A research paper

Humanism, in both concept and philosophy, is encased in a literature that is predominantly abstract. As with most philosophical matters, it is difficult to translate its concepts into tangible day-to-day action steps. Rational emotive behavioral tharapy (REBT) provides perhaps the best and most detailed method for translating humanist concepts into humanist behavior.

That rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT) is deeply rooted in philosophy has been a central theme in the writings of its founder, Albert Ellis, from the beginning (Ellis, 1962) to the present (Ellis, 1996). It casts an unusual combination of stoicism and hedonism into the context of rigorous scientific thinking and largely utilizes Socratic dialogue to help individuals examine old beliefs, and then proactively adopt new or modified beliefs that make up a more realistic and effective philosophy of life.

Although focusing primarily on the relief of emotional distress and the alteration of dysfunctional behavior, REBT's fundamental tenets are equally applicable to all aspects of human experience. Thus, although some critics may scoff at REBT procedures as emphasizing "just semantics," it is important to note that all human experience exists only within the context of semantics: A tree is a"tree" only within this domain (Johnson, 1946; Korzybski, 1933). Beyond that realm, as no meaning exists outside of it, there are no means by which humans can experience anything in a way that could at all be considered human. All experience is experience only in terms of one's semantics, cumulatively referred to as one's philosophy of life and segmentally as specific beliefs.

So far as we know, the universe contains no inherent meanings for humans to seek and discover: It just is. Whatever is discovered has meaning constructed for it by human beings (Wittgenstein, 1958). Although there may be considerable agreement among humans as to the meaning applied, that does not mean that the applied meaning has some or even any degree of accuracy relative to how the universe "is." There seem to be relatively few meanings applied to, or constructs developed about, the universe that are certain. Einstein himself somewhere observed that to the extent we practice science, we are certain of nothing, and that to the extent we are certain of anything, we are not practicing science.

Thus, the body of knowledge each human being accrues comprises of constructed meanings, only a few of which are the individual's own. The rest are to various degrees imposed by others, whose meanings were likewise imposed by previous others. Most such meanings, for example definitions, beliefs, and values, are not simply passed on objectively from generation to generation as items to consider. They are presented as inherently truthful and transmitted via a propagandistic route involving emotionally charged and one-sided presentations when we are in a young and vulnerable state: We are told exactly what to think rather than being taught how to think. Schachtel (1957) has described this process most eloquently:

Everything is new to the newborn child. His gradual grasp of his environment and of the world around him are discoveries which, in experiential scope and quality, go far beyond any discovery that the most adventurous and daring explorer will ever make in his adult life... Education and learning, while on the one hand furthering this process of discovery, on the other hand gradually brake and finally stop it completely. There are relatively few adults who are fortunate enough to retain some of the child's curiosity, his capacity for questioning and for wondering. The average adult "knows all the answers," which is exactly why he will never know even a single answer. He has ceased to wonder, to discover. He knows his way around, and it is indeed a way around and around the same conventional pattern in which everything is familiar and nothing cause for wonder. It is this adult who answers the child's questions and in answering, fails to answer them, but instead acquaints the child with the conventional patterns of his civilization, which effectively close up the asking mouth and shut the wondering eye. (p. 17)

As each individual human being traverses from day to day his or her actuarial existence of approximately 27,759 days (76 years), that journey is an effective one depending on the philosophy of life the individual uses while engaging what has been referred to as our brief cheating of nonexistence (Ellis & Harper, 1975). Optimal effectiveness means behavior that maximizes the enjoyment and satisfaction one derives throughout the full course of one's existence. It tends to be best accomplished by a full engagement with the process of living, that is, fully extending oneself in challenging, growth-enhancing activities and largely avoiding passive, too comfortable inaction (Ellis & Harper, 1975). Moreover, it is an engagement neither delimited nor complicated by attempts to impose various magical, unscientific, and otherwise illogical meanings on it. It is the manner of approaching that engagement and not the final success of the engagement that allows happiness and satisfaction to characterize one's existence.

REBT, with its central focus on how each individual can enhance his or her ability to secure maximum quality in living, works diligently to provide each person with a method by which self-defeating emotions and behaviors are avoided and life-enhancing emotions and behaviors are fostered. This method works to eliminate or restructure those beliefs that restrict or sacrifice one's own personal power (over self, not others) in one's life. This, in fact, is the essence of REBT's humanism - personal empowerment to pursue one's existence unbridled by propagandistic, magical, supernatural, or other nonsensical beliefs handed down by others, either past or present. It encourages individuals to think their own thoughts and to do so based on reason, logic, and the scientific method, all with a goal of securing the greatest amount of happiness, satisfaction, and joy in a universe that promises nothing and couldn't care less.

