Podcasts about rational emotive therapy

Special Announcement #1 Attend the Legendary Summer Intensive Featuring Drs. David Burns and Jill Levitt August 8 - 11. 2024 Learn Advanced TEAM-CBT skills Heal yourself, heal your patients First Intensive in 5 years! It will knock your socks off! Limited Seating--Act Fast Click for registration / more information! Sadly, this workshop is a training program which will be limited to therapists and mental health professionals and graduate students in a mental health field  Apologies, but therapists have complained when non-therapists have attended our continuing education training programs. This is partly because of the intimate nature of the small group exercises and the personal work the therapists may do during the workshop. Certified coaches and counselors are welcome to attend. Special Announcement #2 Here's some GREAT news! The Feeling Great App is now available in both app stores (IOS and Android) and is for therapists and the general public, and you can take a ride for free! Check it Today's Podcast Practical Philosophy Month Part 1, The Free Will Problem Welcome to Practical Philosophy month. For the next five weeks, we will discuss some of the most popular and challenging problems in philosophy, such as these: Do human beings have free will? Or is free will just an illusion? Do human beings have a “self?” Or is the “self” just another illusion? Is it possible to be more or less “worthwhile?” Are some humans “better” or “worse” than others? Does God exist? Is the universe “real” or “one”? What's the meaning of life? What is “self-esteem”? How does it differ from self-confidence? What's the difference between conditional and unconditional self-esteem? What's the difference between self-esteem and self-acceptance? What do you have to do to experience joy and feelings of worthwhileness? We will try to complete the list in five weeks, so some weeks we may include more than one topic, since many of these topics are related to one another. Rhonda and David will be joined by our beloved Dr. Matt May, a regular on our Ask David episodes, and for the first and second sessions we will be joined by our beloved Dr. Fabrice Nye, who created and hosted the Feeling Good Podcasts several years ago. Each week, you will also hear about the linkage between these philosophical dilemmas, and emotional problems, like depression, anxiety, and relationship conflicts. For example, nearly all depressed individuals believe that they aren't sufficiently “worthwhile.” I see my goal as a psychiatrist not as helping people feel “more worthwhile,” but rather showing people, if interested, how to give up this notion entirely and become free of certain kinds of damaging judgments of the “self” and others. You will also learn how these types of philosophical problems continue to play a large role in psychiatry and psychology, including the DSM5 diagnostic system. For example, is the diagnosis of “Generalized Anxiety Disorder” a true “mental disorder” that you could “have” or “not have?” And might some or most of the so-called “mental disorders” listed in the DSM be based on faulty philosophical / logical thinking? And if many or most of the “mental disorders” are based on goofy, faulty thinking, is there a more productive and effective way to think about most emotional problems? And how did we get into this mess in the first place? Worrying certainly exists, and we all worry at times. But how much or how often do you have to worry before you develop or have a “mental disorder” called “Generalized Anxiety Disorder” that can be diagnosed like any medical illness and treated with drugs? Or is “Generalized Anxiety Disorder” (and hundreds of other “mental disorders in the DSM” based on a certain kind of nonsensical thinking? And if so, why? What is the goofy, faulty thinking in the DSM? And are there some “mental disorders” that are valid and real? We HAVE touched on all of these themes in previous podcasts, but I thought it would be nice to put them all in one place and bring in a variety of “solutions,” controversies, and experts. I David, will often represent (hopefully, and to the best of my ability) the thinking of Ludwig Wittgenstein, as expressed in his famous book, Philosophical Investigation, published in 1950 following his death. That book consists of a series of numbered brief essays (a few paragraphs each) that were based on notes found in a metal box under his dormitory room at Cambridge University. He'd written these in preparation for his weekly seminars in his dormitory room. Wittgenstein, although now widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of all time, did not think he knew enough to teach in a classroom. In fact, because of his feelings of depression and self-doubt, he sadly never tried to publish anything when he was alive. Wittgenstein's philosophy also played an indirect but significant role in the evolution of several modern psychotherapies. His philosophy created new ways of thinking that gave rise to the work of Dr. Albert Ellis, the famous New York psychologist who created Rational Emotive Therapy during the 1950s. Ellis emphasized that the “Should Statements” that trigger so much guilt, shame, depression, anxiety, and rage are based on illogical thinking. He might often say, “Where is it written that people or the world “should” be the way you want them to be?” Of course, this idea actually traces back to the Greek Stoic philosophers like Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. Wittgenstein's thinking also seems to have played a role in the thinking of Dr. Aaron Beck, who adapted the work of Ellis and called his version of the “Cognitive Therapy.” Beck emphasized many thinking errors, like All-or-Nothing Thinking, and Overgeneralization, that trigger depression, anxiety, and more. Sadly, Wittgenstein struggled with severe depression and loneliness throughout his life, and three of his four brothers tragically died by suicide. Wittgenstein also had prolonged periods of time when he considered suicide. It is also sad that he did not know how to apply his brilliant philosophical breakthroughs to his own negative thinking, but that application of his work did not develop at the time he was still alive. Part of Wittgenstein's depression was related, I believe, to the fact that very few people, including the most famous philosophers of Europe, could understand his thinking when he was alive. From time to time, I think he glimpsed the enormous importance of his work; but I believe that he also had prolonged moments of self-doubt when he thought his work was of little value at best. To be as correct as possible, Wittgenstein did write a manuscript called Tractatus Logico Philosophicus as a young man, although he never tried to publish it. He wrote it when he was a prisoner of war. He thought this book solved all the problems of philosophy, which had plagued him since he was a child, and he felt great relief. He sent a copy of his manuscript to Bertrand Russell, who was a famous British philosopher. Bertrand Russell was incredibly impressed with the Tractatus and distributed it to many European philosophers. Bertrand Russell thought it might be the greatest book in the history of philosophy, and a number of the 20th century philosophical movements including Logical Positivism, were inspired by that book. However, Wittgenstein left the field of philosophy, thinking that his work was done, and that he'd found the solutions he was looking for. He tried teaching grammar school for a while, but was fired because he became frustrated and violent toward some of his students. He also tried to survive as a fisher in a Norwegian fishing town, but was not successful at that, either, because he didn't know much about fishing, much less supporting yourself through fishing. One day, he learned that a brilliant Swedish economics student had found a flaw in his Tractatus, and his inner turmoil about the puzzling