Albert EllisCritiques

I found pages 91-100 of this 1960 (!) marriage neatly sequestered in the back of my Penguin edition of Pascal's Pénsees, and I found it to be both straightforward and nuanced –an unusual combination.

All of Albert’s books are quite similar—not that that’s a bad thing or anything like that, it’s just that his philosophy applies equally well to most of the different psychology topics—so I’ll just make a little note about “should” statements, and possibly other points if they come up.

Ie, people say you should, you tell yourself you should, but it’s an unreasonable standard. In a way this sounds like pushback against religion, kinda like Freud, who was very anti-religion, although he was also rather ambivalent (at best) about philosophy, unlike Al (to cut to the most essential difference, perhaps). But Albert doesn’t mean this advice in a reactive way: “(blah blah blah, should be nice, etc). Actually, these are often fine goals; it’s the way they are conveyed (shoulding) [should statements] that’s a problem.”

In fact, this is actually quite like many Christian complaints about “the law” made in the New Testament—“the law brings wrath” etc—and, more, it’s actually almost a stereotypically Calvinist point, that having become in the US and often other places one of the more conservative strands of religion, more sensitive about secular pushback. (I won’t belabor the point, but it can be bad.) Calvinists in their rhetoric, at least, can actually be almost paranoid about “good works”, (or just “works”, they like to deny that there’s anything good about it, once it’s “works”), which is not unlike what Al calls “should” statements, ie religion (or morality) gone bad. The stereotypical 16th century Protestant maintained almost that an action was, in itself, Bad, if the Catholics said that you “should” do it, because it was a “good work”. Even purely symbolic stuff, or even charity, sometimes! (At least, that’s the impression you can get.) Try to get more reactive than that! Al would try not to!

I don’t know whether this makes church sound intricate and strange like a puzzle, or merely off-putting, but my point is, much that, upon a semi-close inspection, can seem like a pushback against religion, (you might not notice anything on a superficial examination), upon a really deep analysis, is simply part of an ancient back in forth that has existed for hundreds if not thousands of years in Christianity, and other religions as well. (The same basic quandary about how I have to trust God and not be anxious, and yet also be motivated to do good things, also comes up in Hinduism and all the Eastern religions, whatever you like.)

…. And, anyway, there are a lot of should statements.

About politics:

—People in (some other country), should stand up to injustice, the way we would if we were in their shoes.
—People (in our country), shouldn’t be “divisive”, but should focus on subsidizing donuts or something, something any old moron would like, something all the good people agree on, the normal people.

Lest you think the last suggestion would lead anywhere, lol:

—You should have as much money as I do!

Unless it’s:

—You should NOT have more money than me!

Now, those are ideas we all agree on, although I suppose they’re a little divisive in their application. Lol.

…. I don’t know—I mean, you have to have standards; you will, one way or another. But a lot of standards is just the village gossip gasping and saying, You mean you don’t agree with our intolerant/moron ideas? *incoherent babbling*

…. (If only I hadn’t been about to write about honesty, I would’ve lied and gone on break on time. My manager made a joke about writing the customer’s name in blood if I didn’t have a pen. Whoever did that ‘Life is good’ slogan has got a real scam going on, ha.)

It’s been said (in the Letter of Aristeas, which is pretty good 98% of the time, if you don’t count the answers getting a little pat after while) that contentment comes from the knowledge of not having done wrong, but one of the things I got from Al is how hard it is to really succeed at that. It’s in between general negative emoting (‘awfulizing’) and blaming people (or cursing at them), and making excuses for them or rationalizing. The first set is a little worse than the last one, but I do that a lot, so maybe I would have discovered subsets. I mean, I imagine a prison camp with a maximum calorie intake of 2400 is better than one with a maximum of 1200, but do I really want to find out? I mean…. Anyway, I mean, say I agree to do a trivial task for a very lazy, stubborn, dishonest person (but friendly!). In a way I only agree out of my bad opinion of him—I honestly don’t think he could *really* do it for himself, if you really take everything into consideration—but then I don’t think he has enough, honest (active, in this case) respect for me to dialogue about it fairly. But if you wanted to argue that I’m rationalizing and making excuses, I don’t know….

I mean, that’s why in religion we have this buzzword that’s kinda relevant, although forgiveness without justice is actually just rationalizing…. The thing is, really, a lot of people, probably most, who pose about this sort of thing haven’t the slightest intention (honestly) to apply either side of it, just just make excuses for their “friends” and curse at everyone else. And some of them will lecture or moan about morality, and some of them because they’ve been to church. (The others have Joseph Conrad’s idea of church.)

…. Of course, they do kinda use elite examples—the doctor who kills himself because he realizes he’s not Jesus Christ, to the extent that it’s not abstract, so maybe some people would prefer a different style, but I do think that there’s a benefit to knowing that people who have had every advantage “will die like any mortal, and fall like any prince”…. Sometimes success is an act, and if you actually have found something, either for that reason, or because they don’t care, they find some reason to say that you just don’t look like the other guys in the band, who look the right way, you know. Popular music is petty…. [People are small-minded, I mean. I guess the one thing I can say is that I take things less personally than I did once. People are just going through a lot.] So yeah, sometimes the big name writer is okay, because at least they have something to say, your Rational Al—the classic people, you know. Sometimes classics are a scam too, but, not always. It’s hard to have rules for life, that’s certainly a New Testament belief.

