Re: REBT and The Work ( was new guru)

[Guest guest]

>

> I don't say, that REBT is the same or as good as The Work, I don't

> say, that the disputation in REBT is practiced like the questions

> of The Work.

>

Hi Moritz,

At a superficial glance it does appear that REBT and the Work may be

similar, however I personally think that is misleading.

In REBT the therapist is trained to look for a set of " cognitive

distortions " such as labelling, all or nothing thinking etc. in a

patients thinking. The therapist disuptes the patients unrealistic

thoughts and leads them to thoughts free of the " cognitive

distortions " which are causing all the trouble.

The process of the Work is fundamentally different. Firstly unlike

REBT it is not a purely mental process. The questions are asked but

we are asked to wait for an answer from our heart (deeper

intelligence) not our head. The Work is not concerned with seeing the

flaws in my thinking, but rather in seeing the cause and effect of

believing a particular thought. Thoughts are effortlessly dropped as

we begin to realize the cost in believing them. REBT on the other

hand seeks to change a patients thoughts to ones free of " cognitive

distortions " . The Work is not at all concerned with generating a

particular set of realistic thoughts, it is rather a gentle noticing

of all thoughts " cognitively distorted " or otherwise and letting them

pass through our awareness without attaching to them. The Work also

leads to a profound realization of how I use projection to create my

world and this is not even addressed in REBT as far as I am aware.

In what I can see of some of Ellis's more recent stuff I think he is

guilty of stealing stuff from , rather than being

influenced by REBT. LOL ... but that is another story.

Loving what is, Moritz, and that would be you.

Neo

[Guest guest]

Dear Moritz,

let me advance that I know nothing more of REBT or Ellis than has been

said in this group. And just very, but very few of psycological theory.

As I understand it, though, a very common aspect of all psycological

practises is, that there is one who " heals " and one who is to be healed

(the patient, or " client " ). The first one is supposed to see what is

" wrong " with the " client " (as " patient " has become very unmodern,

hasn't it?), and to " know " a way out. He is supposed to " lead " the

client the way he sees to be a good one.

Having said this, below are my comments:

Am 03.05.2004 um 21:32 schrieb Moritz Boerner:

> >>Question 1 and 2 and 4 are missing in REBT.<<

>

> I wonder how somebody can say that. To me the similarities are more

> than crystal clear:

>

> Where is the evidence for this belief? –> used by to find more

> beliefs.

>

> Is that really true? –>'s questions number 1 and 2

Ok, so far I am conviced. ;-)

> Is there another way to think about it? –> Similar to 's number

> 4; at least Ellis uses this question like uses number 3.

I do see a difference here, though: By using " 's " questions 3+4 I

get an understanding of wich part of the feelings I have (anger, pain,

whatever) are caused by the thought, and wich ones are true. What I see

here is a dissociation from the thought towards the situation. By doing

this, I get a deeper understanding of my values, wich I can question

right away.

I don't know how Ellis uses it, though. So my contribution may

obsolete, anyway! ;-)

> What is this way of thinking about things going to get me? –> IMHO

> almost the same like 's number 3: " What you get for holding the

> belief?

>

> What is the worst thing that could happen? -> used by in her

> worst case technique

>

> I don't say, that REBT is the same or as good as The Work, I don't

> say, that the disputation in REBT is practiced like the questions of

> The Work.

I don't see any good in discussing advantages/disadvantages of

Ellis/Work/xxx, other than " it is, what is " . The ones who do the work,

need the work, the ones who use Ellis, need Ellis.

> I do not emphasize this in my books and workshops in order to

> diminish 's merits. The reason why I use this, is as follows:

> in Germany many people tend to think that The Work is a new cult or

> a spiritual sect of a new guru. By showing, that The Work may have

> its roots in a well established and scientifically proven

> psychological system…

> … I give my clients a feeling of security and

> respectability.