problems of philosophy flared up again. He decided to return to the study of philosophy. He applied to be an advanced undergraduate at Cambridge University, but when someone in the admissions office spotted his application, they recognized his name and showed his application to Bertrand Russell, who had been wondering what had become of the young man who once sent him such a brilliant manuscript. Russell, who was the chair of the department of philosophy, said to being Wittgenstein to his office immediately for an interview. Russell explained that he would have to reject Wittgenstein's application to be an undergraduate at Cambridge University. Deeply disappointed, Wittgenstein asked why. Russell told him it was because he was already recognized as the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. Bertrand proposed that if Wittgenstein would agree to skip college and graduate school, they would immediately award him a PhD for the manuscript he'd sent to Russell years earlier. Russell also offered him a full professor ship in the department of philosophy. Wittgenstein protested and said he needed to study philosophy again, because of the error in Tractatus, and that he didn't know anything, and definitely could not teach in a classroom. Bertrand Russell insisted, and they finally struck a deal where Wittgenstein would agree to be a professor of philosophy but all he would have to do was to have a conversation session with anybody who wanted to talk to him at his dormitory room once a week. Wittgenstein accepted and met for years with students and famous philosophers who came from around Europe to crowd into his dormitory room for his weekly seminars, and he began to shape a radically different philosophical approach from the one he'd described earlier in his Tractatus. He was determined to find a new way to solve all the problems of philosophy. And, to my way of thinking, along with those few who really understand him, he was successful. But he was often frustrated because, so few understood him. This was unfortunate, because what he was saying was incredibly simple and basic, and it was pretty similar to, if not identical to, the thinking of the Buddha 2500 years earlier. The Buddha apparently had the same problem—almost nobody could understand what he was trying to say when he was still alive. They couldn't “get it” when he was talking about the so-called “Great Death” of the “self,” or talking about the path to enlightenment. The Buddha's frustration resulted from the exact same problem Wittgenstein encountered 2500 years later. The Buddha was saying something that was extremely simple, obvious, and basic—and yet, it was rumored that of his more than 100,000 followers when he was alive, only three actually “got it” and experienced enlightenment. When I read Philosophical Investigations my senior year in college, it was rumored that only seven people in the world understood what Wittgenstein was trying to say. Wittgenstein's dream was that philosophy students would “get” his thinking and give up philosophy when they realized that most if not all philosophical problems are sheer nonsense. He wanted them to do something practical and real in the world instead of studying philosophy. He was verry disappointed when his favorite student, Norman Malcolm (one of the seven who “got it,”) pursued an illustrious career teaching philosophy in America at Cornell University. I always wished I could have known Wittgenstein when he was alive, so I could have told him this: I loved you, too, and I got it after several months of confusion, trying to understand your Philosophical Investigations, but eventually understood it with the help of your student, Norman Malcolm. His book about you was very inspiring. And that's why I left philosophy for something more practical in the world. I decided at the last minute to go to medical school to become a psychiatrist instead of philosophy graduate school. Hopefully, I am doing something that you might be proud of! But oddly enough, your thinking has also influenced my approach to people who feel depressed and worthless. They are also under a kind of destructive “enchantment,” thinking that there is some such “thing” as a more or less worthwhile human being! And this is a major cause of depression and anxiety and feelings of worthlessness and hopelessness. I wonder if you, Wittgenstein, ever felt that you weren't “good enough” when you were feeling down. hopeless and suicidal? I sure wish I could have helped you with that! If you want to understand Wittgenstein's work, the best book in my opinion is Norman Malcolm's moving and affectionate tribute to his beloved teacher, entitled “Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir.” It's a short moving tribute to his beloved teacher, and tears go down my cheeks every time I read it, or even think about it. If you ever visit my office here at home, you'll find that memoir proudly sitting on my bookshelf, with a handsome photo of Wittgenstein on the cover. Toward the end of his life, Wittgenstein appears to have become more or less homeless, and he died from prostate cancer. His doctor said he could live in his home, where he was befriended by the doctor's wife in his final days. His dying words were, “Tell them that I had a wonderful life.” He died on April 29, 1951, just a few hours before my wife was born in Palo Alto, California. Surprisingly, she is the only person I've ever met who understood Wittgenstein's thinking entirely the first time I explained it to her. She “already knew” what Wittgenstein, the greatest philosophical genius of the 20th century, spent a lifetime figuring out! Reincarnation is pretty “out there,” and fairly silly, to my way of thinking, but sometimes it can be fun to think about it! Here is my understanding of how the thinking of the “later Wittgenstein” actually developed. His first book, which is nearly impossible to understand, was called the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. It is a series of numbered propositions, which he compared to climbing up a ladder, rung by rung, as you read the book until you got to the roof at the top of the ladder. Then you could throw your ladder away and give up philosophical thinking, since he thought his book contained the solution to all the problems of philosophy that had tormented him since childhood, as mentioned previously. The philosophy of language in the Tractatus is based on the thinking of Aristotle and Plato, who thought that the function of language was to name things that exist in the real world. Plato's idea was that our real world consists of imperfect examples of a “Platonic Reality” which consisted of “perfect” representations of everything. So, for example, Plato believed there could be a perfect “table,” a perfect “lamp,” and so forth. In other words, he thought there was an ideal essence to the concept of a “table.” And, I suppose, there might also be a “perfect” version of you! The early Wittgenstein also thought that the logic inherent in our sentences reflected the logic inherent in an external reality. If that doesn't make much sense to you, join the club! But that's kind of what Plato and Aristotle were promoting, at least in my (David's) understanding. When Wittgenstein's Tractatus was debunked, he was devastated, and desperately wanted to find another way to solve the problems of philosophy, since they started tormenting him again. It was much like a relapse of OCD or some other emotional problem. In fact, he thought of philosophy as a kind of mental illness that needed treatment. Here's an example of the types of philosophical problems that tormented him. Do human beings have free will? Do we have a “self?” Is the universal “real?” Of course, we THINK we have free will, and it SEEMS like we make “free decisions” all day long, but is this just an illusion? For example, some people would argue that we cannot have “free will” because we “have to” follow the