Ellis and Healthy Personalities #5: Flexibility

Ellis, in describing the nine personality traits that make up a healthy personality, defines flexibility as being able to remain “intellectually flexible.” He then goes on to say that this involves being open to change and incorporating an unbigoted view of the variations of people, ideas, and things in the world. I don’t think that the majority of people would consider being open to change, and having unbigoted views toward the varied difference in the world as negative, or undesirable qualities, and most people would agree that these are things that most people could use more of.

The one part of Ellis’s explanation here that may cause some confusion is the idea of intellectual flexibility. In order to understand what being intellectually flexible means, one must examine what it means to be intellectually stubborn, stagnate, or dogmatic. When we get invested in particular ideas, to a point where we lose the ability to consider other perspectives or examine our own ideas objectively, we become intellectually stagnant. This happens quite often actually, in politics in particular. In politics, often two sides of an argument become more deeply entrenched in their own position as a debate or discussion carries on. When one is intellectually dogmatic in a particular idea, they also become more susceptible to logical fallacies, which they fall victim to in order to prevent pressure on the ideas they have become so steadfast and fervent in protecting, as if any give in their resolve would ruin the sanctity of their core ideas. Such fallacies as ad hominem attacks, false dichotomies, and over generalizations help one avoid confronting their own intellectual stubbornness.

In this way, I feel that intellectual flexibility and acceptance of uncertainty are essentially tied at the hip. When one holds a particular position, but can honestly say that they may be wrong, and that sufficient evidence against their point could sway them, they are evincing an acceptance that they are not entirely certain of their claim, and the intellectual flexibility to change, adapt, and continue in light of new evidence. That is not to say that the best position to take on any subject is one of “I don’t know, whatever,” but there is a healthy level of doubt and flexibility that individuals can exhibit. This is actually the backbone of scientific inquiry: To be able to test a hypothesis, and respect the outcome, whether it proves you right, wrong, or suppresses you with an unexpected outcome.

These two traits, when combined, can cause what some may describe as a sincere modesty. Many consider modesty to be a good thing, but on the other side of the coin, there is also quite a bit of admiration displayed in some media for the stoic, unwavering idealist, passionate about his cause, never losing faith in his ideas, even against the strongest winds of change. Is one who fights against opposing views with such passion actually a good thing to look up to? Are there some good qualities in this kind of personality? Perhaps the reality lies in the balance. Being able to reasonably change, and flex one’s ideas in the face of new evidence, yet also being fervent enough to fight for them in the first place, may be a very difficult, but manageable.

This actually reminds me of chapter 76 of the Tao Te Ching, on flexibility. This passage reads:

A man is born gentle and weak.
At his death he is hard and stiff.
Green plants are tender and filled with sap.
At their death they are withered and dry.

Therefore the stiff and unbending is the disciple of death.
The gentle and yielding is the disciple of life.

Thus an army without flexibility never wins a battle.
A tree that is unbending is easily broken.

The hard and strong will fall.
The soft and weak will overcome.

Sometimes it amazes me how insightful things like this can be. Perhaps it is the cultural lens that I am viewing it through, but passages such as this, and some of the philosophies that accompany many marital arts, promote a great deal of practices, ideas, and mindsets, that are adaptive and healthy. A quick internet search shows that many people agree. There a plethora of sites that connects the practice of martial arts with emotional and mental well being. Perhaps that is a discussion for another time.

Wow, I strayed a bit that time. Oh well, it was fun. Please come back bi-weekly for more. Next time I will began discussing the “big five” factor model, and after that Ellis’s number 6 personality trait for healthy personalities: scientific thinking.

Ellis and Healthy Personalities #4: Acceptance of Uncertainty

Ellis’s fourth trait of health personalities is acceptance of uncertainty. I feel that the wording here is pretty self explanatory, and the rationale behind this can be easily deciphered. The world is a naturally uncertain place. Regardless of numerous claims and attempts, there is no definitive and accurate way to decipher future events. There are many ways to react to the undeniable uncertainty of the world. Many have constructed elaborate scenarios and conspiracies in their minds to feign some understanding of the world’s workings, take practice in various rituals to promote luck so that they may have some control of the future, or turn to theology to provide some assured and definitive certainty in their lives. It is not a big leap to say that failure to accept the uncertainty that exists in life may lead to fear and anxiety. One of the cornerstones of Ellis’s idea of psychotherapy was to aid the individual into becoming minimally anxious. In this line of logic, gaining some acceptance of the uncertain future can help reduce one’s anxiety. This is a pretty simple idea to grasp, but there are a few finer points that could use some exploration.

