The following is the Power Point outline of a presentation that I have given several times.
LIVING RATIONALLY
What do we mean by living rationally?
Living rationally involves applying logic to knowledge derived from past experience, in making decisions about current situations.
This orientation has its foundation in the logical empiricism school of philosophy.
- Empiricism refers to using sensory data that is generally agreed upon.
- Logic involves rules for using the data.
- Inductive reasoning involves making generalizations based on the agreement of numerous specific examples.
- Deductive reasoning involves deriving specific facts from generalizations through the use of syllogisms. (More on this later.)
THE EMERGENCE OF BEHAVIORISM IN PSYCHOLOGY AND COUNSELING
Behaviorism, and Cognitive Behaviorism after it, posed an alternative to the psychodynamic models of Freud, Jung, Adler and others that were prevalent in the first half of the 20th Century.
Behaviorism based its legitimacy largely on its status as a science, with it using the scientific method to test its theories and hypotheses in controlled experiments, rather than relying on anecdotal data (i.e., case studies).
Behaviorism was based on the philosophy of Logical Empiricism, which considered knowledge to be accrued through applying the principles of logic to shared sensory experience.
- Private experiences, by definition, are not shared and thus cannot be verified, an essential requirement for scientific analysis of data.
- Similarly, since metaphysical constructs (e.g., libido, id, ego, Oedipus complex) did not refer directly to sensory experience, they were considered non-sensory, or nonsense, and thus unworthy of scientific inquiry.
FROM BEHAVIORAL PSYCHOLOGY TO COGNITIVE BEHAVIORISM
- Behavioral Psychology utilized a linear, cause-and-effect analysis in focusing on behaviors as conditioned responses to stimulus situations. What went on in private experience was considered irrelevant. The mind was considered a “black box,” something that either could not be penetrated through our understanding, or that did not offer any explanatory benefits.
- Behaviorism has been largely superseded by cognitive behavioral psychology, which takes into account the idiosyncratic ways in which we process our experiences before responding to them. It recognizes that our interpretations of situations are intermediate steps toward responding to them.
- For example, we infer the intentions of others from their actions, so that we are responding not only to the overt actions of others, but also to the perceived intentions behind those actions.
- Psychologists nowadays are attempting to penetrate those “black boxes” by asking their subjects about their own private experiences. In short, they have rediscovered that people have an inner life.
- Cognitive behaviorists emphasize the value of rationality, attributing problems in living to irrational thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and expectations.
- Cognitive behavioral therapy thus involves revealing certain basic thoughts and beliefs as irrational and challenging them.
For a more extensive exploration of the evolution of this approach to problems in daily living, refer to my previous posting, Cognitive Behaviorism: An Abridged History – 2.0
COGNITIVE BEHAVIORISM:
A SCIENCE OF PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSELING
Cognitive Behaviorism, the current prevailing school of psychotherapy and counseling, applies the logical empirical model not only to its own scientific method, but also to its subject matter, the problems in living of persons who become counseling clients.
Cognitive behaviorism proposes that problems in living stem from reinforcement of maladaptive behavior and from irrational thoughts.
- What we learned to cope with while growing up in “dysfunctional families” is often “maladaptive” (i.e., is not helpful in the “real world”).
- We reach irrational conclusions based on invalid beliefs and/or applying faulty logic to our beliefs.
SYLLOGISMS: THE TECHNIQUE OF DEDUCTIVE REASONING
Example of a faulty syllogism # 1
Syllogism involving a faulty premise:
Premise: Only stupid people make mistakes.
Observation: I made a mistake.
Conclusion: I am stupid.
Syllogism involving faulty logic:
Premise: Stupid people make mistakes.
Observation: I made a mistake.
Conclusion: I must be stupid.
Challenge to the Irrational Belief and an Alternative Conclusion:
Everyone makes mistakes now and then, myself included. Maybe if a try to learn from my mistake, rather than beating up on myself for it, I won’t make similar mistakes in the future.