laws of science that govern everything, including how the brain works. So, since we “have to” do what we are doing at every moment of every day, we must not have free will! Here is an argument that we do NOT have “free will.” When a powerful storm or hurricane destroys a portion of a city, and people die, we see this as a tragedy, but we don't get angry at the hurricane because it does have “free will.” It is just obeying the laws of physics that govern the forces of wind, air pressure, heat and cooling, and so forth. A storm cannot behave in any other way. So, the argument goes, we are also following the laws that govern the functioning of our bodies and brains, and so we cannot do other than what we do, so we, too, have no “free will.” We THINK we are acting freely but it is an illusion, so our brains are obeying the laws of the universe at every moment! For hundreds of years philosophers have struggled with this puzzle, and many people still wrestle with this problem today. It was one of the problems that drew me to philosophy. Impractical for sure, but still tantalizing. Another way to express the free will puzzle is via religious thinking. I was taught when I was growing up that God is omnipotent (all powerful), omnipresent (present everywhere) and omniscient (all knowing.) So, God knows the past, present, and future. And if God knows the future, then God knows what we will do at every moment of every day, and we are helpless to do otherwise. Therefore, we have no “free will,” even though we “think” we do! This free will problem can definitely be unsettling, with troubling moral consequences. If we do not “free will,” then are serial killers really responsible for, or guilty, or accountable for their actions? If we do not have free will, then wouldn't that give us license to do whatever we want whenever we want? Clever arguments for sure! We may “feel” like we have the freedom to do whatever we want at almost any moment of any day, but are we fooling ourselves and living in some gigantic hoax, or illusion? Are we total slaves with the delusion that we are actually acting “freely?” How do we resolve this problem? Well, one day Wittgenstein was walking past a soccer game at the park, and the soccer ball hit him on the head. He wasn't hurt, but had the thought, “What if the function of language is NOT to name things (like trees, or lamps, etc.) that exist in some “external reality,” like Plato and Aristotle thought? What if language actually functions as a series of “language games,” with rules, just like the game of soccer? Then the meaning of any words would simply be the many ways the word is used in different real world situations. In fact, that's what you find in the dictionary when you look up the meaning of a word. The dictionary doesn't ever give you some “correct” or ”pure” meaning, since most words have many meanings. This would be the opposite of the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato who argued that there were “true” meanings for every word, noun, or concept. What if, instead, words had NO true or essential meanings, and their meanings were simply embedded in the context in which they are used in ordinary, everyday language? If so, this might mean that philosophical problems emerge when we try to pull words out of their ordinary meanings, which are always obvious, and put them into some metaphysical realm where philosophers argue about “ultimate truth.” Let's say we wanted to find out if humans have “free will.” Well, not being sure if there is such a “thing” as “free will,” we could look up “free” and “will” in the dictionary. (I know this sounds incredibly obvious and almost ridiculous.) What does “free” mean? Well, we could talk about the many ways we use “free.” Political freedom means that in some countries you cannot contradict the leader (the dictator) without the danger of being thrown in prison or even murdered. But in other countries, you are, In fact, free to express your own ideas and opinions, without fear of punishment. Free also means getting something without having to pay for it, like a seventh bottle of soda is free at the local grocery store if you purchase a six pack. Free can also mean “available.” I am starting up my Sunday hikes again, and I might say, “If you are free this Sunday morning, meet at my front door at 9 and we'll go for a hike and have a dim sum feast afterwards at a Chinese restaurant on Castro Street in Mountain View, California, Now notice that when you talk about “free will” you have taken this word, “free,” out of the familiar contexts in which we find it, and given it some type of metaphysical “meaning.” But in this metaphysical, philosophical arena, it has no meaning. So, instead of trying to “solve” the so-called “free will” problem, we can dismiss it as nonsensical, and ignore it as having no practical meaning, and move on with our lives. We can say, “I just don't understand that problem! I don't know what you're talking about when you ask the general question of whether we have something called ‘free will.'” That either works for you, or it doesn't work for you! Your choice. It does work for me, but it took me months of thinking until I suddenly “got it.” My way of describing this philosophical error is “nounism.” You think that nouns always refer to things that could “exist” or “not-exist,” just like Plato and Aristotle thought. So, you ponder and try to figure out if this notion of “free will” exists or does not exist. But it's arguably a meaningless question. That's why I say, and Wittgenstein might say, I have no idea what you're talking about. Today we'll discuss the free will problem and how it might relate to our field of psychotherapy. Next week, we'll deal with another thorny problem: Do we have a “self?” Or is that also just some kind of illusion? I (David) wrote these show notes before the show, and we have had fairly extensive email exchanges, with a variety of points of view on whether or not we have something we can call “free will.” First, I'll put a great email by Matt, followed by a comment by Fabrice. Here's Matt's email first: Subject: Re: question Yes, that's getting very close to what I'm trying to communicate. I don't believe you are 'slow' or 'super lame', either. In fact, quite the opposite. I suspect I'm failing to do an adequate job of disarming your claims that 'free will' and 'self' are words taken out-of-context and, therefore, can't be shown to exist or not-exist. I apologize, as I am pretty excited about the potential to help people, suffering with self-blame and other-blame, by realizing that we and others don't have a 'self' or 'free will'. I believe we have a brain that makes decisions and creates experiences, including the experience of having a 'self' and 'free will'. I believe that the experience of 'making' a decision is an illusion, as is the idea of a static, unchanging 'self' that controls decision-making. I asked you to pick a movie and you said, 'Green Mile'. You acknowledged that this movie title simply 'popped into my head'. That's correct. Your 'self' didn't control what you selected, using 'free will'. Your brain just came up with that movie title. There was no 'self' that made a decision to choose that word. I agree that we have a brain which is incredibly powerful. I'm claiming that we don't have an auxiliary 'self', with extra super powers, controlling our brain. We can make decisions, but we don't have 'free will', meaning, the ability to control those decisions. I do think you have some resistance to seeing through the illusions of 'self' and 'free will', all of which say awesome things about you, e.g. morality and justice. I'm not trying to convince you, one way or another, and I don't expect to. I'm more interested in the listening audience, as many people are significantly relieved when they realize that we are more the victims of our biology and circumstance rather than defective 'selves' lacking 'willpower'. To put