What does it mean to accept uncertainty? Well, I believe that acceptance in this particular context comes in a few stages. Firstly, to accept something, one must first acknowledge it. Acceptance can not come from escapism, and hiding from the frightening idea of vast possibility and unknowable future only surrenders to the anxiety caused by lack of knowledge. Being able to acknowledge the uncertainty means that an individual can, when there is a lack of sufficient evidence, shrug one’s shoulders and say “I don’t know.” I don’t know what will happen, I don’t know how this will work, and I don’t know what is going on. Secondly, and likely a bit harder, is being okay with it. This is a complicated thing to do, with a simple way to say it. So now we can add “but that’s okay” to the end of our “I don’t know.” Thirdly, there is a healthy desire to investigate the unknown through exploration and discovery, rather than attempting to control the unknown through speculation and superstition.

One thing that I have been doing lately is a great deal of cross cultural research. One of the methods that researchers use to identify differences in cultures is Geert Hofsted’s five cultural dimensions. One of these dimensions in which cultural context is defined is avoidance of uncertainty. This means that an entire culture’s tendency to avoid or explore the unknown and uncertainty is one of the five traits that researchers have agreed are vital enough, and universal enough, to define the cultural context and pattern of thought of an entire people by. This means that avoidance of uncertainty is a cultural thing. It varies widely, depending on a plethora of cultural and theological factors. Also, across cultures the definitions and attitudes regarding healthy personalities differ. Admittedly, this casts some doubt on the use of Ellis’s model for a healthy personality across varying cultures. On the other hand, there are great similarities in many western cultures, and that is the cultural context that both I and Ellis reside. So, in the cultural context in which I live, is the same in which this concept was created and is applicable. This works for me, as this is the context that I plan on working in. Yet I think it is good to know where an idea falters, and where the weaknesses lie.

Next time I will begin discussing Gestalt psychology, and the time after that I will be discussing Ellis’s fifth trait of a healthy personality: Flexibility.

The Words You Use

Recently I have had a few spammers flaming my blog, so I have had to begin moderating my comments. I will still approve dissenting opinions, as long as they are thought out, and constructive. I am not one to stock the pond with only true believers; I just don’t want my readership to be exposed to the kind of silliness the internet can breed. It is a shame that I had to do this, but that is the risk you take being on the internet. Now, I know most of you that do read approach me personally with comments and discussion, which is fine, but as always feel free to make comments. And as always, just you being on the page increases my numbers, which makes me look good, and increases my visibility on search engines and the like. So I thank each and every one of you for your patronage.

As far as my progress goes, every day that passes, I get just that much closer to getting my Bachelors of Science in Psychology. It will be very soon, and by next fall I will be sending out my grad school applications. It is exciting to look at the possible doctoral programs that I am eligible for. Many of them will take me to a far-away place for a great deal of time. I am actually kind of overwhelmed with all of the prospective directions I could move in. I have a particular passion for personality psychology, but there are other focuses that peak my interest. So as the day of sending out my doctoral program applications approaches, it becomes a process of comparing schools and weighing options.

Anyway, let us move onto the psychology discussion. While I do find other aspects of psychology interesting, I am drawn more toward that of REBT and other kinds of CBT. As you may have noticed, a great deal of my posts have been heavy on the cognitive behavioral side of personality theory. I do in fact appreciate other avenues, but this is my personal blog, so I decided to discuss topics that I find the most alluring, and psychotherapy, REBT, and interpersonal relationships are what I find to be the most fascinating.

One of the central pillars of the REBT ideals is the continuing internal struggle against irrational beliefs. These irrational beliefs come in a lot of forms, and one particular form that Ellis took issue with was what he called “musterbation.” In his book “How to control your anxiety before it controls you,” Ellis describes this musterbation as the “absolutistic Musts, Shoulds, Oughts, and other Demands” that we make on ourselves. Some of the most common, and most problem causing musts are directed at one’s self (e.g. “I MUST be clever, smart, successful, etc. . . . or it is awful”), directed at others (e.g. “Others MUST treat me well, fairly, pay attention to me, or I can’t handle it), and directed at the environment (e.g. “Life MUST be easy and without complications, otherwise I cannot cope”). These are the kinds of internal statements that can create the foundation for irrational beliefs.

