Blog #111; Part 2, Nationwide Mental Health Initiative

 Defining the Crisis

This one instance is just a recent example of the dangers inherent in allowing those without training or license to practice as mental health professionals, so the first step would be to gather the experts in mental health and spiritual fields to train and speak to professionals regarding what constitutes sound mental health, and establish, based on the Utah state model, a licensing procedure for “life coaches”.  I have known many with less knowledge and experience in the mental health field than I have that have hung out their shingles as “life coaches”.  I personally am not writing this essay as a qualified mental health professional.  Think of this document as a letter to the editor from a concerned constituent of Utah and the US.  It is intended as an opinion piece.  Like I mentioned, I am no journalist, nor do I want to write about this particular case as “hard news”.  What I am interested in is how people can easily get off track when the “life coach” role as a professional does not rely on sound reasoning and hard psychological science to support the approaches taken and the tools implemented to solve the struggling people’s issues.

 

Most Effective Way to Attack Illogical Thinking: The Albert Ellis Method

Around 100 years ago or so, a New York City psychologist named Albert Ellis founded an organization that promoted using logical thinking as an answer to the dilemma of ill mental health.  Ellis had a great deal of success with this approach, mainly because using rational thought to undercut unhealthy beliefs usually wins out over damaging emotion-driven, or shame-based self-talk that lurks behind the disruptions in self-perception, and our perception of others.  This proven track record of success is something that is verifiable and found easily in any simple internet search or library visit.  Albert Ellis and Rational Emotive Therapy can be understood and applied fairly easily to thought issues and problems.  This is time-tested and not confusing.  It does not rely on a overbearing therapist assigning value judgements to the client that would force the struggling person into unhelpful labels like “living in truth” and “living in deception”.  These terms are misleading at best, and destructive and powerfully shaming at worst.