Transcription
Hello everybody. I am Dr. Steve John, and I want to welcome everybody to this Q&A session called "Disputing Uh Belief in Inference Chaining in REBT." And, um, we had gotten a lot of quest this week, a little more than, um, normal. Just want to apologize. My, it's the witching hour for my dog, so about this, she starts barking. And if my wife comes home, she'll go crazy barking. So just be prepared in case that happens.
So I'm going to be looking at disputing irrational beliefs and how we do inference chaining. But also, the lecture for this week in my graduate REBT class included the issue of the structure of an REBT session. So I have questions in all three areas, and I'm going to go through those. And if, um, if you have any questions and you're on here live, then feel free to submit a, a question. Otherwise, I will be going through these systematically.
The first question is actually a great question, and that is, is there an order to doing the disputes of irrational beliefs within REBT? There is no fixed order for doing the disputes. However, having said that, we find that there are those kinds of disputes that seem to be somewhat easier for some clients to grasp or are liked more by clients. In fact, probably the one that most clients will respond to the best is the pragmatic dispute. Now, remember, in RBT, we have several types. The traditional types are the pragmatic or functional dispute, the empirical dispute, the, uh, logical dispute, and the friendship dispute. But then there are other styles of doing the disputing.
So the one that most commonly gets a good response from clients, and it's easier for them to grasp, is the pragmatic or functional dispute, where about an irrational belief, we would ask the question, "And how is it helping you to hold this belief?" Because if it is truly irrational, it's not real helpful. Although some clients will have a little bit of difficulty in grasping what we mean by that because it's kind of a strange question. So you want to explain that a little in terms of saying, "Is holding this belief helpful for you in a really concrete way? Does it help you in your relationships with others? Does it help you, for example, on the job or as a student, in your spiritual life, uh, interpersonal life, all of those?" So we may need to frame that a little bit.
The second most commonly, uh, reported as helpful kind of dispute is the empirical dispute, where we ask, um, "Where is it written or where is the evidence for that irrational belief?" And then thirdly, the logical dispute. A lot of individuals struggle with the logical dispute. Friendship dispute, it depends upon the client, but many, many of them, except in one case, which I'll get to in a minute, will, um, people tend to respond to that really quite, uh, really quite well. So, um, empirical or, I mean, the functional or pragmatic, probably I would start with the first and then move to the empirical and then the logical, where the friendship dispute would be somewhere on that list, depending upon the, uh, depending upon the client. All of them are good, and it might, especially in, in early therapy, it might be a really good idea to try all these different kinds of disputes until you learn which ones the clients tend to respond to the best.
The second question is, are all the disputes good for all irrational beliefs? Again, an excellent, excellent question. It always depends upon the client. However, there are some observations that we have made over the years in using these. And we find that, for example, with someone who has anger as the dysfunctional emotion, once we identify what the unhelpful beliefs are, we find that disputing those beliefs, one kind of dispute is generally not helpful, and that is the friendship dispute. Because on the friendship dispute, we would say, "What would you say to a friend who held this irrational belief?" Well, frequently, someone who is angry focuses on being justified in their irrational belief. So if you give the friendship dispute, then they may say, "I would tell them they're absolutely right." Well, that's not the hope for response from them. So, um, be very cautious or refrain from using the friendship dispute when you're talking to someone, when you're working with someone who has an anger issue.
The other one is disputing awfulizing. If someone has experienced a very, very difficult loss in their life, for example, um, death. I just did a webinar today on using REBT with clients who are grieving. And it's not a great idea to use to dispute awfulizing or catastrophizing when someone is in the early stages of grief. Because if you ask them, for example, one of the worst, uh, kinds of losses that people report is the loss of a child. And if you say, "Um, how is it helpful for you to tell yourself that this is awful?" They may see that as a lack of empathy on your part, and it would be a lack of empathy on your part to say such a thing to someone who's in the early stages of grief. So I hope those are helpful responses to that question.