‘Must’ statements are not the only kind of irrational statements. Almost any definitive statement can work its way into creating irrational beliefs. One kind of irrational statement that I have personally noticed often abused is “need.” Many people tell themselves that they need things that they in reality do not, that things need to be a certain way when other ways are functional, and that certain components in life are required to make it of value. The ‘need’ definitive can often be used interchangeably with the ‘must’ definitive, but there are a few subtle distinctions that make the two differ. The difference that I would like to point out is that ‘need’ is more often used by people to impose their own desires onto others, and in doing so, wrap up their own wellbeing into that of the other individual’s. An example of this would be when someone evinces that a friend “needs a man/women to complete their life.”

These statements are often visceral and automatic, like a reflex. They enter our minds as reactions to events, and without intervening circumstances, they can persist and foster irrational base beliefs that we begin using to make decisions. With conscious effort, we can resist these unnecessary musts. This aids us in becoming minimally anxious. We can replace phrases such as “I MUST achieve x” to a more flexible and amendable “achieving x would be preferable, and the realistic consequences of not achieving x is y.” Replacing MUST and NEED with ‘it would be preferable’ gives us an option of failure, and the notion that when things do not go as we prefer, it is not the end of the world. In this way, we can rationally weigh options, instead of attempting to live up to unreasonable expectations that we lay on ourselves, and catastrophizing when we as humans inevitably fail at something. When we do this, we open a door for discussion and questioning of what we desire, and what we find preferable. We can analyze evidence provided, weigh the consequences, and consider all avenues of action. This allows us to not live by definitive, irrational beliefs based on visceral reactions, but to operate on reason and consideration.

Above and beyond the “war on musterbation,” as Ellis called it, I think internal word choice can matter. It may blur the line between psychology and philosophy, but I think that the practice of e-prime may have psychological benefits, much as the semantics and word choice that Ellis talks about do. The e-prime form of the English language sets out to eliminate all definitive wording. If one were to use e-prime, they would eliminate all words derived from ‘to be.’ Is, are, am, is not, and all words that imply strict, rigid, and definitive existence, become replace with “appears to” and “seems to.” This use of language reflects a lack of absolutism, can help with the expansion of scientific thinking, and create a psychological environment of skepticism of perception that can be healthy. One classic example of e-prime is the example of a man observing a field of grass. He can say to himself “the grass is green” and rely completely on his senses, or he can say “the grass appears green,” thus taking information from his senses, while also using rationality to leave open the possibility that his senses are wrong. Like I said, this idea floats a bit closer to philosophy, but it is one worthy of a bit of consideration. The biggest problem with e-prime is the difficulty. I do try to use it sometimes, but it is a very difficult habit to keep up, and I am not very good at it currently.

In the future I will try to post little discussions between my bi-weekly bigger posts. Also, I promise after I finish with Ellis’s personality traits I will explore other territory. Anywho, come back next time for Ellis and Healthy Personalities #4: acceptance of uncertainty. And later down the pipe I will be talking about perception and Gestalt psychology.

Ellis and Healthy Personalities #3: Tolerance

First, I would like to apologize for my lengthy absence. The holidays, and other events, had me pretty occupied. I hope that I will soon be back into the full swing of things.

Ellis’s third trait of a healthy personality is tolerance. Tolerance in this context is the ability to tolerate the actions of others. Ellis states that one who demonstrates tolerance gives “other human beings the right to be wrong, and while disliking or abhorring some of their behavior, still not blame them as a person, for performing this disliked behavior.” This is much much easier said than done.

Often in life people behave in ways that displease us. Sometimes we can let these things go, and sometimes we hold grudges. Separating a person from their behavior is not always an easy task. Our language and culture is often even structured in a way that persuades us to define ourselves by the actions that we take. We are naturally inclined to characterize individuals by the actions they take, and this makes it very easy to characterize them poorly for such actions that we do not find acceptable.

I think an important point that Ellis makes is that it is not healthy to unrealistically expect others to be perfect. People will inevitably error, or act out of the realm of reasonable action. It is completely foreseeable that most, if not all people that one may encounter in one’s life, would at some time or another happen to offend them in some way. So to expect that people will act perfectly and never offend or upset you is unreasonable. Furthermore, to expect any one particular individual to never offend is also unreasonable. This highlights a pitfall that many relationships, romantic, familial, or even friendships, become susceptible too. Sometimes when we become close with friends or significant others, we begin to expect them to be completely sensitive to all of our own needs and to consider our feelings with every turn. Not only does this reflect a poor self sufficiency, but it also is an unreasonable demand from others, and anyone relying too heavily on the consideration of one’s needs in other’s actions will be sorely disappointed. This disappointment can breed resentment and distain. This is why tolerance is healthy in this instance. You can learn to manage when people do not act in the manner that you would prefer.