As we humans become more adept at ridding ourselves of magical and supernatural notions, we find that life begins to become rather simple (although obviously not easy--simple does not mean easy), because we then have only two things to identify and contend with in our pursuit of maximum joy and minimum pain not just today, but throughout our entire existence. The first thing to discover and then to accept fully is "what's so," which is best exemplified by noting that water is wet and rocks are hard. It is important to note forthwith that what's so as used here is not meant to convey the idea of some absolute knowledge, but only that the bulk of all reasonable current evidence indicates it to be relatively so. Although some might, perhaps even validly, quibble over whether 2 plus 2 actually equals 4 or that water really is wet, evidence suggests that, at least for now, we would best make our decisions and live our lives in accordance with the probable and relative validity of these ideas. As Johnson (1946) has noted, however, "We can be sure that 2 - 2 in principle but not in a horse trade. The next oyster is not the same as the last oyster if you have just eaten twenty-seven oysters" (p. 187).

What's so (or more accurately stated: What seems to be so, given current abundant evidence) provides an important foundation for the second thing to identify and then implement, which is "what works." If we are not clear about what's so, it is difficult to determine what works. For example, if your spouse is a drunk, do not expect your spouse to be sober because that is just not what's so. The relativity of "drunk" does not matter greatly; more or less drunk more or less of the time is not the issue. What works is to expect what's so, which is a drunken spouse. In other words, develop plans based on the knowledge that your spouse is more likely to be drunk than sober. It is simple, until you start to insist that your spouse ought not drink, that it is awful to have a drunk around, that you shouldn't have to put up with such a terrible person, that you must not be frustrated by having plans disrupted by a drunken spouse, and so on. What works takes into account what's so and largely eliminates the futile whining over the inevitable disappointments and frustrations that occur in one's life. REBT's message is simple:

Stop all of your whining;

Go get a plan.

Accept what you can't change;

Change what you can!

The primary dysfunctional emotions (anger, anxiety, depression) that humans experience derive directly from a refusal to acknowledge what's so in this universe and by ignoring what works. Thus, when one believes that one must perform in a manner that justifies one's existence and that earns one a place of worthwhileness on the planet, and furthermore that one could not possibly accept oneself otherwise, one is doomed to depression. Why doomed? What's so is that humans are imperfect, fallible, mistake-making beings possessing no possibility of performing well at all times in all places. They inevitably screw up! Moreover, they don't get to pick their screw ups, and they often do so at the most inopportune times. Tough! That's just what's so. What works is to accept the inevitability of mistakes and, while working to correct them if possible, to refuse to rate either one's self or one's worthwhileness. Human fallibility alone rigs that rating system so as to do one in--inevitably. To do otherwise would be the equivalent of sending one's car to the junk yard because it gets a flat tire or because a spark plug misfires.

Similarly, when one insists that other humans perform according to one's own dictates and declares them to be rotten people unless they do so, one is doomed to a life of anger. But again, because these are fallible human beings, not angels and certainly not perfect, they are inevitably going to be wrong at times. Therefore, they have an inherent right to be wrong (although that obviously does not mean that it is right to be wrong or that consequences are not in order). Condemning them simply does not work. What does work is to accept the fact that humans screw up and then to develop plans that take into account their proneness to mistakes.

Likewise, demanding that life go the way one wants and insisting that one just cannot stand things going otherwise dooms one to intractable anxiety. The consequent thought, "what if .... "that then dominates one's mind creates an ever present sense of impending catastrophe, which certainly presents some problems for experiencing the happiness and satisfaction that life seems really to be all about. What works is to accept the unpredictable nature of life on this planet and to resign oneself to the fact that, not just at some point but at many points, chance is going to get us. After all, considering that we reside on a planet with about 6 billion screw ups, it is nothing short of amazing that things work as well as they do! It makes no more sense to complain about our bad circumstances than it does to whine over the fact that water is wet. What does work is to accept the misfortunes that occur in our lives, which are mostly out of our control, while diligently focusing on what is virtually always within our control: The way we choose to think about those negative things.