The third question is, are there times when a dispute might not be a good idea? Well, that's pretty much like this, the second one. But I might add one more factor to this one. If someone, if a client does not respond well to you disputing their irrational beliefs, any of their irrational beliefs, it might be a good idea to refrain from disputing until, uh, a better relationship or a stronger relationship is built with the client. Or sometimes, if clients take that very personally, I may work at the level of inference and do an inferential dispute rather than a dispute of the, of the beliefs. And then there are other ways that we can do this too. But that might be one way, um, that that would be helpful.
The fourth question is, are there times when disputing an inference is better than disputing a dysfunctional belief? Absolutely. While in REBT, we really are about, to a largely about disputing beliefs, because beliefs are the proximate cause or the direct cause of the dysfunctional emotions and behaviors and even dysfunctional physiological responses. There are times when we would look at an inferential dispute, although the inference is a distant cause, not a direct cause of the, of the beliefs. And, uh, I mean, uh, of the emotions and the, uh, behaviors. So, um, one of the things that, uh, we can do in an inferential dispute is to brainstorm with the client, um, whether there are other possible meanings to give to a negative situation, a loss, a threat, to any of those kinds of things. So you can open up and become more flexible about attributing meaning or interpreting events. People can be very rigid in their attribution of meaning or interpreting an event, and we want to help them move toward more flexible ways of thinking. And that might be one way to help with that.
The fifth question is, instead of using one of the traditional REBT disputes, is it possible to tell a story or some other way of disputing? Excellent question, and absolutely. Do not feel compelled to stick only with the traditional disputes. Although lots of research with the traditional disputes shows the effectiveness of those disputes, I wouldn't push those aside unless you're not getting traction with the client in using the traditional REBT disputes. But of course, you can use stories. I've done this with, for example, religious clients. I might choose a story from the Bible or Torah or Koran, whatever, to help dispute the beliefs. So stories can be excellent. I even learned, I was doing a group with a bunch of teenage, teenagers, teenage boys, and a young men, I should say. And, um, one of the ways that I got them interested in looking at and challenging their beliefs was for them to bring into the session some rap music songs, whatever, and that would have some irrational beliefs about love or relationships, etc. And let the young men explain that to me and play those songs to the rest of the group. They, they got into it. And, you know, after a while, they would say, "Steve, can you believe how irrational this belief is? I can't believe it." You know, and they would even take it upon themselves sometimes to, uh, reach out to the rapper and just say, "You know, you're, you're really embracing irrational beliefs," which I would always get a big kick out of them of doing that. So music, songs, stories, anything, anything that will help you, that will engage the client and help them change those beliefs to more functional, adaptive beliefs. Yeah, try it out. See what, if it works.
The sixth question is, I worry that I might not dispute properly. If I don't do it well, will this cause damage to the client? Well, look, all of us have to start somewhere, and it's a growing process. This is a skill you're developing, and you're not going to be perfect at it in the early days or early months or early year, or whatever it takes. Some time, and it takes some practice, and you get, you know, you will get your own flow and use your language, etc., your personality for this, and that takes a while sometimes for that to all come together. So I wouldn't worry about that. What's the worst? If you, at least, have the client. Now, look, do I like well-done disputes? Absolutely. I think that it helps the therapy go very efficiently. However, don't fret over this. If you draw attention to, of the attention of the client to their belief, and you help them see that that isn't really helping them right now, that they're thinking in ways that may not be, that are normal, but not helpful, you are already, um, giving them a lot of help. So just don't despair about this. Just invest in, in improving with this over time. And with effort, it comes. It's not going to be perfect initially, so don't worry about that.
