Dealing with circumstances - Curing irrational mental disorders with the ERFC model

[The Probabilist]

Note to reader on this subject: I'm going to be as pragmatic as Albert Ellis when he introduced and practiced Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), as thought provoking as I was in the topic of emotional mastery (link) and as intransigent as Howard Roark when he battled against conventional standards in The Fountainhead (cognitive psychology instead of architecture). In other words: I'm dead serious and know I'll be have to endure plenty of both constructive and non-constructive criticism.

So let's get started. In order to model or create a framework for understanding what kinds of circumstances/events there are and how to reasonably act or react upon them, we need to start by identifying what attributes or dimensions they take. I have narrowed it down into two essential dimensions:

1) What is good or bad in a person's reality.
2) What is within or beyond control in a person's reality.

This automatically leads to the separation of four different circumstances/events:

A) Things that are bad and you can't control/prevent
B) Things that are bad that you can control/prevent
C) Things that are good but you can't control/create
D) Things that are good that you can control/create

Examples for each of the possible events:
A) Your favourite team loses a game. Your relative dies. The traffic is jammed.
B) Your health is poor. Your self-esteem is poor. You're unhappy, prejudiced, ignorant, etc.
C) The weather on your vacation is great. You win the lottery. You enjoy the taste of (insert your favourite food).
D) You enjoy the work that you do. Your financial situation is great. Your level of consciousness is high.

Piece of cake so far, right? Now it's time to address how you respond to these circumstances in a healthy and reasonable way. Again I have identified two attributes/dimensions:

1) What you choose to do or not do about them (physical action or reaction)
2) What you choose to think or not think about them (mental action or reaction - includes emotions)

So here's the nitty-gritty of it:
Whenever there is a type A event (bad, external event) there is no point in doing or thinking/emoting about it in any manner, since nothing you do will reduce or eliminate its permanence and prevalence. The rational solution is equanimity.

Whenever there is a type B event (bad, internal event) you need to act upon it by reducing and eliminating its permanence and prevalence, but not think/emote about it excessively, as in worrying and ruminating in analysis paralysis and perfection procrastination.

Whenever there is a type C event (good, external event) there is no point in acting upon it because you can't increase or create their permanence and prevalence (leads to frustration), only think and emote over it - as in enjoy!

Whenever there is a type D event (good, internal event) remember that you are the one that has created and increased its permanence and prevalence. Enhance and improve these events in every aspect of life that you can, and also think/emote over them as much as you please. Don't be apologetic, defending or guilty over good circumstances that you have created for your own enjoyment and health.

If all of this makes sense, feel free to read my 5-page thesis that takes this model into greater depth using a flowchart (ERFC) to illustrate the dimensions and types of events that I described here. It comes with a preliminary test and added links to further reading and can be found in the following link:

Curing depression and attaining peace and happiness with the ERFC - A new framework in cognitive psychology

The point with all this is that depression, stress, anxiety, apathy, frustration, emotional outbursts and other irrational mental dysfunctions are mostly self-inflicted by people who deal with life's circumstances in horrendously unreasonable ways. This model is meant to present the whats and the whys of breaking free from such cognitive problems. The optimal how-tos of eliciting the required changes or perception is not yet identified and structured by me. I can show you the door, but you'll have to walk through it. I see no reason in forcing people to see circumstances in metacognitionally healthier ways. So all people are free to disagree and ignore everything presented here, as I don't have to deal with the consequences.

I hope you find this helpful and I'll do my best in clarifying whatever questions you have in mind. All kinds of feedback is welcome since you are all completely powerless to make me angry, defensive, irritated, sad, discouraged, etc. no matter in what tone you write (I'll just filter out and focus on the actual contents).

I'll end this with one of my favourite quotes from Albert Ellis:

Another volunteer, Kristin Bell, spoke of her sister who had been killed by a drug dealer eight years before.
''Why can't you understand that some people are crazy and violent and do all kinds of terrible things?'' Dr. Ellis asked.
''Until you accept it, you're going to be angry, angry, angry.''

For some strange reason, being angry never brought her sister back to life.