Inasmuch as we usually have not been taught the principles of how to think, it is often difficult to recognize when our thinking becomes illogical. After all, we believe what we believe because it is true, not because it is untrue. The absolute nature of this truth supports an unquestioning allegiance to it, a process about which Adolph Meyer (in Johnson, 1946) observed, "What ails most people is not that they are ignorant but that they know too much that isn't so. For such people, the better part of further learning is forgetting and forgetting of well-learned misinformation and inefficiency is not easy as a rule" (p. 48).

Much of what we believe to be true does not conform either to what's so or to what works. Moreover, much of what seems to be true is also either irrelevant or nonsensical. Students, for example, often complain that a subject is difficult, homework is time-consuming, and a teacher is dull, thereby justifying not wanting to go to school. Even if these contentions are accurate, they are not relevant. What is relevant is doing what is necessary to get the grade that will get the credit to add on to the final number of credits that are required to graduate, which is the ultimate goal. This idea becomes more evident when considering the swimmer who is 20 feet under water and running out of air. It may be true that the swimmer is tired, cold, and not feeling like swimming to the surface. The only thing actually relevant, however, is getting to the surface. There is no fairy godmother or any other force in the universe available to provide the swimmer with a time-out until he or she feels like swimming to the surface. Life stays simple when our thinking stays relevant.

One of the more common complaints one hears as a therapist is, "If only I had been better..." or"If I had been good enough .... "indicating that some unfortunate event would then not have occurred. This is a very deceptive way of thinking because it is indeed true, as stated; it is also nonsensical. "If only I had been good enough as a parent, my child would never have done those bad things" is a true statement. It is also a true statement that "If only I had been good enough, there would never have been a Gulf War." If you are good enough, you can jump over the moon. A true statement, if only you were good enough.t The way in which such statements are constructed make them deceptively true while camouflaging their nonsensical nature. There is a hidden implication, moreover, that the person ought to have some superhuman power and otherwise is to be degraded as inferior instead of being more logically viewed as simply, and fallibly, human.

REBT might be called the most humanistic of all therapies in that its central focus is on placing personal power back in the hands of the individual human being. Given the nature of the universe, one does not control events to any significant degree. What one does have the power to control, but all too often relinquishes, is the power over one's own thinking. Personal power is relinquished when one uses a way of thinking that involves such notions as "should," "must," "can't stand," "need," "awful," and the like. In such thinking, the power resides in the concept, as choice does not exist for the person within the context of such absolutes. There are no alternatives for such ideas: "Must" means only must, nothing less and nothing different, and if what "must be" isn't, only catastrophe can ensue. Even when the person generates the must from within, power is handed over to the concept and removed from the person. Likewise, "can't stand" and "should" transfer power outside the person. If one defines any event in terms of "can't stand," then one becomes at the effect of that event and without personal power relative to it. Personal power is retained when one's thinking involves such notions as "better if," "don't like," "prefer," "misfortune," and the like. In such thinking, the person has choice and is not dominated by absolute concepts. One can define any event in terms of both "don't like" and "can stand," thereby retaining personal power in deciding how to deal with it.

In everyday life, these two ways of thinking boil down to an issue of ownership. After all, humanism is all about ownership residing in the person. When we hold absolute ideas such as should and must, these ideas "own" us, that is, they take away our power to choose and lead us into the self-defeating process of reacting from emotion instead of according to a thoughtful, well-constructed proactive plan. They rob us of our humanity, and by using them we virtually sign over a deed to our own being. One of the more intriguing stories to come out of the inhumanity of war is that of the soldier who, while living under extremely hostile POW conditions, retained a tiny bit of food from each meager meal and offered it to any visitor to his cell, including his captors. He chose to retain his civility under inhumane conditions, thus exhibiting a self-mastery that transcended circumstances: Nothing owned him.

A more subtle way that we humans relinquish ownership of ourselves resides in the manner in which we resist both internal and external forces. One of the things that seems to be what's so in our universe is that whatever we resist tends to persist or even strengthen. Muscles gain strength when provided with resistance. If we resist wakefulness by trying to go to sleep, we become more awake. If we resist a thought by trying not to think it--pink elephants, for example--the more we have the thought. What we are doing is passing ownership to what we resist. Similarly, the more we think about a pain and focus on it, the worse it gets: the pain comes to own us. Another example is our reaction to the anger someone expresses toward us. We get angry and respond in kind, which only begets greater anger on their part.

Whatever we do not resist tends to go away or to change, a process that may be likened to "mental judo." Instead of resisting, we use the energy of the external thrust to turn things to our advantage. Thus, in the face of anger, the rational and humanistic response might be: "Thank you for the feedback and for being interested enough to share it. I understand your concerns. Is there anything else about me that bothers you? I'm interested in what you have to say." As a genuine response to anger, mental judo provides the greatest chance for two human beings to get destructive emotions out of the way, acknowledge what's so, and get down to the business of what works.