a slightly finer point on the subject, when people say they have 'free will', they don't mean that 'decisions are made'. Obviously, decisions are made. You decided to keep reading this email, for example. Or you didn't. I'm not sure. Either way, a decision was made. When people say they have 'free will', they are saying that they (really, their 'self') are/is free to decide whether to continue reading this email, and that this power goes above and beyond what their brain is doing, according to the laws of physics. I am claiming that this is a ridiculous and dangerous thought, for which there is no evidence. You're saying these terms haven't been defined. I'm pointing out that they already have been, intuitively, by anyone who thinks, 'I shouldn't have done that', or 'they shouldn't have done that'. These thoughts require a belief that they 'could have' done something different, that they had free will. Aside from rage and guilt, let's examine the narcissism and excessive sense of confidence a patient might have, if they believe that they can simply 'decide', through sheer 'willpower', not to beat up on themselves anymore. Or a patient who believes they can simply 'decide' to always use the 5-Secrets, rather than criticize and blame. Can they? I've never seen that happen. That's why I assign homework. I know that the goal is to rewire the brain so they can feel and perform better, later. We can't simply decide to feel good all the time. We all drift in-and-out of enlightenment. If we want to increase the likelihood that we will be able to set aside self-criticism or communicate more effectively, we have to practice new thoughts and behaviors. If we do, we will develop greater skills at defeating negative thoughts and communicating effectively. Otherwise, our brains will do, in the future, what they are programmed to do, now. It's because we lack 'free will', that we must do homework. Similarly, you couldn't simply 'decide' to be the world's best ping-pong player. You realized you would have to work hard to re-wire your brain, if you wanted to have a chance at that. Let's use the murderer/cat example: A cat tortures and kills mice for the same reasons that a murderer does: their brains are programmed to do so. Murderers don't have a defective 'self' that is failing to express 'free will' adequately, when they murder. They're doing precisely what the atomic structure of their brain caused them to do, according to the laws of physics, in that moment, when presented with those precise stimuli. We don't have to judge or punish the cat or the murderer's 'self' and insist they should have used their 'free will'. We can accept that neither creature had the ability to decide differently from what their brain decided, in that moment. That is where the therapeutic element of this realization comes into play. I think it's important on a lot of levels, to stop blaming cats for being cats and murderers for being murderers. Similarly, if a patient doesn't want to do homework, will it do any good to blame them and think they're bad and should decide differently? No, it helps to accept them where they are, and to accept ourselves where we are, with open hands. Realizing nobody has a 'self' operating their brain and making decisions that are better than their brains' decisions doesn't mean we have to let all the murderers go or trust our cat with a new mouse companion. We can still be aware that their brains are programmed to murder. We would still be motivated to do whatever is necessary to protect society and mice. The difference is the attitude towards the murderer. We aren't trying to 'punish' or 'get vengeance' but to protect and, instead of 'labeling' them as having a 'bad self' or even being a 'murderer', but someone who has murdered and, left to their own devices, likely to do so again.  Instead of judging and demanding vengeance, we would see a murderer as the victim of their biology and environment. Instead of condemning them as permanently evil and bad, we could recognize that their brain is currently wired to do bad things and they might still learn new ways to interact with others. Perhaps they're not hopeless cases, after all. From the other side, if I ever committed murder, and sentenced to death, I wouldn't want to be feeling defective, thinking what a bad self I have and guilty/ashamed for not flexing my 'free will' in the heat of the moment. Instead, I might feel a sense of relief, purpose and meaning, that I was protecting others by being put to death. Alright, enough out of me! Thanks, Matt And now, the response from Fabrice: Matt's thinking is exactly in line with mine. I don't know if the topic came up in your discussion, but some people argue that actually someone could have done something differently than they did, because there is some randomness in Nature. But that argument doesn't hold water because even if the decision “made” by their brain is different, it has nothing to do with their will but only with the Heisenberg principle. Cheers! Fabrice Nye fabrice@life.net David's wrap up comment. Matt and Fabrice have quite a different view of “free will” and the “self.” They are arguing, very thoughtfully and persuasive, that we do not “have” a “self” or “free will.” People have been involved in this debate, as I've mentioned, for hundreds of years, taking one side or another. My own thinking is different, and reflects my understanding of Wittgenstein's thinking. They have take these words out of the contexts in which they exist in everyday language, (which is a huge temptation) and involved in a debate about abstract concepts which have no meaning. Very few people, it seems, were able to grasp this idea when Wittgenstein was alive, or even today. So, if what I'm saying makes no sense to you, be comforted, since it seems likely that 99% of the people reading this, or listening to the show, will agree with you! And that's still a puzzle to me. It is not clear to me why so many people still cannot “see” or “get” this idea that words do not have any pure or essential “meaning” outside of the context of everyday use of language. The best psychotherapy example I can use is the fact that nearly all depressed individuals are trying to figure out, on some abstract or philosophical level, whether they are “worthwhile” or “good enough,” or whatever. This seems to be a “real” problem, and so they believe that they are not sufficiently worthwhile. This belief can be so convincing that many people commit suicide, out of a sense of hopelessness and self-hatred. But there is not such thing as a human being who is more or less “worthwhile.” Of course, your actions can be more or less worthwhile at any moment, and we can evaluate or judge our specific behaviors. Yesterday, we had our first recording session in a video studio we have set up for our Feeling Great App. We had a lot of fun and recorded some (hopefully) interesting stories we'll publish on our two new YouTube channels. I really appreciated the colleagues who made this possible. It was a relief for me because I tend to have performance anxiety, which impairs my ability to speak naturally and with emotion. But this time, there was no anxiety at all, so it was fun. Did this make me or my colleagues more worthwhile human beings? No! But it did show that we'd become a bit more effective and communicating messages that will trigger healing and understanding in our fans, and hope that includes you! When you “see” this, perhaps for the first time, it can be incredibly liberating, since you no longer have the need to have a “self” that's “special” or worthwhile. And, as some of you know, my beloved teacher and cat, Obie, taught me that when you no longer need to be “special,” life becomes special. When your “self” dies, you inherit the world! There's no funeral, only a celebration! Feel free to contact us with your thoughts, ideas and questions! Thank you for listening today! Rhonda, Matt, Fabrice, and David