I like this one! And can you absolutely know that this is true? ;-)

I love, that you do it, though!

> And to me it just seems clear, that there is a strong possibility,

> that one of 's therapists has influenced her so that she

> unconsciously used similar questions. This was discovered also by

" discovered " ? ;-)

> others (as I remember it is mentioned in the LA Times article). If I

> had been the author of " Loving What Is " I would have mentioned the

> similarity just to eliminate the possibility that people stumble

> over it by accident and also to establish the connection to the

> established older system - as stated above.

> But – what do I know about the American culture... this might just

> be the thinking of a German author and propagator of the wonderful

> method of wonderful Byron ...

" might " ? *lol*

> Love

>

> Moritz (maker of the freeware " Using What Is " – do The Work on your

> computer; see " Links " )

Love,

PS: As if *any* of what I said was new to you, heh? ;-)

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

>> . I give my clients a feeling of security and

>> respectability.

>I like this one! And can you absolutely know that this is true? ;-)

;-) or not, I am really fed up with this kind of an answer or

comment of a WORKER! What bullshit!

>>I don't see any good in discussing advantages/disadvantages of

Ellis/Work/xxx, other than " it is, what is " . The ones who do the

work, need the work, the ones who use Ellis, need Ellis.<<

Another one!

The Ellis people could learn from The Work people a lot; for

example, flatten their learning curve and try out, if a set of six

questions and a turnaround could make their lives easier.

The Work people (especially facilitators) could learn from Ellis

people – my experience! Read some books about disputating beliefs in

REBT! For example " A practitioners Guide to Rational Emotive

Therapy " . I have watched many people having done the school of Byron

facilitating and some do a lousy job.

Not to talk about filling the questionnaire! Did you notice, that

many people have difficulties to even find their beliefs? In my

experience, if you can fill the questionnaire with short,

grammatically easy to understand sentences, half The Work is done.

But many cannot even express their feelings not to talk about their

underlying beliefs! The Work people could learn a lot in that

field!!! Particularly from REBT.

(I can comment it myself: Do The Work! Or worse: Is that true? Or

much worse: There is no right or wrong, how do I know they should do

it the way they do it? That's what happens!)

Love

Moritz

> Dear Moritz,

>

> let me advance that I know nothing more of REBT or Ellis than has

been

> said in this group. And just very, but very few of psycological

theory.

>

> As I understand it, though, a very common aspect of all

psycological

> practises is, that there is one who " heals " and one who is to be

healed

> (the patient, or " client " ). The first one is supposed to see what

is

> " wrong " with the " client " (as " patient " has become very unmodern,

> hasn't it?), and to " know " a way out. He is supposed to " lead " the

> client the way he sees to be a good one.

>

> Having said this, below are my comments:

>

> Am 03.05.2004 um 21:32 schrieb Moritz Boerner:

>

> > >>Question 1 and 2 and 4 are missing in REBT.<<

> >

> > I wonder how somebody can say that. To me the similarities are

more

> > than crystal clear:

> >

> > Where is the evidence for this belief? –> used by to find

more

> > beliefs.

> >

> > Is that really true? –>'s questions number 1 and 2

> Ok, so far I am conviced. ;-)

>

> > Is there another way to think about it? –> Similar to 's

number

> > 4; at least Ellis uses this question like uses number 3.

> I do see a difference here, though: By using " 's " questions

3+4 I

> get an understanding of wich part of the feelings I have (anger,

pain,

> whatever) are caused by the thought, and wich ones are true. What

I see

> here is a dissociation from the thought towards the situation. By

doing

> this, I get a deeper understanding of my values, wich I can

question

> right away.

> I don't know how Ellis uses it, though. So my contribution may

> obsolete, anyway! ;-)

>

> > What is this way of thinking about things going to get me? –>

IMHO

> > almost the same like 's number 3: " What you get for holding

the

> > belief?