Example of a faulty syllogism # 2
Syllogism involving faulty premise and logic:
Premise: Alcoholics drink morning, day, and night.
Observation: 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.
WHAT IS THE RANGE OF APPLICABILITY FOR LOGIC?
- If Rational Living is the Solution, what are the Problems it solves?
- Is Rational Living the most effective solution for all problems in living
- Are there some problems in living for which Rational Living is not particularly helpful?
- Are there other approaches better suited to these problems areas?
For various examples of irrational beliefs used to justify unhealthy behavior in daily life, visit my post, Rationalizations Used To Minimize and Deny Substance Problems. This article not only identifies various types of rationalizations, but also poses challenging translations that help to expose the faulty logic.
LOGIC AND ASSUMED VALUES
- Rationality is applicable when we have clear-cut values and goals that are consistent with one another and have a general consensus of support.
- Then, reasoning involves using logic in applying general knowledge from past situations to a current problem. In doing so, we come up with a solution to achieve a particular goal associated with our values.
- A logic-based approach often assumes certain values, which places them beyond questioning. Other values are ignored or dismissed.
- When the particular values and goals are called into question, or are in conflict with one another, then rationality is of limited help.
- Logic and reason help us get to where we are going, as long as we know where that is, but it doesn’t tell us where we want or need to be going.
- Values and feelings function as a compass, guiding us toward our goals.
THE LIMITS OF RATIONALITY
- When there is disagreement over the relevant values and goals, or when they are in conflict with one another, then rationality is of limited help.
- Such disagreements over the values and goals can be either interpersonal conflicts or internal conflicts.
- Many of these conflicts are actually paradoxes, which logic cannot resolve.
THE RELATIVE NEGLECT OF FEELINGS
The ideal of rational living promoted by the cognitive behaviorists emphasize the functions of thinking and doing, but neglect the role of feeling.
The behavioral component is addressed in terms of reinforcement of desirable responses with appropriate rewards. Feelings may be viewed as “drive states” that motivates learning, or as a by-product of the reward.
The cognitive component involves applying logic to the belief to determine whether it is rational or irrational.
When addressed, feelings may be seen as a force that distorts thinking so that it becomes irrational.
Or feelings may be viewed as a by-product of our beliefs and attitudes. (This perspective is explored in more detail in my post, When Thinking Distorts Feelings.)
Or negative feelings are taken as a sign that the cognitive perspective, or thinking, is irrational.
LIMITATIONS OF RATIONALITY
- With its ideal of rationality, Cognitive Behaviorism emphasizes objectivity and reflective awareness.
- This serves a positive goal in broadening one’s perspective beyond the limits of one’s narrow personal experience.
- The downside is that interpreting experience in terms of abstract generalizations entails a detachment from immediate personal experience. This typically involves losing touch with its richness (i.e., subjectivity).
- Cognitive Behaviorism, coming out of the Logical Empiricism tradition, has an inherent bias for objectivity over subjective experience.
- Applying external, universal standards to an individual’s experience promotes conformity to the prevailing norms, and potentially development of a “false self” to present to others.
- Some may welcome clearly-defined norms and roles, so as to escape personal responsibility for making one’s choices (cf Eric Fromm’s Escape from Freedom)
EXAMPLES OF PARADOXICAL DUALITIES OF DAILY LIFE
- ORDER/STRUCTURE VS. SPONTANEITY/FREEDOM
- BELONGING/CONFORMITY VS. INDIVIDUALITY/ALIENATION
- SECURITY/STAGNATION VS. EXCITEMENT/DANGER
- BEING/LIVING IN THE PRESENT VS. BECOMING/BUILDING A FUTURE
- BEING FOR SELF (SELFISH) VS. BEING FOR OTHERS (SELFLESS)
- USING OTHERS VS. RELATING TO OTHERS
- LOGIC VS. INTUITION
PRACTICAL EXAMPLES OF PARADOXICAL DUALITIES
IMPLICATIONS IN MATTERS OF PARADOXICAL DUALITIES
-
By definition, paradox defies a rational solution.