Seven is, I've studied and studied, but still I'm struggling seeing the difference between an inference and a belief. If I dispute an inference using the disputes for beliefs, is that going to cause problems? I've never been asked that question. I think it's an absolutely beautiful, beautiful question. Um, look, uh, sometimes distinguishing an inference from a belief, take, again, that takes a little bit of time for somebody. Uh, please go back, look at this, uh, YouTube channel, because I do have several videos on, uh, on this very issue, how to just to distinguish an inference from a belief, and then how to dispute inferences and how to dispute beliefs. Go back over those and look at them. Remember, inference is a, they're both kinds of thoughts, or both kinds of cognitions, but they're different kinds. An inference is one that is attributing meaning to a situation or an event, whereas a belief is not attributing meaning or doing an interpretation, but it is evaluating the situation or the event. That's good, bad, helpful, not helpful, all of those, those kinds of things. So let's say that, um, you make a mistake and you think that this inference is a belief, and you start disputing like, "How is it helpful to give that meaning to it?" It's not the end of the world. It's actually might be, it might prove to be quite helpful. Again, is it better to distinguish an inference from a belief and, uh, and do disputes of them? Because there can be somewhat different, but if you don't, and it gets traction, and they help, and it helps change that inference, um, that might be helpful. It may not be the, we do want to get to the belief, but nothing lost and nothing terribly lost. You're not going to do damage to the client if you, if you do that, because most clients are going to know the difference between an inference and a belief. So be kind to yourself. Give yourself some time to learn this. Don't expect per, uh, perfection. I know my students will say, "Well, then why don't you give me time for that?" Number, we only have eight weeks. So, um, I will do what we can to, um, to help you with that. But be kind. Give yourself some, some, some time to do that.
The next question is in the structure of an REBT session. So they're shifting here in the structure of an RGB REBT session, how long do you work on establishing the therapeutic alliance before starting the treatment phase? This is a very, very good question, and it's a question I get frequently, and it's a question that comes because people have heard about other models and how other models do therapy, and there are differences sometimes between REBT and how other models do it. But you will find some kinds of therapies, more psychodynamically oriented therapies, often believe that the first task that we have to do is form a therapeutic alliance. Therapeutic alliance, it generally just means a good connection between the therapist and the client, a good working, uh, relationship. And only when you have a good working relationship do you then shift into the next phase of the therapy, which would be the treatment phase. That is not how our ABT does it. Remember, we are a short-term model. There are some cases where we go a longer term, but we tend to be a short-term model. And in fact, because, uh, research shows that short-term models do just as well, sometimes if not better, for clients than even longer-term, longer-term models. So we, um, we don't believe that you, you first establish a therapeutic alliance, a working relationship, and then you treat. We believe that treatment and therapeutic alliance occurs simultaneously. Both of those begin when we say hello to the client, and we listen to them very, very carefully. We accept them unconditionally, and we draw attention to the ways in which they are thinking about events and situations. Treatment begins very early, and we believe that one of the best ways to form a good working relationship is by being attentive and giving homework assignments that are relevant to what they're going through and where they begin to see some change in their life. The best motivator and the best way to build a relationship sometimes is for someone to develop hope in the early sessions of the therapy. Yeah. And so we don't believe that there are these phases that they occur simultaneously. That said, sometimes it does take some time for the client to build trust and begin to open up at deeper, deeper levels, but they will over time, unless there's some other major issue going on. Sometimes, if they have a terribly abusive past, it may take some time for them to begin to trust another individual at a deeper, deep, deep level. But we unconditionally accept them, no matter what their level of trust is in us.
Okay, I do want to call attention to something, and this is largely for my students and also individuals out there who are students, because they often will bandy about that word, therapeutic alliance. But when I ask them what makes up the therapeutic alliance, they often don't know. So they go, "It means a good connection." Well, this is an umbrella term, therapeutic alliance. It's very abstract, it's very vague. What I encourage my students to do is to do some study and some reading on common factors research, because there they have done research on what aspects of the relationship actually contribute to better outcome. There are certain tasks that are very important for establishing that relationship. So what we want to focus on is not some abstract thing called therapeutic alliance, because then you don't even know what it is, and if you don't know what it is, how do you know when you've reached it? But if you look at the common factors research, and then you find out these are these factors that are really contributing to a sound therapeutic alliance or connection between the therapist and the client, that is important, and you do want to pay attention to those factors. And I'll have a whole another lecture on what those factors are, okay? And that'll come up pretty soon, because those are tremendously important for you to do. So I would really encourage you not to just use a vague term, therapeutic alliance, because it really doesn't mean anything. We need to know the component parts of that.