Given how dangerous absolute, demanding thoughts are to us, they might be termed "red light" thoughts. Associating a red light to such thoughts serves as a reminder to stop immediately, examine the thought, and then alter it to one that does not relinquish one's personal power and render one the victim of circumstances. We own ourselves when we train ourselves to think in terms of preferences and opinions and limit ourselves to the safety of such "green light" thoughts as prefer and better if.

Refer to the two columns in Table 1. Cover the "green light" column and look only at the "red light" column. When seen in a group all at once, one becomes acutely aware of how extreme and overwhelming these ideas are. Johnson (1946) described it as "language going all out" (p. 190). Now cover the red light column. In seeing the green light thoughts all together, one idea is suggested immediately: "If I dislike it this much, I'd better get a plan and try to change it if I can."

An exercise that has helped many clients to diminish almost immediately their dysfunctional emotions and retain their personal power regardless of circumstances involves doing vigorous self-talk that accepts and reinforces green light thoughts while actively disputing red light thoughts. Moving back and forth between columns and down the list, it might go something like this:

He shouldn't act like... Wait! He shouldn't? Who says? Granted it would work better (reinforce green light or RGL) if he didn't do that, but does that really mean he shouldn't (challenge red light or CRL)? I certainly don't like it and wish he acted differently (RGL), but that doesn't mean I can't stand it or that he must be different (CRL). Even if it would be better if he didn't do that (RGL), there is no reason he must act differently (CRL). It would only be nice if he did, and I would prefer it (RGL). It clearly is not necessary, and I don't need it(CRL). I don't have to have what I want (CRL). Yes, it is unfortunate if I don't get what I want (RGL), but that isn't awful (CRL). It is clearly not terrible that I get disappointed in not always getting what I desire (CRL). Such misfortune hardly constitutes a catastrophe (CRL). I can live without what I want (CRL). Even if his behavior is bad, that doesn't make him a bad person (CRL). So the important thing is to figure out how I can influence or help him to change. Being terribly upset over his behavior and condemning him doesn't work and leaves me feeling miserable.

Clients can be taught this exercise, often in the first session, and frequently get excellent results even before they know much about REBT principles and practices and certainly before they gain a deep philosophical grasp of its concepts. While encouraging themselves to accept realistically what's so, they also prompt themselves to think in terms of what works.

Red light thinking results in intense emotion, which disrupts communication and sets up conflict. Instead of open discussion guided by objective inquiry and mutual respect, the real issue becomes one of power. The issue at hand becomes less the focus of the interaction than does such person-oriented issues as being right, winning, dominating, justifying, and the like. As a dimension, power has at one end aggressive and at the other end passive. It pits one person against another, which does not work well at home or at work because when one is made to lose there is usually a strong urge to get back at the winner; everyone eventually loses. Even if one wins regularly over one's spouse, for example, the best life becomes that of a life lived with a loser!

REBT techniques enable one to stay off the power dimension and, instead, engage any topic on the effort dimension. On this dimension, which runs simply from low to high in terms of the effort one chooses to devote to the issue, two human beings can work side by side to reach a solution to a conflict or issue without there having to be a loser. Because neither person can ever be the problem, the solution is win-win. The effort dimension is distinctly humanistic in that personal power is retained by each person, and the solution is a function of two humans working together without any imposition of external forces or of the supernatural.

The distinct characteristics associated with working on the power dimension make it clear why productive communication becomes virtually impossible. The goal is to win or at least to avoid losing. The need to dominate the "opponent" leads to an antagonistic approach and often supports being mean and manipulative in trying to assure winning. Communication, on the other hand, is enhanced by the characteristics associated with work on the effort dimension, where the desired outcome is win-win. Here the focus is on the problem and the goal is to find a solution. Each person is treated with respect and the interaction is based on kindness and honesty. The distinctions between these dimensions are noted in Table 2.

For REBT therapists, the primary area of work in the power versus effort domain is the tendency for individuals to personalize the actions of others. For most people, both major and minor insults, slights, and attacks of whatever sort are taken as personally meaningful, for example, being called a name says something about oneself. Such a reaction, of course, brings the power dimension into play and communication is immediately disrupted. REBT employs two approaches to dispel the idea that such incidents are personal in any way.

