Re: [REBT-CBT-FORUM] Re: Micah, Will, Rex et al could you provide personal experiences of need versus strong desire
"Je begaie, donc je suis"! (Descartes)
"I stutter, therefore I am."
Well, NOT Rene Descartes. His brother Georges.
Rex Alexander wrote:Tue 3 Aug 2010, 12:05 pmHi Jeff, all,Thanks.Because REBT can seem very confrontive--both in the way that therapists sometimes interact with clients, as well as they way clients are instructed to dispute IBs, distorted thinking and automatic negative self-talk--it is easy to lose sight of the fact that much of REBT is about Acceptance, with a capital "A." Once you successfully dispute "I must always speak fluently, and never stutter," you are left simply with: I don't always speak fluently and I sometimes stutter. Once your arrive there, you may or may not decide to do more. That's up to you . . . But acceptance always comes first.I call this the "soft underbelly of REBT." Gary Emery understood this early on in the development of REBT, and it seems that the "buzz" in CBT today places more emphasis on things like mindfulness and acceptance.It flows like this:I stutter.It's a bummer, but not the end of the world.So far, it has proved to be a very tenacious problem, but perhaps if I really work at it, I can gain some improvement.But even it I don't, I can live a reasonably happy life, have some laughs and some rewarding involvements eventhough I stutter.And while some people will foolishly and stupidly judge and reject me, some will not, and they are the ones who matter. It is not necessary for everyone to accept and treat me kindly to have satisfying relations or a satisfying life.Aloha,Rex
> Thanks again, Rex. You always cut to the chase and clarify things> for me.> I am SHOULDING and DEMANDING that I become more fluent and that is> doing me in and sabotaging all my efforts. aloha jeff>> Rex Alexander wrote:>>>>>> Tue>> 3 Aug 2010, 7:36 am>>> Good>> Morning All,>>> This>> becomes a witless debate that obscures the big picture and the>> real point.>>>> I>> see the idea of need and should as>> essentially interchangeable in most cases. When need is used>> conditionally it becomes innocuous (or>> relatively innocuous) in the same way a conditional should. You>> need to eat less chocolate cake IF you want to lose weight; you>> should, ought, must eat less cake IF you want to lose weight.>> This idea of the conditional exists as a garden variety>> grammatical device, as well as a concept semantics and REBT.>>>> If>> you want to stay alive, of course there are things you need (had>> better) attend to such as breathing, eating, obtaining shelter.>> Of course! And of course you need to live if you want to stay>> alive. Duh! Moreover, if you want to stay alive and experience>> a certain level of health, well-being, enjoyment and other>> quality of life benefits, there may be many things you need to do>> to make that happen. But, and here's the rub; you may need to eat>> less to lose weight, but you don't need to lose weight in any>> absolute sense; you only need to lose weight h if you want to>> enjoy the benefits of being thinner. It may seem like I am>> playing word games, but I assure you I am not; it is the crux of>> what we are talking about. You need to understand this idea of>> the conditional if you want to understand what all the hubbub is>> about with needs and shoulds. I like the way Dr. Ellis>> sometimes substitutes "you and better" for "should" or "need",>> but that may not work for everyone because it can come across as>> a threat.>>>> Still>> the point is more important than the vocabulary or the rhetoric:>> If you operate from the Should System, and regard life as a>> landscape comprised of moralistic demands; shoulds, oughts and>> musts, you are bound to disturb>> yourself when you believe that you do not get what you NEED. The>> more intensely you believe and bang the drum of these so called>> needs, the more disturbed you will become. If you are obsessive->> compulsive about needs, especially if the needs are essentially>> unrealistic, unobtainable, the more "crazy" you will become.>>>> Aloha,>> Rex>>>> Hi a. k.,>>>> You>> wrote:>>Call me stupid but isn't that taking the idea a bit too>> fart? [Man,>> that's an embarrassing typo if ever I saw one. I'm glad it was>> your>> typo and not mine -- Will] Of course the world doesn't need us or>> anyone else to>> live but surely you need to live to stay alive!?<<>>>> I don't>> believe it's taking it too far. Your defense of the need to live>> is a circular argument:>>>> "Why do you>> need to stay alive?" Answer: "I need to stay alive so that I can>> stay alive.">>>> Here are some>> more circular arguments:>>>> "Why do you>> need the car tonight, son?" Answer: "I need the car because I>> need the car.">>>> "Why do you>> need to get your haircut?" Answer: "I need to get a haircut>> because I need a haircut.">>>> "Why is>> Clapton a better guitarist than Will?" Answer: "Clapton's a better>> guitarist than Will because Clapton's a better guitarist than>> Will.">>>> Circular>> arguments add no new information. They're totally useless.* They>> don't>> tell us why Clapton is a better guitarist or why you need a>> haircut>> or why you need the car. And they don't tell us why we need to>> live.>>>> Regards,>>>> Will>>>> *Except that there is some evidence that>> people fall for them. Try>> this on your next date and>> see if works: "We've only just met, why>> do you need to make love to>> me tonight?" "I need to make love to>> you because I need to make>> love to you." Research by Ellen Langer>> suggests you'll increase>> your chance of getting laid by up to 50%.>> (Actually Langer's research>> had to do with jumping the queue at the>> copy machine. But it would>> be interesting to test her results to>> see if they hold up in the>> bedroom).>>>>