> >

> > What is the worst thing that could happen? -> used by in

her

> > worst case technique

> >

> > I don't say, that REBT is the same or as good as The Work, I

don't

> > say, that the disputation in REBT is practiced like the

questions of

> > The Work.

> I don't see any good in discussing advantages/disadvantages of

> Ellis/Work/xxx, other than " it is, what is " . The ones who do the

work,

> need the work, the ones who use Ellis, need Ellis.

>

> > I do not emphasize this in my books and workshops in order to

> > diminish 's merits. The reason why I use this, is as

follows:

> > in Germany many people tend to think that The Work is a new cult

or

> > a spiritual sect of a new guru. By showing, that The Work may

have

> > its roots in a well established and scientifically proven

> > psychological system…

>

> > … I give my clients a feeling of security and

> > respectability.

> I like this one! And can you absolutely know that this is true? ;-)

> I love, that you do it, though!

>

> > And to me it just seems clear, that there is a strong

possibility,

> > that one of 's therapists has influenced her so that she

> > unconsciously used similar questions. This was discovered also by

> " discovered " ? ;-)

>

> > others (as I remember it is mentioned in the LA Times article).

If I

> > had been the author of " Loving What Is " I would have mentioned

the

> > similarity just to eliminate the possibility that people stumble

> > over it by accident and also to establish the connection to the

> > established older system - as stated above.

> > But – what do I know about the American culture... this might

just

> > be the thinking of a German author and propagator of the

wonderful

> > method of wonderful Byron ...

> " might " ? *lol*

>

> > Love

> >

> > Moritz (maker of the freeware " Using What Is " – do The Work on

your

> > computer; see " Links " )

> Love,

>

>

> PS: As if *any* of what I said was new to you, heh? ;-)

[Guest guest]

Dear Moritz,

Thank you.

Am 06.05.2004 um 13:21 schrieb Moritz Boerner:

> Dear ,

>

> >> I give my clients a feeling of security and

> >> respectability.

> >I like this one! And can you absolutely know that this is true? ;-)

>

> ;-) or not, I am really fed up with this kind of an answer or

> comment of a WORKER! What bullshit!

Yes, there's bullshit *everywhere*! *lol*

As I am sure you know, it's a question I ask myself. It's actually a

big one for me. Feel free not to " work " on it! ;-)

> >>I don't see any good in discussing advantages/disadvantages of

> Ellis/Work/xxx, other than " it is, what is " . The ones who do the

> work, need the work, the ones who use Ellis, need Ellis.<<

>

> Another one!

>

> The Ellis people could learn from The Work people a lot;

really?

> for example, flatten their learning curve and try out, if a set of six

> questions and a turnaround could make their lives easier.

sure.

> The Work people (especially facilitators) could learn from Ellis

> people – my experience! Read some books about disputating beliefs in

> REBT! For example " A practitioners Guide to Rational Emotive

> Therapy " . I have watched many people having done the school of Byron

> facilitating and some do a lousy job.

Do a lousy job on whom?

> Not to talk about filling the questionnaire! Did you notice, that

> many people have difficulties to even find their beliefs?

I noticed that I did have difficulties each whence in a while finding

them.

> In my

> experience, if you can fill the questionnaire with short,

> grammatically easy to understand sentences, half The Work is done.

> But many cannot even express their feelings not to talk about their

> underlying beliefs! The Work people could learn a lot in that

> field!!! Particularly from REBT.

And from you, of course.

> (I can comment it myself: Do The Work! Or worse: Is that true? Or

> much worse: There is no right or wrong, how do I know they should do

> it the way they do it? That's what happens!)

Oh, what about: So what are you going to do? Save the whole world?

Who is all this about, Moritz?

> Love

> Moritz

Wow! " Love " at the end of this post… gee, confusing! Actually, could be

true. I wasn't when I read your answer! It's an interesting sensation,

though. Heartbeat goes up, breath goes faster…

Well, it was interesting, anyway.