Parenting just became really hard work. I guess I was due...---Patreon.com/DGAFPokerPlayerpokerrags.US Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Rational Emotive Therapy, created by Albert Ellis, was the first psychotherapy to explore the link between how we think and what we feel. https://www.healthline.com/health/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy  

In this episode we explore the concept of boredom in a relationship from a therapist point of view, while pulling cards to help facilitate a deeper understanding of the issue and help formulate a plan to feel less bored. When talking about Six of Cups, we were discussing the idea of play. Luna mentioned therapeutic framework that references this as a basic human need, and thought it might be Rational Emotive Therapy. Close- but not. It's actually Reality Therapy, founded by William Glasser in the 1960 and theorizes that humans have 5 basic needs to be met: -Power, or self worth and achievement -Love and belonging -Freedom/ independence -Fun -Survival Subscribe to our email list to get all kinds of free mental health related tarot goodies on our website www.TheTarotDiagnosis.com Follow us on TikTok and Instagram @TheTarotDiagnosis Audio Edited by Anthony DiGiacomo of Deep Resonance Sound Contact: DeepResonanceSound@gmail.com

The conventional treatment goals for people with trauma, anxiety and depression are to provide medications to minimize symptoms and coping strategies to reduce the impact of potentially crippling conditions. But what if this approach not only doesn't help but is actually the complete opposite of what needs to be done to restore normalcy??Dr Bob Moore is a vastly experienced therapist and educator in the areas of trauma and in this episode he explains how to actually cure anxiety and trauma rather than simply mollify it. Using an understanding of learning and neurology Dr. Bob explains how trauma and anxiety can be effectively treated and removed for good.Dr Moore can be reached at: Moorebob@juno.comTraumatic Incident Reduction Association: www.tira.org.Support the show (http://www.hownottothink.com)

How Does Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Work Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is the most commonly practiced form of psychotherapy practiced today. Indeed almost all psychotherapy experiences will have some CBT aspects in them even if the practitioner has a different theoretical orientation.  https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-cognitive-behavior-therapy-2795747 This is an article from very well mind that has additional information about CBT and it’s connection to Rational Emotive Therapy.    