The next question is, number nine, is it okay to integrate into REBT interventions from other, uh, psychotherapy models? Absolutely. And Albert Ellis, the founder of Rational Emotive Hair Behavioral Therapy, in one of the last books that he wrote, and he co-authored it with Catherine, Dr. Catherine McLaren, um, the whole last few chapters are, at least one chapter is devoted to making bridges with other therapy models. You know, psychodynamics, solution-focused, self-psychology, object relations, Gestalt, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. All of these forms of therapy, making bridges with them. So it's not uncommon for an RBT practitioner to borrow an intervention from another model, although we may do it somewhat differently. Let me give a personal example from a time when I was a student, uh, being mentored by Albert Ellis himself, and I was in a supervision one day. And I had been trained in marriage and family therapy as well as psychodynamic therapy. And one of the techniques that we use in marriage and family therapy was what it was to work, create a genogram with our clients. The genogram is like a pictorial representation of generations of family and their interconnectedness. And I said, "Al, do you mind if I do a genogram with my clients?" And he goes, "Why would you want to do that?" And I said, "Because in a general genogram, not in REBT, but in a general genogram, we look, we look at illnesses, mental health, physical health, and interactional patterns from generation to generation." And I said, "I'm not so interested in doing that, but what I would like to do is to see how irrational beliefs are passed down from generation to generation, and are those beliefs centered on a particular role that the individual has, more like father or mother or something like that, partners, uh, whatever." And so, um, he said, "Go ahead and see whether it helps you." So he was very open. For example, in Gestalt, they have the empty chair technique. We use the empty chair technique too. For example, we borrow even the structure of prayer sometimes, if prayer is meaningful for somebody, but we would just change it up a little bit and incorporate the ABC model within the prayer structure. So you see, we would borrow, but we would put that ABC spin on it, so that what we're doing is helping the client see the BC connection, the relationship between their beliefs and their emotions and behaviors, and also kind of help them see the irrationality of their unhelpful beliefs and go about changing that. So excellent, excellent question. Yeah, of course, we would borrow from, uh, from, uh, from them. Right now, I'm working with a researcher who is from a completely different model than mine, and we are collaborating on how to address meaning within psychotherapy, because meaning is tremendously important. And we're looking at how we can do that across our different models in a collaborative way. And it's great fun for me to do research with somebody from another model. I'm having great fun and learning a lot in that process.
Number 10. I've heard that some models think it's wrong to dispute a belief. How do you respond to that claim? Yeah, there are, uh, we're very close. We're second-wave models, and a second-wave model, secondly behavioral model, REBT is. And there are third-wave models like our friends in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy or Dialectical Behavioral Therapy, DBT. These models are really mindfulness and acceptance models and tend not to dispute irrational beliefs. They will, they believe that you help a client sit with that irrational belief and in essence, and I'm, I'm grossly oversimplifying this, but, um, not attack the beliefs, not even try to get the client to change them, but just to accept them and form a different relationship with them rather than fusing with that, with that unhelpful belief, what we would call an unhelpful, uh, belief. And so, um, is that wrong? No. I mean, um, it's not the way RBT does it. But, you know, these other models have, some of these models have really good outcome studies. And if they have good outcome studies, then we're, you know, we're fine with that. And many of us, as I said, I'm, you, I'm collaborating with people from another model. I'm collaborating with somebody from, uh, logotherapy, Victor Frankl's, uh, model. And it's, it's more existential or, uh, humanistic, that some people would say, than our more behavioral and cognitive model. But there are some great similarities. And they, um, really, we can collaborate, and we're having great fun in that collaboration. So don't be, don't worry about those other models. Um, many of us will use some techniques from those models, even if we are devoted, perhaps, to one, one, one model.
Number 11. I listened to a video on common facts. Oh, here are common factors, which seemed to say that the model of psychotherapy you use doesn't make any difference. Is that true? Well, I think that's going a little far to say that the model doesn't matter. But what, what we can say is the common factors research has shown what the factors are that are important to be within, within a cycle, a psychotherapy model. Whatever the model, there it needs to have these certain particular factors, and those factors are correlated with a good outcome. So, for example, that we explain to the model how we are, what the model is about, and what it will look like, what the therapy will look like. That's important for the outcome. One is that we collaborate, we cooperate with the client in setting what the therapeutic goals would be. Whatever your model, that factor should be in there, etc., right? That the client feels that we have empathy for them. That's a tremendously important factor. Again, whatever your model is. Some models do really good jobs, and some, some models, and some people within the models, especially need to do a little, a better job when it comes to these common, uh, common, uh, factors. So I wouldn't say that the model is irrelevant, but it is important to exhibit those common factors.
