PremiseChecker

What is most valuable about Beck's et al Cognitive Behavior Therapy is its methodology, which is: the Scientific Method applied to the individual case. While there is tremendous overlap between Beck's and Ellis' ideas, I invite you to dig around until you can find a video of Albert Ellis himself demonstrating his therapy to a "client," to see what the difference involves. In school in the 70's, there was, for example, a compliation titled, I think, "Three Therapists," which we watched in glorious 8mm. This may or may not be available on Amazon, and I have not checked to see whther anything comes up on a YouTube search. (The other two were Carl Rogers and Fritz Perls, who are unworthy of the effort to criticize in an Objectivist Forum.) But basically, Ellis is nothing short of a bully. An Attila. With the patient, excuse me, "client," chosen for the film, by the end, she has shown herself to be sufficiently resilient for his verbal onslaught, and does benefit from replacing some irrational ideas with rational ones. Now, what I consider to be Bullying when a person with a problem comes to a professional for assistance, and pays for that assistance, I would not consider to be Bullying in a debate between two people enthusiastic about a topic with the agreed purpose of discerning the truth by the method of debate. IMNSHO, the contract is different. My patients do not voluntarily purchase my time for me to berate them, nor do they purchase my debating skills. Quite the contrary, what they consciously intend to purchase is medical care. Albert Ellis, Ph.D., was a psychologist, whose doctoral study focused on learning theory, and I'm not sure whether he had any clinical training at all, such as it was at the time. (Please correct me on this if I am mistaken.) Aaron Beck, M.D., and John Rush, M.D., his protege, are physicians who specialize in psychiatry. Despite mountains of egalitarian rhetoric, the two are not interchangeable, and it goes beyond prescribing privileges. Granted, Rand condemned deontologic ethics as one means of control employed by Witch Doctors, if I understand this correctly. Nevertheless, so far I have found nothing irrational or inconsistent in the physician's oath, wherein he freely and voluntarily assumes a Duty of Care toward his patients. When a free individual contracts with a physician for medical care, what that individual understands is that he will enter into a Doctor-Patient Relationship, unchanged in any essential way for millennia. The model followed by psychology and other non-medical therapists and counselors is, indeed, consistent with their use of the term "client," i.e., it is a consultation: I come to you for advice on a matter, but I don't expect you to assume responsibility for curing me of any illness. Here, too, "assuming responsibility for another" for anything at all sounds anathema to objectivism, especially the concept "responsibility for another's well-being." And again, I suggest the practice of medicine is a unique instance, and often comes close to the Ethics of Emergencies on a regular basis. Further, outside such emergencies, I suggest that it is not living one's life for the sake of another to agree, freely, voluntarily, and for a fair fee, for a physician to accept responsibility for his patients' well-being. Thought Experiment: Take this out of the specialty of psychiatry, and imagine the surgeon about to create a bypass for your coronary arteries, and consider whether in is un-objectivist for him to assume responsibility for your life! No, the practice of psychiatry is not thoracic surgery, but it is medicine, and it does often encounter life-or-death situations. So, Ellis the Hun verbally assaults the citizens who consult him for advice until they drink his Kool-Aid, i.e., accept his demands about what is rational and what is not, and gives nothing more than hypocritical lip-service to assisting the "client" to think for himself in emotional matters. Aaron Beck begins by teaching his patients the scientific method: that is, "Hm... Let's see if that thought, that makes you depressed, fits with reality or not. Here's how you can find out. It's called an Experiment." CBT then progresses from thoughts, to cognitive biases, to Premises, from dimly conscious formation of the same to enlightenment, raised consciousness, truer free will, and ultimately to Reason and greater potential for peace of mind and happiness. And, the patient learns how to think rationally in the process. In fact, that skill is fundamental to the success of CBT. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another interesting resource is Alberti & Emmons, Your Perfect Right, now in its ninth edition. It has been called the "Bible of Assertiveness Training." Throughout this volume, the approach to assertiveness training is: I respect your rights, not my own = Nonassertiveness. Not Good. I respect my rights, not yours = Aggressiveness. Not Good. I have equal respect for both my rights and yours = Assertiveness. Good. The flaw in the book, and it is a profound one, is how they establish the philosophical foundation for equal respect for both my rights and yours. It is not because Homo sapiens is the top of the food chain, that human life wherever found is the highest value and the beginning of value. It is for them, instead, some of the most disturbing radical egalitarianism you might find anywhere. "Employees are equal to Bosses (NOT: "Producers of Wealth")," "Students (who naturally know less) are equal to Teachers (who are being paid to impart their knowledge)," etc. There is a complete disavowal of any form of hierarchy whatsoever. They give more than the rhetorical advantage to the collective, the hive. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am most grateful for the resources and references mentioned above. OBTW, in an email exchange a few years ago, I asked Dr. Branden of his opinion of Beck and Ellis and the whole cognitive psychology revolution. He dismissed them all as beneath contempt, but his reply was reactive whim, not rational argument. I don't know that he has no rational argument for this, as perhaps I was a gnat also beneath contempt who had not earned any time or effort on his part. Be well, Anthony C. Patterson MD