Jane Doe
Dr. [ec]
[philosophy]
27 November 2017
Treating Learned Helplessness in Adult Survivors of Childhood Sexual Abuse as Bad Faith in the Context of Logic-Based Therapy
This paper will attempt to explain the phenomenology of learned helplessness as it plays out in the cognitive structures of adults who have suffered through long-term childhood sexual abuse. Within this discussion, logic-based therapy (LBT) will be used to expose the internal reasoning of this psychological phenomena. Furthermore, Jean-Paul Sartre’s literature contrasting “bad faith” and “authenticity” will be proposed as relevant philosophical insights to give to survivors to aid them in the process of healing from their trauma.
Applied Logic-Based Therapy
While a survivor showing signs of learned helplessness may show many fallacies in emotional reasoning by LBT’s standards, attempting to refute all of them is not an efficient method. A philosophical counselor should focus only the learned helplessness, as it serves as a root for all other thinking errors. Once learned helplessness is dismantled, it provides a basis for all other self-defeating thoughts to be refuted as well.
Even when learned helplessness makes itself apparent immediately, a philosophical counselor should seek further clarification before refutation to avoid making the client close-up defensively. The overall function of the philosophical counselor should be to lead the client to either refute themselves, or provide all of the premises for refutation on their own.
| Client/Philosopher Dialogue | Emotional Reasoning | Discussion |
| C: It’s absurd to think that someone like me could have a good relationship. | M ⸧ ~R M = Being someone like me R = I will have a good relationship | LBT Fallacies: Can’tstipation (Learned Helplessness) Learned helplessness is presenting itself here as a cause and effect relationship implying that no good relationship is possible for the client based on the very virtue of the client’s existence. |
| P: Someone like you? C: Yeah, I’m all messed up, nobody would ever want me. | (M ⸧ U) ⸧ ~R) U = I am messed up | LBT Fallacies: Damnation Negative rating entire self. |
| P: In what ways are you “messed up”? C: Emotional issues, trust issues, and I can’t have sex without having a mental breakdown. I’m a total mess, who’d honestly want to deal with that? | (M ⸧ {[(E⸱ T) ⸱ S] ⸧ U}) ⸧ ~R E = Having emotional issues T = Having trust issues S = Having issues with sex | LBT Fallacies: Fallacy of the Whole The client is expressing that because she has some problems (emotional, interpersonal, sexual) that she herself is a problem (expressed as being “messed up”) |
| P: If you didn’t have those challenges, do you think you’d at least have a chance at a good relationship? C: There would be a possibility, but that doesn’t really matter because my problems aren’t ever going away. | Here, the philosophical counselor is testing her view on the permanence of her self-definition (which is “messed up” because of emotional, interpersonal, and sexual issues). The client confirms a view of permanence on characteristics that most would view as things that can change, therefore the philosophical counselor should look for the cause of their perspective. | |
| P: How do you know that for sure? C: Well, I was abused as a kid, and everyone knows that victims of sexual abuse don’t get better. People like me don’t just get to be normal again. | V ≡ M V = Being a victim | Philosophical Fallacy: Bad Faith |
| P: So it is because you are a victim that you’re unable to have a relationship. C: Yeah, it’s obvious. | V ⸧ ~R | LBT Fallacies: Jumping on the Bandwagon, Stereotyping The client is stereotyping what it means to be a victim (by creating a ‘victim character’) and saying that their actions are acting accordingly (to what the ‘victim character’ should be doing) |
| P: And the reasons that you have problems with your emotions, trust and sex are also a result of you being a victim. C: Of course, all victims have those problems. | V ⸧ [(E⸱ T) ⸱ S] | LBT Fallacies: Stereotyping, Oversimplification While it is true that the client’s trauma may be a very large contributing factor to their current challenges, their trauma is not the only cause of those challenges (Oversimplification). Additionally, the client is implying that all victims have those challenges (Stereotyping) |
| Refutation: While there are many obvious fallacies in the above reasoning, the root of the client’s distress is the element of bad faith. By assuming the role of a victim, a character role that the client designed, they are able to deny responsibility for the problems they are facing while simultaneously creating more emotional distress. In order to attack the idea that V ≡ M (Being a victim implies being someone like me and being someone like me implies being a victim), a philosophical counselor could start by refuting the premise M ⸧ [(E⸱ T) ⸱ S] (Being someone like me implies having emotional issues, having trust issues and having issues with sex). By proving that the client has the potential to move beyond those challenges, it forces either V ⸧ [(E⸱ T) ⸱ S] or V ≡ M to be false. | ||
| P: Does being a victim absolutely guarantee that you’re incapable of working on your emotional issues? C: Maybe not from working on them, but I know it’d be painful to have to relive those things in my mind, I prefer to push it all down. P: So you’ve chosen to push all those emotions down instead of dealing with them, because if you deal with them you know it’s going to hurt. C: I suppose I did make that choice. I probably could get better at handling my emotions, but I don’t know if it’s worth all of that pain. | 1. E ˅ ~E 2. (W ⸧ ~E) ˅ (~W ⸧ E) 3. (W ⸧ P) ˅ (~W ⸧ ~P) W = Work on the problem. ~E = Lessening/resolution of emotional disturbances P = Feel pain | Here the philosophical counselor has the client explore an alternative to M ⸧ E, by having the client state that there are more options than just E. Conditional statements are being used as perceived outcomes (If I work on the problem, then I will lessen the emotional disturbances but also feel pain) instead of a rule for how the client must act or be (Being someone like me implies having emotional issues). Notice how it is impossible to deduce which side of the either/or the client will end up with from the premises alone. This is where the freedom to choose lies completely with the in control of the client. |