Okay, um, 12. I find that inference chaining can be difficult for lots of reasons. One was they said difficulty knowing when I have an inference. Well, yeah, that's a challenge. You kind of have to know what an inference is if you're going to do an inference chain. And I've already stated in another, um, such, uh, Q&A session and other workshops, uh, and webinars on this, uh, YouTube channel, uh, how to distinguish the, uh, an inference from a belief. I've mentioned it already tonight. And so, yeah, that, that when you do need to be able to identify the inference to do an inference chain. What is the inference chain about? Well, remember, we want to try to identify the client's dysfunctional beliefs, because those dysfunctional beliefs are going to be the direct cause of dysfunctional emotions and sabotaging behaviors. So it is important for us to get the, uh, beliefs. Clients don't know that we're seeking beliefs, and so they'll just, if we say, "What were you thinking when they experienced a particular emotion?" they may respond with an inference. And so that's what the inference chain is about. It's a technique that we kick into at that point to help us move that inference to the belief that is under getting that inference. Okay. So, um, it is important to be able to identify the, um, to identify the inference. So here's what you do. There are some particular components of the inference chain that if you do them correctly and you put them in there, then the inference chain will go better. It doesn't mean that in one try you're gonna get the belief. Sometimes you have to do the inference chain a couple of times before you, the client moves toward the belief. And if they don't, then we may have to help them to, uh, to do that. So what do we do? One, first thing you need to do is to do the internet. You assume that the client's inference is true. For example, let's say they're taking an exam and the meaning they're giving to it is that they're going to fail. "I'm going to fail." Now, that's not an irrational belief. That's just an interpretation of them taking the, the exam. And so what we do in the inference to change is to go, "Let's say it's true, and you do fail." So that's the first part. Assume the truthfulness of the inference. We don't know because that's in the future, but we assume the truthfulness of it. Okay. The second thing is we say, um, "What would you be telling yourself about that, that you would fail? What are you telling yourself about that that will cause you to experience?" And then name the dysfunctional emotion. So, for example, if they say, um, when they come in and they give us the A, we know what the activating event is. We know the emotion is, um, the anxiety, for example, and the inference is that they're going to fail this important exam that's coming up. We do an inference chain because, um, we haven't gotten the belief yet. So he goes, we say, "Well, let's say it's true that you do fail the exam. What would you be telling yourself about that? What would you be telling yourself about that that would cause you to experience anxiety?" All three parts need to be in there. You need to name the inference, assume that the inference is true, ask what they would be telling themselves about that true inference that would cause them to experience, and then name the dysfunctional emotion. If you leave any part out of that, it kind of gets kerfuffle, it gets messed up. So make sure you put those three components in there. Here are ways that people sometimes make mistakes when they're doing an inference chain. They might start by saying, "Well, let's say that your inference is true." Never just say that. Just name the inference. Okay. Let's say that, um, that it's true that you're going to fail the exam. Or let's say it's true that you ask this person out on a date and they say no. So let's assume that it is true. And then they say, instead of saying, "What are you telling yourself?" they would say, "Well, what, what does that mean to you?" That's not helpful because the inference is the meaning that they're giving it. So now we're, they just gave us their meaning. That's what is in the inference. And then they're asking what it means to them. We're just having, actually, it's confusing because we're just having them repeat the same thing. So don't say, "What would that mean to you?" That's not an inference chain. That will not help the client, help you identify what the belief is. Another thing that some people do that is not helpful is that they, is that they, instead of saying, "What would you be telling yourself about that inference being true that would have you feel?" And then they just, um, name, they use the word "feel." Right? Um, instead of naming the dysfunctional emotion. So don't use the word feel because "feel" would can mean a belief or it can mean may mean an emotion, and it gets confusing. So I recommend that when you're doing therapy, just refrain from using the word feel. The client may use it, but when the client uses it, we can change that to a belief or change that to an emotion. If you don't, then it gets very, very confusing. So I don't make a big deal out of it. I don't correct them. I just respond to them by, if they use the word feel and it's really a thought, then I might ask about that thought. If they use the word feel and it seems to be about an emotion, then I would use an emotion word, right? So, um, refrain from using the word feel. Another thing that sometimes gets this a little messed up is we might start off by saying, "Let's say that your inference is true. Uh, how does that inference help you?" Um, well, that's not going to give, I mean, we're now we're disputing the, we're disputing the inference. We're not trying to get moved from the inference to the belief. If you're, if you're just going to do an inferential dispute, fine, but that's not an inference chain. That is not a technique that would help them move from an inference to a belief. So it's really important to do all three parts. One, assume that the inference is true. Two, ask them, "What if that inference is true? What are you telling yourself about that?" Right? That would have you, and then the third part, "Experience the emotion of," and name the emotion. Okay? Those are the three parts that must be there for it to be a good inference chain.