…. He does cover marriage a lot, proportionally, but basically in the form of straight fights—me vs you. I wonder what it would be like if there were a third person—bad waiter etc—and one partner (either a marriage partner, or a parent or something) wants to blame, and you want to make excuses, etc.

That would suck, right. I schedule my whole life around avoiding that, lol.

…. Sometimes secular psych isn’t good at summing up, lol. Always remember: (cliche or popular saying, plus commentary)!

But Al was right about one thing—living life is surely more an art than a science….

Much of what was in this book really doesn’t apply to me. For instance Ellis mentions and spends quite a bit of time using fear of public speaking and insecurities in people’s love lives as a springboard to coping with anxieties. Well, I taught school for 40 years, so getting up in front of an audience doesn’t bother me a bit. And at the age of 72 and having been married for almost 50 years, I have not anxieties in my love life. I did find much of what he said about “Irrational Beliefs” helpful. I wish he had had a section of geriatric anxiety, anxiety for old folks, because it is a pretty unique kind of anxiety. It often doesn’t include much of what he covers in the book (love life, speaking publicly, money problems, etc.). Maybe there are books devoted to exactly that topic. This book is very prescription and will undoubtedly help many people who try to cope with anxiety on their own. I recommend it.

Ellis does what he calls Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, so you can have good behavior if you emote rationally. When you think amiss you create problems for yourself, and less troublesome thinking relieves these problems.

Rational emoting can be distinguished from other psychological or rational theories. A poet in psychoanalysis would want to just feel all their feelings as deeply as possible as an end in itself, and a philosopher or (especially he’s not a) monastic would probably make their goal to feel perfectly unemotional, but rational emoting is in the middle: feel whatever you want, but don’t hurt yourself. It’s very similar to many forms of philosophy, but it’s attenuated in strictness. (“Not *completely* true—but true enough!”)

I don’t use rational emoting exclusively, but I think it’s important to keep all your strategies straight so you can understand yourself. (Eg, he usually likes to implicitly distance himself from Christianity, but he’s certainly not illogically anti-Christian or against all Christians equally regardless of what they say.)

…. He’s right that insight into why you have a problem needs to be followed up with taking up responsibility for yourself and doing something different, not just brooded on.

It still is rationalistic or insight-based, though, as it’s basically a book about treating cognitive distortions, something that’s certainly important.

…. Although Ellis does use Epictetus against Freud before that was cool, it’s important to realize it’s also post-Freudian rather than pre-Freudian because it’s based on his 20th century experiences as a therapist; he knows that people have cognitive distortions because he’s seen and heard it all, not just because he read it in a book.

I like stubbornly refusing to do things so this book appealed to me. Undoubtedly one of the better books of its kind (in my opinion) and I will be attempting to incorporate some of the strategies it contains into my everyday life. This book is blissfully devoid of psychobabble and centres around the notion that it is our irrational thinking that causes us to become psychologically unsettled. The book contains exercises to follow to help analyse and (hopefully) eradicate your own irrational beliefs. In a typically irrational move, I haven't yet tried them...

The first time I read this book I thought that I was beginning the process of learning everything about anger (and everything else). Having read this a second time, I realize that what separates Dr. Ellis from psychoanalysis is that he’s not really about superhuman knowledge. (Tangent: that’s possibly the worst argument of the atheists—well, if you can’t explain the problem of evil to me, then shoo, shoo! Is that science, that we’re entitled to know things? Isn’t the first task of science to delineate what we do not, or even cannot, know? Isn’t that the worst mistake of religion, when divested of humility, to feel entitled to superhuman knowledge? Okay, break’s over.) He does present important, transformational ideas that are sufficiently counterintuitive that I’m not going to try to summarize them in three lines. But one of the “myths about anger” Ellis describes is essentially that it is not cured by Knowing Alone—think about it, you could be stewing.

At the same time, Ellis in his outlook and style is very classical.

But if instead of “living your life”, as people like to say, if instead of taking only that analysis which is needed, or at least supportable, before taking action necessary to change, if instead of this you simply try to satiate an unquenchable thirst for “knowing”, an almost sexual obsession with superhuman knowledge, then you lose yourself; you’re lost. I’ll spare you the references to the Apostle Paul, but they are there—in the Bible, I mean—if that’s something you’re curious about, and I think in a way it is that sort of thing, even though Dr Ellis wasn’t religious.

As for the recommendations Dr. Ellis makes, I’d like to provide the simplest of sketches, truly, without caricaturing it through lack of skill. Here, then, are the headings in Chapter 13, “Additional Ways of Reducing Your Anger”, not explained but simply listed as a sort of sample:

—review the practical results of anger
—increasing frustration tolerance
—attacking narcissism and grandiosity
—awareness of the harm of anger and violence
—challenging angry attributions
—reducing your feelings of inadequacy
—avoidance of drugs and alcohol
—a philosophy of fallibility
—curbing righteous indignation
—recognizing the irony of hatred
—acquiring humanistic values
—realizing the pain of your opponents
—enhancing your relationships
—cooperative outlook
—workshops, training courses, and psychotherapy

That’s fifteen points; naturally everyone won’t like them all equally. But it gives you a sense of his style, a sense of what I begin to understand that I do not fully understand.