First, name-calling has no magical power in the sense that a name actually makes the person anything. Upsetting oneself over being called a name calls for a belief in magic in the sense that one might become whatever the name indicates, for example, being called an SOB might actually make one an SOB. Most clients readily get rid of this concern when instructed to imagine that all people in their city believe with all their heart and soul and then shout in unison "(client) is a dandelion" while at the same time observing their body for any signs of physical change. They realize quickly that a name is nothing more than an expression of dislike, which may be unpleasant but is hardly catastrophic.

Second, a clear understanding of REBT's well-known ABC paradigm makes it clear that nothing is personal. If A is the event, B is the meaning placed on the event, and C is the emotional consequence, then A does not cause C. One always has a choice as to the B that is used in regard to A. Therefore, all that anyone can do is provide the client with an A. Few clients have any difficulty understanding ABC when applied to their own experiences. It is equally important, however, that clients understand that other people have their own ABC's and that all the client can do is provide others with an A. Other people are responsible for their own B's, which have nothing to do with the client and, hence, are never personal. When another person has a given B, they have to respond with the consequent C. That response may indeed have an effect on the client in various ways, but it is not personal in that it only says something about the other person's B and nothing about the client. Consider that at a certain altitude, temperature, and humidity it must rain. If one is.present at that point, one gets wet, but there is nothing personal in a rainstorm. Likewise, there is nothing personal in another person's B, and such a realization enables the client to move from the power dimension to the effort dimension.

It is particularly impressive to observe the outcomes of power versus effort work accomplished within a family setting. The first step is to help the family define (create conceptually) a context for family life that is agreed upon by all family members and that provides each member full participation and personal benefits. Such a context usually is defined as one in which each member has maximum opportunity for personal growth and individuality in a safe and supportive environment, that is, an environment in which each member knows that acceptance, support, and encouragement will be forthcoming from other family members even when---or perhaps more especially when--one behaves as a fallible human being. Any behavior coming from the power dimension will damage the agreed upon context, whereas any work on the effort dimension most likely will enhance it.

By transcending immediate self-interest, which calls for eliminating any red light thoughts, the individual helps create a setting that enhances long-term self-interest. Each family member can best be assured of getting the most (but probably not all) of what he or she wants by working diligently to help other family members get what they want. Working to get only what one wants for oneself constitutes a power dimension approach virtually guaranteeing that each family member will then be only for himself or herself. Taking a family of four, for example, when one member is for three, the likelihood will be that the three members will be for the one. (Perhaps the Three Musketeers were onto something with their famous motto: One for all and all for one!)Within the family context, everyone loses if any one person wins as well as if any one person loses. Therefore, striving to win (power dimension) ensures losing, which makes for a powerful double-bind: The only way to win is to help other family members win (effort dimension).

The one area providing the greatest difficulty for getting off the power dimension involves issues of morality. Nothing seems to have greater power to destroy humane behavior by energizing the power dimension to its fullest. Moral standards are by definition grounded in righteousness, goodness, and truth. They are considered by their proponents as emanating from some universal code. Violating these standards, then, violates universal law, which justifies the righteous wrath that adherents wreak on the "immoral" person. The fallacy in this thinking is that behavior is equated with the person, so that individuals are then judged as either worthless or worthwhile depending on how their behavior conforms to the laws any given group has decided are universal. The righteous, of course, are not constrained by humane principles in their treatment of the unrighteous because the latter are viewed as less than human or as unworthy of being treated as such. From a moral standpoint, the end goal of achieving absolute conformity justifies any means, however devious, dangerous, or deathly.

Hill (1976) and Craft and Hill (1991) have described some distinctions to be made between moral standards and ethical standards that demonstrate the latter to be far more forgiving of human misbehavior and that allow for greater objectivity and goal-directed problem solving (see Table 3).

Ethically, behavior is simply correct or incorrect based on existing knowledge or agreement, with no universals being invoked. Behavior based on what's so and what works is considered ethical, and it involves, essentially, being true to oneself while not harming others. When behavior is not ethical, the behavior is the focus instead of the person, and the remedy involves a change in the behavior. It is important to note that when the person becomes the target, ethical violations have been converted into moral issues, thereby justifying punishment (meaning damnation) of the person and not just penalizing the behavior (Ellis, 1994). From an ethical standpoint, the person is accepted as human and fallible regardless of mistakes. The action toward the person involves only penalization. The ethical viewpoint promotes tolerance for self, for others, and for the world.