Okay, um, 13. Should I spend time teaching my clients the difference between an inference and belief? I wouldn't. If they're very, very curious about that, then you could. But I think we're not trying to train them to become a therapist. We want them to be able to identify unhelpful thoughts, and particularly unhelpful beliefs. And so I would dwell on that because that gives them a tool for changing. I don't want them to become a philosopher or a psychotherapist whatsoever. It's important for us to know because if they give us an inference, we want to try to get the belief. Why is it important for us? Because we know that beliefs are closer to the dysfunctional emotion and behaviors and even physiological responses than inferences are. So it's, much more powerful to try to change, identify, and change the irrational belief. Okay. So, um, I wouldn't waste a whole lot of time talking about teaching the client the difference between an inference and a belief.
14. My clients don't like for me to say that their beliefs are irrational. So what do I do? Well, don't tell them it's irrational. I never use the word irrational when I'm talking to my clients. I might say unhelpful, but I'm usually following that word up because they have told me that it's unhelpful when I ask them what are they getting out of that. They have nothing, nothing good. So I, when they say that, I'm going, "So it's not helpful for you?" So after that, then I start using that word, unhelpful. But I don't feel the need to say rational, irrational, because that does have kind of a judgmental reign to it. So although rational, irrational in the literature, many of us who practice move away from that a bit and talk about helpful and unhelpful. Okay. And my clients respond much better to that. Nobody wants to be told that they're irrational. We all recognize that at times we think ways that are not real helpful, and it gets us into some, uh, some hot water at times, and that just is a part of being a human. So I don't, if they don't like it, don't use it. Um, so you know, here, I think it's really important to focus on concepts and processes rather than the words. Don't get hung up on the word, uh, you know, inference, belief, and all of that when we're talking to clients. A really good question is number 15, and I just have a couple more unless people, uh, send me a, a something they want me to talk about. Disputing seems mechanical and cold, and I don't want to come across as mechanical or cold. Yeah, you know, especially if you're a new therapist or you're, you know, a graduate student and you're learning this stuff, it will feel kind of mechanical and cold because you don't have it down yet. You're just learning it, and you're kind of parroting something that you've learned because you haven't incorporated, you haven't grasped it fully yet. And well, once you do, then you'll start using your language, you'll be more comfortable, you, it won't feel like a flowchart, kind of way of doing therapy. It will just be in your language and in your interaction with them, and you'll just be you, but using the method in a very fluid and easy flowing kind of way. So don't get hung up on on that. It will seem, um, fake, initially. You know, um, I always laugh and I go, it's kind of like when I got married. I was a little bit older when I got married, and I was used to just being free and not saying to somebody, "I'm going out, I'll be back at such and such time." So I would forget when I was first married, and my wife let me have it, you know, she was saying, "You know, you're in a relationship now, you need to tell me where you're going and what you're doing." So, um, this is going to seem weird too, just like being married, or like trying to ride a bike and you don't know how to use the brakes initially. So it is going to seem cold and mechanical. But make it yourself right. And the one thing to watch out for in the early stages of doing this, you might get really frustrated and go, "This is just too difficult." "You know, you need to kind of work on your own frustration and tolerance." This belief that this is too much, this is too difficult, I can't handle it. Those thoughts are not going to help you become a therapist, right? Those will get in the way. They're normal, they're natural, we all have them. I remember when, um, I was having therapy with, and I just, I was new, and it was maybe the second or third client that I had, and it was just not going well. I went to my supervisor and I said, "You know, my wife and I were in in Key West, there was this lady on the beach that was riding her bicycle and she was selling brownies on the beach. I went, 'That sounds like a better job than being a psychotherapist.'" And he laughed and went, "We've all been there. We've all made it." So I was working on my frustration and tolerance and realized, yeah, I can stand this. It's just new and it's a little challenging right now. So, you know, get over it, and you'll be fine.