Two points he discusses in different parts of the book (the second in different ways in different places) that I took away from it were: the tension/relaxation exercises, and being reminded of a certain doubt of our ideas and judgments.

………….

After-thought: To be a little more ‘special than Al, but hey—and I’ll try to avoid specifics because Not being angry at people often irritates almost as much as firing back—but I find that usually when you’re angry you’re angry at some negative front that the person has, which is worse than they really are but which they don’t really have the guts or whatever to live up/down to, right: and basically the whole situation is a result of them not knowing who they are, and you misreading the label they printed, right.

(shrugs) So yeah.

My anxiety is less now, freeing up time to goof off and/or address other issues such as anger, shyness, pride, and perfectionism. Et cetera.

Of course, part of me still gets annoyed (anger), and decides that if everything were perfect as it Should be, (perfectionism) and I had remembered my container of free chicken that they were going to throw away that I was unshy enough to ask for, that now they will throw away because I forgot it— that if I were perfect and better like I really am (pride), then everything would be okay and I wouldn’t need psychology. I would just need sex and cigarettes, right?

.... But I’m not trying to say that it isn’t worth the effort, it’s just a process, a web; it’s netting.

Subject: The problem with anger is that when you get it, you don’t think that something’s wrong; you’re doing a great job. And yet you won’t relax, either— those other people.

Book: Albert Ellis in general does a great job, and this book is no exception.

Not really into self help materials, but Albert Ellis gets me going as I start reading his books. It did not appear to me as another annoying positive thinking kind of stuff, it only helps you to look at life situations that you have to face all the time from a new prospective while rationalize your mind. If you are willing to get your emotions and reactions under control it teaches you that by some useful tips and techniques.

Trattato da lettura costante, le frasi di Ellis servono sempre. Utilissimo e potente, da lasciare in giro per casa e ogni tanto rileggersi un capitolo.

Ellis is considered one of the founding fathers of rational emotive behavior therapy. In this book he addresses three core concepts: unconditional acceptance of self, unconditional acceptance of others and unconditional acceptance of the world.It is a humorous and informative book which includes several self-acceptance exercises.

The authors - two established doctors of psychiatry who pioneered the "Rational-Emotive Technique" of dealing with and changing behavior - have a clumsy, ham-fisted way of getting their ideas across in this book. The ideas presented are basic; and the many examples of generic patients suffering conveniently generic problems can get tiresome.Even still... if you are holding this book, chances are you are looking for some help, and if this book is what you've got handy, give it a whirl. The ideas, themes and suggestions will probably seem mostly familiar to you, but having it all laid out and connected does help quite a bit to put things into perspective. There is lots of repetition; I often felt that the authors were trying to beat simple concepts into my head like I was a five-year-old. But, as annoying as that was, I think it helped drive some key concepts home. Simple ideas are all-too-easy to brush aside ("Yeah, of course I know that. Who doesn't? I don't have to think about that stuff.."), so sometimes it's beneficial to be hit over the head with some common sense. I have to say that this book helped me more than I initially thought it would, and I'm glad I read it. (Even if it was written in the manner of a stuffy doctor trying very hard to seem human. But maybe that was just me. To be fair though, this was written in the '70s. Maybe the author was totally hip back then, and i'm the square.)All things considered, though, I would imagine there are better written books out there on this subject, probably even based on the knowledge and techniques of the authors of this one. I don't have any suggestions, but I'm sure you can find a gook book easily enough. I would give it a shot before delving into this one. But if you DO happen to pick this one up... well, you could do much worse.

Although the book is billed as a strong case against religion, it is actually a weak case against religion, centered mainly on the idea that religion is a negative force. This may be, and in my opinion is, true, but that doesn't say anything at all about the truth or falsity of religion. The author attempts to demonstrate that religion is a form of mental illness, and I am pretty easy to convince on that matter, but the author's arguments are weak and not particularly convincing.

Albert Ellis was one of the first self-help writers. He was a prolific writer. This was one of his first. The principles in this book aren't terribly original, but he manages to bring something new to the presentation.

Pretty much tells it like it is, clearly and concisely: Religion taken as anything more than myth is neurosis by definition.

Recommended for the overly intelligent.

This is not a "How to Hypnotize" book. It is the presursor to Cognitive-Behavioral -- the precursor to both being Stoicism.

The cover photograph does appear to be early 1960s (which is not a confession that I've actually ever seen such a hairdo).

A bizarre 'how to hypnotise' book which I understand is still in print today. I just love the illustration on the front cover of the 1975 edition I have.½

This book was a great introduction to RET. It is easy to get through and very practical. The value of Dr. Ellis's methodology is plain to see, and the book makes no demands for the reader to view the material narrowly. It can be easily applied to many other areas.

I'll read this some day, maybe.

Just got it I'll let you know