity. This realization spawned the school of cognitive behaviorism. While it delved into the realm of subjective experience, this movement still retained an objective bias in analyzing it. More recent developments within this approach have struck a more equal balance in considering both behavior and experience in seeking an understanding of the human condition. This post will explore this evolution in more detail.

Logical Empiricism

The emergence of logical empiricism reflects this growing objectivity within philosophy. This approach is not so much a philosophy of life as it is a philosophy of science, with its primary focus on knowledge rather than values or principles. With its inquiry into epistemology, our quest for knowledge, it evolved as a philosophy of science. This approach views knowledge as being accrued through applying principles of logic to shared sensory data. From this perspective, personal experiences are not to be trusted unless they can be validated by others. The logical empiricists considered metaphysical constructs non-sensory, (or nonsense?), and thus unworthy subjects for philosophical or scientific analysis.       This was in contrast to other schools of philosophy, with their focus on  values or principles.

Psychology’s Break from Philosophy

Psychology has bought into this objective bias through adopting an experimental methodology for establishing knowledge. Still, much of the subject of this inquiry was private experience, which was ascertained by simply asking about it. It designed controlled experiments to demonstrate the cause-and-effect relationships between various abstract factors. This field of study thus broke from philosophy by emulating the rigors of the natural sciences, perhaps to attain cultural legitimacy.

Enter the Behavioral School of Psychology

The behavioral school evolved a more rigorous methodology, with its emphasis on observable data and verifiable findings. Behavioral psychology follows this approach in utilizing a linear, cause-and-effect analysis by focusing on behaviors as conditioned responses to stimulus situations. Private sensory experience, since it could not be externally validated, was considered irrelevant. The mind was thus considered a “black box,” something that either could not be penetrated through our understanding, or that did not offer any explanatory benefits. Case studies  fell out of favor, often dismissed as subjective anecdotes, lacking in validity. With  this emphasis on objectivity, behavioral psychology has largely relegated the study of the complexities of the human experience to the arts and humanities.

The Emergence of Cognitive Behaviorism

Cognitive behaviorism, perhaps the prevailing model of psychotherapy for our time, has its roots in behaviorism. This approach is not so much a philosophy of life as it is a philosophy of science, with its primary focus on knowledge rather than values or principles. Cognitive behaviorism, though, reintroduced private experience as a legitimate object of inquiry, yet it still maintained the emphasis on logic. In particular, it posited irrational beliefs as the primary source for psychological distress. Thus, it rediscovered the experiences of the subject and assessed the validity of the subject’s interpretations or conclusions about those experiences, based on the standards of logic and reason.

CBT’s  Challenge in the Larger Historical Context

In assuming this approach, it was extending the challenge that the Age of Reason posed to the Age of Faith from the broad cultural level down to the individual level. In this case, rather than challenging the dogmas of religion, as Copernicus and Galileo had done in displacing the earth from the center of the universe, cognitive behaviorists were analyzing and challenging the idiosyncratic belief systems of the various individuals seeking their aid and counsel.

Objectivity vs. Subjectivity

Note that cognitive behaviorism is based on the primacy of objective reality, which tends to be equated with the external reality and has the connotation of being impartial, neutral, factual and absolute, whereas the subjective viewpoint is often judged to be biased, arbitrary, relative, and idiosyncratic. This perspective is usually implicitly assumed, such that other plausible viewpoints are not considered. For example, one might view objectivity and subjectivity as two contrasting modes of experiencing the world, rather than equating objectivity with the “real world out there.” Such is the motif of the realist and the romantic, or the pragmatist and the idealist, with our culture tending to value the former over the latter.

CBT’s Challenge to Freudian Psychology

A contextual review of the historical development of cognitive behaviorism would not be complete without reference to Freudian psychoanalysis, a prevailing model of psychotherapy from a previous era. Freud and his followers had upset Victorian sensibilities by introducing human sexuality into their lecture halls, consulting rooms and social parlors, thus creating considerable unease in polite society.

CBT’s Challenge to Freudian Psychology

Behaviorism did not challenge the Freudian psychodynamic model on the grounds of its emphasis on sexuality per se, but rather for its use of various metaphysical constructs (e.g., libido, the Oedipus complex, the death instinct, the unconscious), suggesting that they were so abstract and removed from the basic sensory experience of daily life that they could be neither proven nor refuted. Thus, behaviorism did not so much disprove Freudian psychodynamics as it relied upon the standards of logical empiricism to dismiss the case on procedural grounds. In this way, cognitive behaviorism was able to sanitize the animal nature in the human condition without getting its hands dirty.

Irrationality and Distress

That still left the realm of the emotions to address, since clients were seeking therapy and counseling, not to correct their irrational belief systems, but rather, to alleviate the pain and suffering they were experiencing. While the Freudian psychodynamic model views emotions as a manifestation of frustrated instinctual drives, cognitive behaviorism considers distressing emotions as byproducts of irrational belief systems.

An Alternative Perspective

Now, where am I going with this review? What’s my angle? You might note my domain name is roguepsychologist, and wonder what I am up to. And you would be right! In placing a perspective within a cultural context, we recognize its relativity – its place among others, and thus its limitations. Such is my strategy in challenging the position of cognitive behaviorism as the prevailing model of psychotherapy. And I would not be exerting such energy in this endeavor if I did not have my own perspective to set forth. And in doing so, I would pose the following question: what if the structure of our reality were not logical and rational? What if it were paradoxical, instead? And if so, how might we engage it, not in the most reasonable way, but in the most enriching manner?

For Further Exploration . . .

If these questions appeal to you, you may want to review my overview of the website, entitled About “A Rogue Psychologist’s Field Guide to the Universe” on the front page of this site, or explore a somewhat more detailed account for this quest in Beyond Rationality and into the Realm of Paradox.  I have now added two other pages, entitled Living Rationally with Paradox:  Keeping Sane in a Crazy World, or Trying to Fit a Round Peg into a Square Hole? and Muddling Down a Middle Path: Wading through the Messiness of Life, which explore this issue in more depth.

[whohit]A brief cultural history of cognitive behaviorism[/whohit]