Download In this episode, Joe and Kyle sit down and chat with Veronica Hernandez and Larry Norris of Decriminalize Nature Oakland. Decriminalize Nature is an educational campaign to inform Oakland residents about the value of entheogenic plants and fungi and propose a resolution to decriminalize our relationship to nature, which just recently had success in doing so. 3 Key Points: Decriminalize Nature Oakland is a campaign that just recently found success in decriminalizing psilocybin mushrooms as well as other psychedelic compounds naturally derived from plants or fungi, such as ayahuasca, peyote and DMT. The mission behind Decriminalize Nature is to improve human health and well-being by decriminalizing and expanding access to entheogenic plants and fungi through political and community organizing, education and advocacy. These decriminalization initiatives are gaining traction across many cities in the US. It's about connecting to key people in the community and educating them, so they can use their reach to get information about these plants out there, to provide access to people everywhere. Support the show Patreon Leave us a review on iTunes Share us with your friends – favorite podcast, etc Join our Facebook group - Psychedelics Today group – Find the others and create community. Navigating Psychedelics Trip Journal                                                Integration Workbook Show Notes About Veronica Veronica is a clinical psychologist licensed in Peru She has been working in the US as a Social Worker Clinician She has been combining plant medicines and spirituality back into psychology She is currently finishing her PhD at CIIS About Larry He is in the same PhD program as Veronica Him and Veronica are the team that created ERIE In between they have taken the time to run Decriminalize Nature Oakland Decriminalize Nature In this initiative, they had to convince 8 people of city council to agree to this, in comparison to the Denver Initiative, where they needed thousands of ballot signatures This bill included naturally occurring psychedelic compounds, not just mushrooms Larry mentions they used the word entheogen instead of psychedelic, as a way to create new conversation around the plant medicines a reduce the stigma A Win for Plant Medicine From where Veronica comes from, Ayahuasca and other plant medicines are national patrimony, state and church can't touch them To be able to bring these to a place where it's considered schedule 1, Veronica is super inspired about being able to make this happen Right now these plants are in a tug of war between money interest of the tax side and the government, and the other side of corporate interest The goal now is to educate people on what these plants do, safe practices and develop places and services to hold the space and make these plants available to people It's about connecting to key people in the community and educating them, so they can use their reach to get information about these plants out there Starting city by city is typically easier to initiate, to then have a better hold on direct action and education afterward to be able to duplicate on the state level They have had 50 different cities from 30 different states reach out to make this happen in their communities Veronica says that her first time trying San Pedro, she had felt an immediate connection to the plants It became her goal to combine conventional medicine with plant medicines and make it available to everyone “To be in touch with something bigger than yourself is one of the most important things" - Veronica Sustainability Although there was no verbiage in the bill, they are being mindful about sustainability of the plants when making them more available with decriminalization Synthesis is a better idea for ibogaine, 5-MEO-DMT and other compounds that are naturally derived but also pose a risk to their sustainability with decriminalization The landscape just doesn't allow for synthesis right now, so we start at decriminalization and then hopefully open doors to the route of synthesis to aid in the sustainability of these substances and resources Larry’s advice is that instead of spending your money and taking a trip to Denver or Oakland, to stay home and organize this is your own community because it can actually happen It starts now and it starts with education Joe says the most major push-back received in Denver for the decriminalization was the threat of people driving on mushrooms Links Website Facebook Instagram Twitter About Veronica Veronica Hernandez, is a clinical psychologist and shamanic practitioner from Peru. Since 2006 she has been trained on shamanic facilitation. She received her clinical training at the Institute of Rational-Emotive Therapy, New York, under the supervision of Dr. Albert Ellis. She was assistant professor at the Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia and research assistant at the Hospital Psiquiátrico Noguchi de Lima (Peru). In the United States, she worked as a Social Services Clinician at John Muir Health Hospital’s Inpatient Psychiatric Adolescent Unit, California. Currently she is completing her doctoral degree at California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS), San Francisco, where she is carrying out research on the healing and transformative benefits of entheogens, especially Ayahuasca. About Larry Larry Norris, MA, PhD Candidate is the co-founder and executive director of ERIE (Entheogenic Research, Integration, and Education) 501(c)(3), a group dedicated to the development of entheogenic research and integration models. Larry is also a co-founder and on the Board of Decriminalize Nature Oakland and helped to co-author the resolution which received an unanimous decision from Oakland City Council. Beginning his studies in cognitive science as an undergrad at the University of Michigan, he is now a PhD candidate in the East-West Psychology department at the California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) in San Francisco. His dissertation reviews archived ayahuasca experiences to identify transformational archetypes that induce insights hidden within the experiences. As adjunct faculty at CIIS, Larry taught a graduate course called Entheogenic Education: Contemporary Perspectives on Ancient Plant Wisdom in order to discuss the concept of entheogens as educational teachers and cognitive tools. He was also an adjunct faculty at John F. Kennedy University teaching a class titled Paradigms of Consciousness. A dedicated activist and proponent of cognitive liberty, Larry’s efforts are a contribution to not only change the Western legal status of these powerful plants, fungus, and compounds, but also to emphasize the potential sacred nature of entheogens given the right set and setting.

Today there are many different forms of psychotherapy.  Today's guest, an expert in rational emotional behaviorial therapy (REBT) will answer many of the questions you did not even know you had! 