- Therefore, in matters of paradoxical dualities, we experience conflict – both internal and interpersonal – for which there is no single logical correct solution.
- There is a general guidelines though: Either extreme on the paradoxical continuum tends to be maladaptive.
- Adaptive solutions tend to be somewhere in the middle.
- Somewhere in the middle implies a range of possible adaptive solutions.
- Thus, there is plenty of room for legitimate differences.
- Personal preferences often determine where along the continuum one is most comfortable.
- With the trade-offs between the two extremes (e.g., “You can’t have your cake and eat it, too”), we cannot “have it all.”
- The inevitable trade-offs mean that life has its inherent limitations.
- For example, we cannot have freedom without giving up some order, and we cannot have order without giving up some freedom; belonging entails some conformity (i.e., loss of individuality), while individuality involves some standing apart from the group (i.e., detachment); and excitement involves some diminished safety, whereas security entails giving up some adventure.
THE PARADOXICAL NATURE OF CONFLICT
Many conflicts reflect the inherent paradoxical nature of human experience, and perhaps of reality itself. (Examples to follow.) And because of their paradoxical nature, these conflicts defy simple, logical solutions.
“A paradox is involved which needs to be accepted, tolerated, and not resolved.” D. W. Winnicott, Playing and Reality, p. 53
“Despite (and perhaps because of) our scientific inventions and discoveries, humans confront paradoxes without adaptive solutions. We are capable of projecting ourselves into the past or future, yet remain tethered to the present. We contemplate the infinite, yet cannot escape our own mortality. We are determined by our histories, yet choose our future. We are our bodies, yet we have bodies. These are all features of the human condition for which science provides no solutions. . . . It is here, where science falls short, that art speaks and perhaps comforts.” Robert Daniel, 1986
Just as science has its limitations in dealing with the paradoxes of life, so too does rational, logical problem solving when it comes to dealing with the paradox-based conflicts of daily living. And just as art offers some understanding and comfort on a cultural level, so too does empathy on the personal level of daily living.
THE ARTS AS A VEHICLE FOR COMING TO TERMS WITH THE PARADOXES OF LIFE
Science and logic are helpful for solving problems of life, whereas the Arts help us accept the limitations posed by life’s paradoxes (“Comic discovery is paradox stated – scientific discovery is paradox resolved.” Arthur Koestler, The Act of Creation, 1964, p. 95)
The tragic and the comedic represent the two basic artistic approaches to life’s paradoxes.
Arthur Koestler noted how Aristotle “called tragedy ‘the noblest form of literature’ because it purges suffering from its pettiness by showing that its causes be in the inescapable predicaments of existence.” (The Act of Creation, 1964, p.357)
Humor is largely based on the juxtaposition of mutually incompatible perspectives, and thus serves as a viable medium for exposing the paradoxical nature of the human condition.
COMEDIC DRAMATIZATIONS OF LIFE’S PARADOXICAL DUALITIES
Bill Watterson, that brilliant 20th Century philosopher and social satirist, provides succinct dramatic illustrations of paradoxical dualities inherent in the human condition.
INTERNAL CONFLICT:
AN INHERENT ASPECT OF THE PARADOXICAL NATURE OF THE HUMAN CONDITION
Our choices involve trade-offs between conflicting values (e.g., order vs. freedom, belonging vs. individuality, security vs. excitement)
By definition, there are no either – or, or right-or-wrong answers to paradox-based conflicts.
Without authoritative, clear-cut external answers to life’s paradoxes, we have greater freedom and responsibility to find the answers that work best in our own lives, rather than relying on the experts. (“Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain.” from The Wizard of Oz)
The Middle Path. One general rule of thumb: answers toward the middle of the continuum are usually more adaptive than those at the extremes.