Moritz, I want to thank you for this post, your book and your program.

And I really love how you take care of things.

Love,

>

>

> > Dear Moritz,

> >

> > let me advance that I know nothing more of REBT or Ellis than has

> been

> > said in this group. And just very, but very few of psycological

> theory.

> >

> > As I understand it, though, a very common aspect of all

> psycological

> > practises is, that there is one who " heals " and one who is to be

> healed

> > (the patient, or " client " ). The first one is supposed to see what

> is

> > " wrong " with the " client " (as " patient " has become very unmodern,

> > hasn't it?), and to " know " a way out. He is supposed to " lead " the

> > client the way he sees to be a good one.

> >

> > Having said this, below are my comments:

> >

> > Am 03.05.2004 um 21:32 schrieb Moritz Boerner:

> >

> > > >>Question 1 and 2 and 4 are missing in REBT.<<

> > >

> > > I wonder how somebody can say that. To me the similarities are

> more

> > > than crystal clear:

> > >

> > > Where is the evidence for this belief? –> used by to find

> more

> > > beliefs.

> > >

> > > Is that really true? –>'s questions number 1 and 2

> > Ok, so far I am conviced. ;-)

> >

> > > Is there another way to think about it? –> Similar to 's

> number

> > > 4; at least Ellis uses this question like uses number 3.

> > I do see a difference here, though: By using " 's " questions

> 3+4 I

> > get an understanding of wich part of the feelings I have (anger,

> pain,

> > whatever) are caused by the thought, and wich ones are true. What

> I see

> > here is a dissociation from the thought towards the situation. By

> doing

> > this, I get a deeper understanding of my values, wich I can

> question

> > right away.

> > I don't know how Ellis uses it, though. So my contribution may

> > obsolete, anyway! ;-)

> >

> > > What is this way of thinking about things going to get me? –>

> IMHO

> > > almost the same like 's number 3: " What you get for holding

> the

> > > belief?

> > >

> > > What is the worst thing that could happen? -> used by in

> her

> > > worst case technique

> > >

> > > I don't say, that REBT is the same or as good as The Work, I

> don't

> > > say, that the disputation in REBT is practiced like the

> questions of

> > > The Work.

> > I don't see any good in discussing advantages/disadvantages of

> > Ellis/Work/xxx, other than " it is, what is " . The ones who do the

> work,

> > need the work, the ones who use Ellis, need Ellis.

> >

> > > I do not emphasize this in my books and workshops in order to

> > > diminish 's merits. The reason why I use this, is as

> follows:

> > > in Germany many people tend to think that The Work is a new cult

> or

> > > a spiritual sect of a new guru. By showing, that The Work may

> have

> > > its roots in a well established and scientifically proven

> > > psychological system…

> >

> > > … I give my clients a feeling of security and

> > > respectability.

> > I like this one! And can you absolutely know that this is true? ;-)

> > I love, that you do it, though!

> >

> > > And to me it just seems clear, that there is a strong

> possibility,

> > > that one of 's therapists has influenced her so that she

> > > unconsciously used similar questions. This was discovered also by

> > " discovered " ? ;-)

> >

> > > others (as I remember it is mentioned in the LA Times article).

> If I

> > > had been the author of " Loving What Is " I would have mentioned

> the

> > > similarity just to eliminate the possibility that people stumble

> > > over it by accident and also to establish the connection to the

> > > established older system - as stated above.

> > > But – what do I know about the American culture... this might

> just

> > > be the thinking of a German author and propagator of the

> wonderful

> > > method of wonderful Byron ...

> > " might " ? *lol*

> >

> > > Love

> > >

> > > Moritz (maker of the freeware " Using What Is " – do The Work on

> your

> > > computer; see " Links " )

> > Love,

> >

> >

> > PS: As if *any* of what I said was new to you, heh? ;-)

>

>

>

>