Bro Therapy: David books a V (?); DGAF gets an ugly win... Weekly Topic: Learn to not stress about ANYTHING, basically. Email your issues to SolicitedAdvicePodcast@gmail.com to potentially have them discussed (anonymously) on future shows. (Recorded 3-7-19) *Get your S.A.P. apparel at pokerrags.US

Today we are introducing you to a new way to reduce anxiety. The introduction will be brief, but important. It is called Rational Emotive Therapy. When should you use it? When you are in a rational place. Think calm. Why? It helps reinforce your own problem solving ability, not that of a friend, family member or stranger. The best part? The solutions are yours, so you know it is one you can accomplish and stay consistent with. Fred teaches you the ABCs of Rational Emotive Therapy, to make it doable for anyone.

One of the goals for our Feeling Good Podcasts is to bring the TEAM-CBT techniques to life for mental health professionals, patients, and the general public as well. I (David Burns) use more than 50 Techniques when I'm working with individuals with depression, anxiety disorders, relationship problems, or habits / addictions. Today we will compare and contrast the four Truth-Based Techniques, including: Examine the Evidence The Experimental Technique The Survey Technique Reattribution These were among the first cognitive therapy techniques ever developed, and they were based on the work of Dr. Aaron Beck, from Philadelphia, as well as Dr. Albert Ellis, from New York. Dr. Ellis is the Grandfather of Cognitive Therapy, and he described many of these techniques in the 1950s. He called his treatment Rational Emotive Therapy, and it's still popular today. During the 1960s, Beck, who is considered the Father of Cognitive Therapy adapted the ideas of Dr. Ellis to the treatment of depression, and called his version of the treatment Cognitive Therapy. Beck emphasized that depression results from a negative view of the self, the world, and the future. In other words, the patient may think: I'm a loser. (negative view of the self) Nothing i do will be successful or rewarding. (negative view of the world) Things will never change. I'm hopeless. (negative view of the future) Beck claimed that the negative thoughts of the depressed individual are the actual cause of the depression. He also emphasized that the disturbing negative thoughts of depressed patients are nearly always distorted and illogical; however, depressed individuals don’t realize that they’re fooling themselves, so they think their negative thoughts are absolutely valid. Beck also claimed that depression could be treated without drugs in many cases, and focused his treatment on challenging the patient's distorted negative thoughts. Beck often compared depressed patients to scientists who have a theory about the world that simply isn’t true. That's why scientists learn to test their theories by examining evidence and performing experiments. Beck suggested that depressed patients could also test the validity of their negative thoughts and beliefs by examining the evidence for and against what they're telling themselves, as well as by doing actual experiments to test their thoughts and beliefs. David and Fabrice bring the four basic truth-based techniques to life with actual patient examples. They answer the question, "What's the difference between Examine the Evidence and the Experimental Technique?" And "How does the Survey Technique work?" They emphasize the tremendous importance of warmth and empathy, as well as melting away patient resistance, before trying to implement any of these techniques. They also emphasize that these techniques, like all of the techniques, are powerful, and must be used with skill and compassion, or else they can backfire.

Guest speakers: Veronica Hernandez & Shonagh Home PROGRAM NOTES: Today’s podcast features a conversation between Veronica Hernandez and Shonagh Home. Veronica Hernandez, is a clinical psychologist and shamanic practitioner. Born in Peru, since 2006 she has been trained on shamanic facilitation. She received her clinical training at the Institute of Rational-Emotive Therapy, New York, under […]

Alcohol, drug abuse or other maladaptive behaviors can result in a loss of intimacy and intimacy skills, as well as a profound lack of connectedness with others. Improving our intimacy can include becoming more comfortable with our own personal identity, the ability to achieve an open closeness with others, the abiity to communicate in both directions, both speaking and listening, and the ability to commit and stay committed to valuable relationships. These elements can be practiced and improved by each of us, and this can take some courage and work. Among many achievements, Mr. Garcia has an extensive and diversified background in the field of human behavior. He holds both an undergraduate and graduate degree from New York University. His post graduate work was conducted at the Institute for Advanced Study in Rational Emotive Therapy, where Mr. Garcia worked extensively with Dr. Albert Ellis. He became a Fellow of the Institute and was appointed Co-Director of Clinical Training.  Mr. Garcia developed and appeared in a five hour TV presentation for PBS entitled Developing Emotional Muscle. He currently resides in Atlanta and teaches at Emory University's Life Long Learning Institute.  He has hosted several Special Event Webinars for SMART Recovery® Online.   SMART Recovery depends on your donations!Please visit SMART Recovery or Click the Donate button below. © 2013 SMART Recovery®.   Music composed, performed, and copyright 2013 Donald  Sheeley with unlimited use as is donated to SMART Recovery.