With the middle ground covering a broad range of territory, that still leaves considerable latitude regarding finding one’s preferred position.
Coming to terms with our internal paradoxes allows us to integrate disparate aspects of our personality.
INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT
Our own preferred position on a paradoxical continuum is likely to contrast at least to some degree with the preferred positions of others, leading to some degree of interpersonal conflict.
Since paradoxes are conflicts without objective, logical solutions, we lack external frames of reference to determine the correct approach in our attempts to resolve our differences.
Healthy resolutions usually strike a balance – yet there is a wide range of middle ground in between, presenting plenty of opportunity for legitimate disagreement.
Thus, coordination our own preferred positions with those of others in our lives requires negotiation.
INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT:
NOT ONLY NORMAL, BUT HEALTHY AND NECESSARY
Conflict resolution is the means by which we strike a balance between belonging and individuality, two essential aspects of our identity.
Conflict resolution allows us to strike a balance between being-for-others (i.e., selflessness) and being-for-ourselves (i.e., selfishness).
Each conflict provides an opportunity to adjust the balance between these poles.
Without conflict in a relationship, we would have no way of gauging our sense of self-worth and our commitment to our partner.
- Without conflict, we would never have to take a stand for ourselves in the relationship, thereby affirming our sense of self-worth.
- Without conflict, we would never have to make a sacrifice out of consideration of our partner’s needs, since their needs would be completely compatible with our own when there is no conflict.
CONFLICT RESOLUTION TYPICALLY INVOLVES 3 COMPONENTS:
- Self-expression – presenting our point-of-view, including our needs, feelings, wants, and desires.
- Active Listening – hearing the other’s perspective and indicating that we hear and understand it through feedback (e.g., nodding, paraphrasing, validating, even “reading between the lines.”)
- Bargaining/Negotiation – coming to an agreed-upon solution
- Through compromise (e.g., 50 – 50, or even 60 – 40 or 70 – 30 solutions)
- Through collaboration, with brainstorming to come up with “win—win” solutions (e.g., with 70 – 70, 60 – 80, 90 – 60, or even 100 – 100 solutions as possibilities)
BY-PRODUCTS OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION
- THE “BY-PRODUCTS” OF THIS PROCESS ARE POTENTIALLY MORE VALUABLE THAN THE ACTUAL SOLUTION ITSELF.
- VULNERABILITY IN EXPRESSING ONE’S FEELINGS AND NEEDS, RESPONSIVENESS TO THE FEELINGS OF OTHERS, AND WILLINGNESS TO SACRIFICE CAN LEAD TO GREATER EMOTIONAL INTIMACY, COMPASSION, GRATITUDE, AND HUMILITY – ALL IMPORTANT QUALITIES FOR SELF AND RELATIONSHIP.
RECOMMENDATION: EMBRACE CONFLICT
- Realize that conflict is an inherent part of life.
- Embrace conflict. Life without it would be utterly boring. When is the last time you went to a movie or read a novel which did not involve conflict, whether internal or interpersonal?
- Internal conflict is the impetus for stopping to reflect on our options, thus allowing us to make conscious choices. It allows us to recognize the conflicting aspects of our personality and work toward integrating them to be a more integrated and well-rounded person.
- Interpersonal conflict provides the means by which we balance our individuality with our connection to others.
- Interpersonal conflict allows us to proclaim our self-esteem by asserting our needs and wants in the face of opposition, and to express our commitment to our relationships by making sacrifices for the sake of the people we care about.
[whohit]living rationally with paradox: keeping sane in a crazy world, or trying to fit a square peg into a round hole?[/whohit]
Your presentation was very helpful, thank you. I find it empowering to understand there is no rational resolution when faced with paradoxical conflicts. Also, enjoyed the way you used comics to emphasize a point. Great insight.