Though one can learn to tolerate other’s actions, and accept them as fallible human beings as Ellis would suggest, this does not mean that one would be best if they were to roll over, or allow oneself to be subjected to unfair treatment. A balance of acting on self-interest in response to undesirable actions by others, while accepting those actions as those of a flawed and valuable human being can be struck. That is not to say that all actions should be unanswered and just roll off everyone’s back like so much water on ducks. For example, human rights violations, dangerous criminal actions, and violence should definitely be impeded, but the committers of these acts can still be valued. Like Hitler. The actions of he and the Nazi party were appalling, and I doubt that many rational individuals would argue that they should not have been stopped. Yet, with proper and healthy tolerance, we can see Hitler and his party as flawed, deeply disturbed human beings with irrational ideas, rather than inhuman monsters. From this viewpoint, we can still desire to end the actions of such individuals, but respect their human rights as well. It is when we let the actions of others affect us so deeply, begin to commit war crimes, murder for revenge, torture for information, and thus become the “monsters” that we seek to stop. That may be slightly politicized, which I try to avoid, but I think that this point very much applies here.

Overall, in daily life we can learn to forgive and tolerate the minor infractions against us, letting these small infractions go without holding these trespasses against others, accepting that those around us will err. It may be difficult to do, but healthy practice and demonstration of tolerance can lift a great deal of undo anxiety and stress that we experience by latching onto negative feelings that are often produced in reaction to the actions of others that happen to offend us.

What do you think about tolerance in this sense? Lack of this kind of tolerance seems to be the stem of a lot of anger issues. What kind of issues with anger have you experienced?

Come back next time when I talk about the importance of word choice. In the distant future I will cover Ellis’s fourth personality trait: acceptance of uncertainty.

Ellis and Healthy Personalities #2: Self Direction

As I discussed in another post, Albert Ellis outlines nine personality traits that make up a healthy personality. He does so in his article, The case against religion. Now, some have taken issue with me taking this idea from such an inflammatory, anti-religious piece of work, but I believe these ideas can stand alone. I think that some ideas need full context to be judged. Others, however, can be presented in a context, removed from that context, and be judged on their own merits. I just want to make it clear that though I am using a piece that Ellis writes with the specific purpose against religion, I am not making those same arguments for the same ends here. That is not to say anything about my thoughts on the matter. Ellis was a respected psychotherapist who developed effective therapy techniques. I think dismissing a personality theory from such an individual out of hand because of his religious views, or lack thereof, would be short sighted at best.

Anyway, on to the topic at hand. The second trait on the list is self direction. In his article, Ellis describes self direction as an individual’s assumption of responsibility over his/her own life. This includes the ability to work on one’s own, and while sometimes desiring the aid of others, not requiring it to satisfy that individual’s effectiveness and well being.

While I understand where Ellis is coming from, labeling this particular quality "self-direction,” due to the emphasis on being able to direct one’s self in work and whatnot, I would choose to use slightly different language to broaden the scope of this particular idea. I would rather classify this trait more as a self sufficiency. I think that self sufficiency is a term that more neatly describes the ability to take responsibility for one’s self, as well as implying the inclusion of self direction among other personal responsibilities that I feel are important.

I have been working with the developmentally disabled for about two years. I was once in a human service program, and now I am studying psychology. Through all of this I have found that promoting self sufficiency is a common theme. Part of my job description includes teaching skills to help make the individuals I work with more self sufficient. This is the crux of the giving/teaching fish metaphor that everyone tosses around. It even seems somewhat paradoxical, that individuals come for assistance in learning to not need assistance.

I have seen on occasion, those that I teach the skills to (though they are skills that we take for granted) gain a sense of accomplishment and joy when they are finally able to rely on themselves for something. I have seen firsthand, that self reliance and self sufficiency can provide one with some pride. Not everyone has the ability to be completely self reliant, but I have not encountered anyone that is happy being completely reliant on others. I have witnessed many fight to gain some sort of control, some kind of power over their own lives. I realize that these examples are somewhat anecdotal, but I think it reflects a natural drive to be self sufficient in some regard. Although because of circumstance some people are unable to be entirely self sufficient, having some aspects of their lives that they are in control of can help tremendously with their well being.

While self sufficiency may seem to be synonymous with independence, it is not a statement that people should withdraw from help, or reject others. Solitude and isolation should not come from self sufficiency. We are by nature social creatures, though there are rare exceptions to every rule. There are often dramatic consequences for cutting oneself off from others, emotionally and physically; thus in some way other people can be key in our well being, though we can still take responsibility here. We can be responsible for obtaining the personal connections we need, and being able to manage them in a healthy way. The problem comes when having human contact becomes an unhealthy dependence on others to provide for our well being. This is a key aspect of many abusive relationships. The abuser often makes the victim completely dependent, unable to do much of anything on their own.