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is a so-called third-generation branch of CBT which teaches new ways of looking at our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Instead of fighting and demanding that troublesome thoughts and feelings go away, ACT emphasizes accepting the existence of those thoughts and feelings, and going ahead and living life fruitfully nonetheless. ACT teaches us to create a distance, at will, between our "reactive self" who might tumble around in thoughts and emotions, and our "executive self" who can take a step back and decide to go ahead with the best plan anyway. Accomplishing this involves Active Self-Awareness, or "mindfulness", Acceptance, Cognitive Defusion, Knowledge of our Values, and Committed Action. These are skills we can learn to improve our lives and use more of our energy toward our goals, and in line with our life values. Adding ACT skills to REBT and SMART Tools, we can move toward a rewarding life with long-term satisfaction. Dr Robb emphasizes the importance of moving toward a positive goal, rather than just moving away from maladaptive behavior. This is enormously helpful for healthy living and sustained recovery. As Dr Robb mentions in his talk, you may also consider ACT to be Acceptance and Commitment "Training" to improve your skills. Psychological Flexibility is one of the hallmarks of ACT. Dr. Hank Robb has a Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology, is a Supervisor for the Institute for Rational-Emotive Therapy in New York, is Board Certified in both Counseling Psychology and Behavioral Psychology, is Certified in the Treatment of Alcohol and Other Psychoactive Substance Use, and is one of the Founding Members of the Board of SMART Recovery®. SMART Recovery depends on your donations!Please visit SMART Recovery or Click the Donate button below. © 2013 SMART Recovery®.   Music composed, performed, and copyright 2013 Donald Sheeley, unlimited use as is donated to SMART Recovery.

This podcast, titled "Faith & Reason: Adversaries or Partners in Life?," is the third of more to come in our workshop series, The Art of Living, featuring Ed Garcia, one of the key innovators of REBT (Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy). Please check back in the coming months for the next workshop in this series. If you are a already signed up at SMART Recovery® Online, feel free to join an ongoing discussion regarding this installment in the workshop on the SMART Recovery message boards by clicking here. Also, be sure to listen to last year's 3-part workshop podcast series by Ed Garcia, The Anatomy of Emotions. Here is part 1 of that series. Mr. Garcia has an extensive and diversified background in the field of human behavior. He holds both an undergraduate and graduate degree from New York University. His post graduate work was conducted at the Institute for Advanced Study in Rational Emotive Therapy, where he worked extensively with Dr. Albert Ellis, one of the nation’s top Cognitive/Behavior Psychologists, whose work is represented in the SMART Recovery program. Upon completion of his four year internship, Mr. Garcia became a Fellow of the Institute and was appointed Co-Director of Clinical Training there, a position he held for five years until his move to Atlanta, GA, where he currently resides. SMART Recovery depends on your donations!Please visit SMART Recovery or Click the Donate button below.

This podcast, entitled "Who Am I?," is the second of more to come in our workshop series, The Art of Living, featuring Ed Garcia, one of the key innovators of REBT (Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy). Please check back in the coming months for the next workshop in this series. If you are a already signed up at SMART Recovery® Online, feel free to join an ongoing discussion regarding this installment in the workshop on the SMART Recovery message boards by clicking here. Also, be sure to listen to last year's 3-part workshop podcast series by Ed Garcia, The Anatomy of Emotions. Here is part 1 of that series. Mr. Garcia has an extensive and diversified background in the field of human behavior. He holds both an undergraduate and graduate degree from New York University. His post graduate work was conducted at the Institute for Advanced Study in Rational Emotive Therapy, where he worked extensively with Dr. Albert Ellis, one of the nation’s top Cognitive/Behavior Psychologists, whose work is represented in the SMART Recovery program. Upon completion of his four year internship, Mr. Garcia became a Fellow of the Institute and was appointed Co-Director of Clinical Training there, a position he held for five years until his move to Atlanta, GA, where he currently resides. SMART Recovery depends on your donations!Please visit SMART Recovery or Click the Donate button below.

This podcast is the first of more to come in our workshop series, The Art of Living, featuring Ed Garcia, one of the key innovators of REBT (Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy). Please check back in the coming months for the next workshop in this series. If you are a already signed up at SMART Recovery® Online, feel free to join an ongoing discussion regarding this workshop on the SMART Recovery message boards by clicking here. Also, be sure to listen to last year's 3-part workshop podcast series by Ed Garcia, The Anatomy of Emotions. Here is part 1 of that series. Mr. Garcia has an extensive and diversified background in the field of human behavior. He holds both an undergraduate and graduate degree from New York University. His post graduate work was conducted at the Institute for Advanced Study in Rational Emotive Therapy, where he worked extensively with Dr. Albert Ellis, one of the nation’s top Cognitive/Behavior Psychologists, whose work is represented in the SMART Recovery program. Upon completion of his four year internship, Mr. Garcia became a Fellow of the Institute and was appointed Co-Director of Clinical Training there, a position he held for five years until his move to Atlanta, GA, where he currently resides. SMART Recovery depends on your donations!Please visit SMART Recovery or Click the Donate button below.

Hank Robb, Ph.D., Supervisor for the Institute for Rational-Emotive Therapy and founding member of SMART Recovery presents thoughts of great interest to those in the forefront of psychological thought as well as to the individual who wants to create the life he/she wants to live. Though it often seems as though the most important question is: “Is it true?” we actually have choices about which questions we make the most important in our lives. For example, it is likely “true” that you have a nose on your face, but is this fact really helpful? In this presentation, Dr. Robb will explore an alternative basis for choosing which questions we make the most important in our lives. Asking ourselves “Is this helpful?” may better help us to develop a more fulfilling life than “Is this true?” Join us and find out for yourself! SMART Recovery depends on your donations!Please visit SMART Recovery or Click the Donate button below.

Psychologist Robert Heller explains the nature and forms of RET -- Rational Emotive Therapy, also referred to as Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy. He explains the techniques, time course, on what aspects of the problem that gets attention, etc.