Then the second to last question is, when do you get the client's goal for therapy? This is really good, really good question. Remember, when a client comes in, they're usually going to start with the activating event. Go, "This is what happened this week." Or they may begin with, "I was so angry." What are they doing? They're giving you the C. They're giving their emotion. Or, "I really messed this up and I did this." So they're giving the dysfunctional behavior. So they'll either start with an A or C, typically. I think only an A. I've never had a client say, "You know what? I had this irrational belief this week." You know, maybe after they've been acculturated into, uh, the model, they start doing that. But I've never had clients, at least initially, uh, say something like that. That would be a little bizarre, wouldn't it? But, um, so after you get the A and the C, it's right before you go and try to get, identify the unhelpful or irrational beliefs. Right before you do the work on the B, I would ask the client for their goal and work with them to establish adequate goals. There's a whole workshop that I do or recording that talks about goals and establishing goals and how do we know which are good goals and which are not so helpful goals. I don't have time to cover that tonight, but it's there on this, uh, YouTube channel, and you could get a hold of that and listen to that if you would, uh, if you would like. So after you get the A and the C, then set forth the goals and then go and change the belief.
The last question, unless I get some chat, I don't have anything yet, is if I give a client homework, when in the next session do I address the homework? And again, this is a really good question. And always give homework in our EBT. You know, I hate to use "always" in numbers, but it is really important to give homework. It needs to be relevant to what you covered in the session and having them practice what they learned in the session, not something new. It should be relevant to the session that they did and helping them, uh, do something and gain more information about what you did in the therapy. So it's about skills building on what's something that you, you covered or practiced on that. Okay. So, um, it is, if you have them, if you give them homework, it is really important for you to ask about homework in the very next session, otherwise they're not going to take you seriously when you give them homework. One, you're going to collaborate with the client on homework anyway, so they have some ownership in it. We're not just going to give it to them, we're going to agree on that. Excuse me. So, um, what do we do? What I do, and I think many REBT therapists will say, in the very next session, that's what we lead with. You know, after you said hello, "How are you doing?" We'll lead with that. And then we'll, after we've done that, and if they haven't done it, then we look at the irrational beliefs that or the unhelpful beliefs that prevented them from doing it. Or maybe it's not an unhelpful belief, it's just something happened that week that kind of derailed them from doing their homework. So we can assess that and, uh, and then process that belief with them, help them correct the unhelpful beliefs that may be getting in the way of them doing homework, because that will sabotage, to some degree, the actual progress in the therapy. So I would do that early, and then ask them what they would like to focus on in the session this week. If they say they don't know, then remind them that that's an expectation when they come in, that it's usually a good idea to have them identify something that they want to work on. But if they don't have anything, you might pick up where you left off in a previous session, or maybe you didn't get to complete something that they brought up that you decided to move that together, you guys decided that you would move forward on one issue and we put that issue on the back burner and bring it up to the front burner at a later session. So you could do that.
Um, I'm gonna have any questions, and so I want to thank all of you. I hope you found this helpful. If you're my student, I hope you found that helpful to amplify what was in the, um, the lecture for this week. And for all the rest of you, I hope if you're a traditional RBG therapist, or you're a seasoned or ABT therapist, and maybe it's a, a reminder. If you're new, and maybe you got some tips. So thank you guys so much, and I will see you next week on another one of these Q&A sessions. Goodbye, and have a great night.