There is a balance though. A balance between being able to realize that human contact is good and it is ok to ask for help, and knowing that you can take responsibility for yourself and manage your own issues. I think the balance is disrupted when one goes from thinking that aid from others would be preferable, to thinking that others MUST help them. Now, I do understand there are people in great distress, and without the aid of psychologists, counselors, human service workers, and the like, they could face some very bad circumstances, but when and if they do get help, the help likely works to make them not need the help any more. Teaching them the skills they need to manage and be self sufficient, taking responsibility and control back over their own well being - isn’t that kind of the point?

Make sure to return next week when I discuss the behaviorists; and in two weeks, Ellis and healthy personalities part 3, Tolerance.

Ellis and Healthy Personalities #1: Self Interest

Out of all the writers and psychologists I have read and studied, and even out of the ones that I like, Albert Ellis stands alone. There is something about his perspective and positions that really clicks with me. Ellis was the pioneer of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, or REBT. Here I would like to discuss portions of Ellis's view on personality, and what makes a personality healthy.

In one of his articles entitled Case Against Religion, Ellis writes that a psychotherapist tries to help patients to become minimally anxious and hostile. He said to become minimally hostile and anxious we should promote nine basic personality traits. He briefly outlines these nine base traits that lead to a healthy personality. The first of these traits is “self interest.”

Self interest, as described by Ellis, is a truthfulness to one’s self, without masochistic sacrifice of oneself for others. This would classify those willing to commit altruistic suicide (suicide for the betterment of a group, i.e suicide bombers, cult members, and kamikaze pilots) as having an unhealthy low self interest. These are extreme cases however. Even those that harm themselves short of suicide, for example financially or emotionally, have a low unhealthy low self interest. Over-donating to excess can be seen by an outside observer as a noble practice, while in reality it may be a self destructive and maladaptive behavior stemming from poor personality traits.

Ellis is not condoning outright megalomaniacal, narcissistic selfishness by saying one should have an interest of himself/herself first and foremost. In fact he goes on to say that one's kindness and consideration of others can actually be fueled by the desire to be free from pain and restriction. By considering others, in a manner that is not self sacrificing, an individual can promote an environment where his own needs are met and considered. One may consider the motivation of self comfort to do right by others to be a selfish and undesirable thing. I personally believe that it says a lot about human nature that we have qualms with motivation for good deeds; we often forget that there are easier alternative methods for achieving self comfort that no one normally considers, namely total annihilation of opposition. What I mean by this is that those who would have a problem with a self interest based motivation for altruism are essentially splitting hairs, taking for granted that the altruism is taking place in the first place.

Essentially altruism and good deeds can come from one of two opposing places. Firstly, altruism can have a root in low self interest, and this is a destructive behavior by nature. These deeds can be harmful, because the individual does not have the self interest enough to stop giving before the giving causes irreparable damage. This can lead to overworking oneself to death, or donating assets until economic ruin. The opposite of this is of course giving because one has a high self interest. I agree with Ellis when he says that people may give to promote an atmosphere that ensures that they themselves may feel free from unnecessary pain and restrictions. In fact, famed biologist Richard Dawkins wrote an entire book exploring the biological connections between selfishness and altruism called The Selfish Gene. A video found here gives a brief but interesting bit about Dawkins' ideas regarding selfishness and altruism. Though I do agree with both Ellis and Dawkins about how altruism is strongly connected to self preservation as well as ensuring self comfort, I think that the selfish nature of altruism can have a more immediate, while equally selfish, positive reinforcement. People sometimes talk about the elation they feel when they give to charities or help those less fortunate. This positive feeling can even be somewhat addictive. The positive emotion that comes with giving could very well have evolved over time, in order to encourage us to be altruistic in order to preserve ourselves as a species.

In the end, it is important to have self interest. Even if the social mainstream deems selfishness as a negative quality, selflessness is, in essences, selfish in nature. We can be selfish in a way that helps our fellow man. There are the rare cases where people are selfish to a narcissistic degree, but that is maladaptive behavior that not many consider normal. Most of the world tends to aid one another and view that as a positive thing, selfishly lending a helping hand.

What do you think about self interest? Do you think an underlying selfish motivation diminishes the deed itself? What other positive reinforcements do you think there are for selfish acts of altruism?