| P: How about working towards resolving you problems with trust. C: It’s kind of the same thing, I know that if I trust people I’m probably going to get hurt. I don’t want to be that open. P: So you’ve made the decision to stay guarded and distrusting in order to save yourself from feeling the pain of someone betraying you. C: Exactly, I expect the worst in people instead of being naive. | 1. T ˅ ~T 2. (W ⸧ ~T) ˅ (~W ⸧ T) 3. (W ⸧ P) ˅ (~W ⸧ ~P) | |
| P: Do you think sex could ever be something you enjoy? C: I’ve tried to enjoy it, but I really can’t figure out how. P: Have you sought out someone who may be able to give you some direction? C: No, I just push through it until I can’t handle it anymore. Honestly, even now it’s a bit embarrassing to talk about it, I’m sure talking in detail would be humiliating. P: It might be uncomfortable, but do you see it as an option that may help with the problems you have? C: I guess it is. | 1. S ˅ ~S 2. (H ⸧ ~S) ˅ (~H ⸧ S) 3. (H ⸧ E) ˅ (~H ⸧ ~E) H = Seek help E = Feel embarrassed | |
| P: I want you to entertain a hypothetical situation for me. Let’s say you made the hard choices tomorrow, and started working on those three challenges. A few months go by and those problems begin to go away, what does that mean for the idea that “all victims have problems with emotions, trust and sex, and those problems never go away?” C: It means that I was wrong. Even if most of the people who were abused as kids have problems, it doesn’t mean it has to stay like that. P: It seemed like you had an idea before that all victims had to be a certain way, and to some extent, maybe you thought you couldn’t escape that fate either. | Here the philosophical counselor is beginning to tie everything together. By addressing some of the client’s LBT’s fallacies that ultimately led to bad faith, he is gently guiding the client towards larger realizations. | |
| C: I had it in my mind that I’m not even supposed to try. Deep down it’s just weird to think that I should even attempt to get better. Because what if I do? And then I could have a bad day and it all falls apart again. But if I never try, and never do to get better and know what that feels like, then I never really fail either and it’s no real loss. P: So if you never get better, then there is no loss. C: Exactly, it’d be worse to really be okay, and then mess it all up. P: Because then you’d be responsible for the way you’re feeling? C: Yes, I’d have no one to blame but myself. P: But using that same logic, wouldn’t you already be responsible for not being, or attempting, to be better now since you’re making the choice to not even try. C: I really am just trying to trick myself, aren’t I? The only real way to feel better is to actually get better. And I’m responsible either way. | 1. B ˅ ~B 2. B ⸧ (F ˅ ~F) 3. ~B ⸧ ~F 4. F ⸧ R 5. ~B ⸧ R 6. B ⸧ R B = I get better F = I fail R = I am responsible for my feelings | Cognitive Error: Learned helplessness (EXPAND ON THIS) This illustrates that there is no way for the client to escape the responsibility they have for their feelings, whether they are positive feelings that are associated with success, or negative feelings that are associated with failure. The client is experiencing what is referred to as existential despair ((FIND SOURCE )), which is the feeling that arises when someone is fully aware that there future is not predetermined, but is something that they must freely choose. |
| P: I understand the way that you must be feeling about this. There’s a term for it in philosophy: existential despair. C: Existential despair? P: It’s the uneasy feeling that people get when they face the reality that the fate of their future isn’t predetermined, but is made up of the consequences from the free choices they make. | ||
| C: Is there any way around it? I don’t like the way this feels. P: There’s really no way around it but there are ways of coping with it, and you’ve already tried one of them. C: What was it that I tried? P: A philosopher named Jean-Paul Sartre called it “bad faith,” which is when a person convinces themselves that they don’t actually have free will. (SOURCE NEEDED) C: When I said that victims can’t overcome their problems? P: Exactly! You created a stereotype of how you believed a victim should behave or what they could accomplish, that way you didn’t have to feel responsible for feeling bad feelings, you could just blame it on what happened to you. | Philosophical counselor introduces the concept of bad faith in relation to existential despair. | |
| C: It all seems kind of stupid after all that we’ve spoken about now. P: It’s not something stupid, it’s a very human thing to do, especially after going through something traumatic. In psychology there’s something called “learned helplessness.” C: You can learn to be helpless? P: Think about it, if you’re stuck in a bad situation that’s completely out of your control, and nothing you do can change it, what happens? C: You stop trying. P: Right, and maybe in the next situation you don’t bother trying. C: Because why bother, if it doesn’t seem like it’s going to work, or even if it does, then it might become uncontrollable again. P: Exactly, and that can play a big part in someone just wanting to blame something other than themselves. They fear their effort will be all for nothing, so why try when things always go poorly for them anyways? C: And sometimes it goes poorly because they didn’t do anything to make it better… kind of like I’ve been doing. | Philosophical counselor introduces learned helplessness as it relates to bad faith in the client’s situation. | |
| P: Remember how I said there was two ways to cope with existential despair? C: Is the other way the right way? P: According to Sartre it is. It’s called authenticity, and it quite simply means to take ownership of your choices and the consequences they have ((SOURCE NEEDED) C: That’s it, just take ownership? P: Well, not only taking ownership, but embracing your freedom. Of course, everyone has their limitations, but not everyone is honest about what those limitations are. When people put themselves in a smaller box than where they belong Sartre calls it “bad faith.” Because we are all “condemned to be free” we write our own stories in life, and it’s your job to pick up the pen instead of leaving the page blank. | Philosophical counselor introduces the concept of authenticity as an alternative to living in bad faith. | |