Self-mastery and tolerance, then, seem to be central elements in humanist philosophy, in REBT, and in effective living. When the individual is mastered by red light thoughts, or is dominated by magical, supernatural or illogical beliefs, it is virtually impossible to recognize and engage what works. Consider, for example, the almost universal cry of the rebelling adolescent, "It's a free country, isn't it?" The idea that freedom involves doing what one wants seems to violate what's so in the universe. True freedom is derived from the individual's capacity to choose to do what he or she does not want to do in order to enhance the chances of getting more of what is desired in the long run. Red light thinking undermines such personal freedom because one cannot stand waiting and must have what one wants immediately.

In his in-depth study of optimal personality functioning, Coan (1974) identified one central characteristic as the key to the optimal personality: flexibility. The optimally functioning person could bring to the world that which the world required. When spontaneity was called for, the person could produce spontaneity. When orderliness and structure were called for, they too could be produced. The optimally functioning personality, then, is in a continual "dance with the world" and does not demand that the world be only the way one sees it or wants it to be. Such a person is aware of the relativity of meanings and would readily grasp the profundity of Johnson's (1946) observation"To a mouse, cheese is cheese. That is why mousetraps are effective" (p. 192). (Cheese is also bait.) He or she attempts to implement what works within the context of what's so and does not use magical, unscientific, supernatural, or other nonsensical notions. This person recognizes and fully accepts the idea that happiness and life satisfaction ultimately are all up to the individual human being and nothing else, that is, they are not a function of life circumstances.

Inasmuch as the central thrust of REBT is toward enabling optimal functioning in each human being without resorting to anything outside the person, which leaves each person fully accountable for both the process and outcome of his or her own existence, it would be difficult to find a better example of humanism in action than that of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy.

TABLE 1

A "Red Light-Green Light" System for Managing Emotions

Green Light Thoughts Red Light Thoughts

Would work better if Should be

Don't like Can't stand

Wish Must be

Be better if Got to be

Nice Necessary

Prefer Need

Want Have to have

Unfortunate Awful

Disappointing Terrible

Misfortune Catastrophe

Desire Can't live without

Bad behavior Bad person

TABLE 2

Power Versus Effort in Human Interaction

Interaction Power Effort

Focus Person Problem

Poles Passive to Aggressive Low to High

Goal Win/Avoid losing Solution

Attitude Antagonism Respect

Style Mean/Manipulative Kind/Honest

Outcome Win/Lose Win/Win

TABLE 3

Views of Behavior and Misbehavior From a Moral System

Versus That of an Ethical System

PART I

System of Morals

Focus Moral Immoral

Attitude Toward:

Behavior Good Bad

Righteous Evil

Saintly Sinful

Attitude Toward:

Person Worthwhile Worthless

Innocent Guilty

Noble No Good

Action toward: Praise Punishment

Integrate Excoriation

with moral Exclusion

cult

PART II

System of Ethics

Focus Ethical Unethical

Attitude Toward:

Behavior Right Wrong

Correct Mistaken

Saintly Approval Disapproval

Attitude Toward:

Person Human Human

Innocent Falible Falible

Acceptance Acceptance

Action toward: Approval Penalization

Tolerance Tolerance

of differences of differences

REFERENCES

Coan, R. (1974). The optimal personality: An empirical and theoretical analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.

Craft, B., & Hill, L. (1991, November 15). Beyond morality. Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Counseling Association Western Region, Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. New York: Lyle Stuart.

Ellis, A. (1994). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. (Rev. ed.). New York: Birch Lane Press.

Ellis, A. (1996). The humanism of rational emotive behavior therapies and other cognitive behavior therapies. The Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 35, 60-87.

Ellis, A., & Harper, R. (1975). A new guide to rational living. North Hollywood, CA: Wilshire.

Hill, L. (1976). Rational behavioral counseling in the vocational rehabilitation process. Doctoral dissertation, University of Sarasota.

Johnson, W. (1946). People in quandaries. New York: Harper.

Korzybski, A. (1933). Science and sanity. San Francisco: International Society of General Semantics.

Schachtel, E. (1957). On memory and childhood amnesia. In P. Mullahy (Ed.), A study in interpersonal relations: New contributions to psychiatry. New York: Evergreen.

Wittgenstein, L. (1958). The blue and brown books: Preliminary studies for the philosophical investigations. New York: Harper.

~~~~~~~~

By Larry K. Hill

Larry K. Hill is in private practice in Rock Springs, Institute for Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, he is a certified supervisor and trainer in REBT. Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to Larry K. Hill, 1209 Hi//top Drive, Rock Springs, WY 82901-5818.