Introduction and thesis statement

According to Albert Ellis irrational beliefs sustain depression and simply that wrong thinking causes bad internal
symptoms - that faulty internal wiring causes our brains to crash (as in cause mental disorders). All you need to do is
reprogram and update the mind in order to acquire improved functionality and stability (cognitive psychology and
therapy). This is what I'm pursuing and my thesis statement is the following:

The more irrational faith about reality one has, the greater the risk of getting and remaining depressed.
Therefore, I also strive to prove that:
The more rational belief about reality one has, the lesser the risk of getting and remaining depressed.

Preliminary test
Please take this small version 1.0 test and choose whichever alternative you'd be likelier to pick.
Even if you aren’t in or haven’t experienced these situations, simulate and imagine them accordingly.

1. A. My poor financial statement makes me feel anxious.

B. I get anxious when I think about my poor financial situation.

2. A. I nailed a test because the answers came naturally and intuitively to me.
B. I nailed a test because I study and ponder about the subject to a great extent.

3. A. I ignore the fact that having to walk in a blizzard makes me feel cold and wet.
B. When I have to walk in a blizzard, I think about the coldness and wetness of it.

4. A. I won the lottery out of pure chance.

B. I won the lottery thanks to the lucky amulet I bought beforehand.

5. A. It is problematic to finish an assignment that is beyond my ability.

B. It is challenging to finish an assignment that is beyond my ability.

6. A. I was promoted because my boss resigned from his position.

B. I was promoted because I was the best candidate for the empty position.

7. A. I need to love in order to be happier.

B. I need to be loved in order to be happier.

8. A. The movie I saw turned out to be good according to my taste.

B. The movie I was eagerly waiting to see, turned out to be exactly as good as I hoped.

9. A. I yell at my children because they haven't finished their homework.

B. I yell at my children whenever they haven't finished their homework.

10. A. My physical health is unusually poor, and I ponder why that is.
B. I exercise more, since I noticed my physical health is unusually poor.

11. A. I do my best at running for a community office position I want, but I lose. I am relieved.
B. I do my best at running for a community office position I want, but I lose. It is hard to accept.

12. A. I feel great about my excellent health.

B. I didn't get sick even though I was exposed.

13. A. My business failed because I didn't learn how to make it successful while I ran it.
B. My business failed because I didn't know how to make it successful before I founded it.
14. A. A stranger calls me an idiot without reason, and I quickly forget the incident.
B. I keep thinking about the incident, even though there was no reason for calling me an idiot.

15. A. I lose my temper when I have to walk to work in a storm.

B. Walking to work in a storm causes me to lose my temper.

16. A. My favorite team lost a game, and I start to reason why.

B. As soon as the game my favorite team lost is over, my mind wanders off to other issues.

17. A. I'm slim and healthy because I care about being slim and healthy.
B. I thank my good genes for being slim and healthy.

18. A. My poor shot was caused by the lack of concentration on aiming.

B. My poor shot was caused by the lack of ability to adjust the aim properly.

19. A. My business is successful due to the great product and its high demand.
B. My business is thriving thanks to my own all-round knowledge in entrepreneurship.

20. A. I get sad when a controversial relationship ends.

B. I am satisfied whenever a controversial relationship ends.

21. A. I enjoyed the good weather on my holiday.

B. The weather was good on my holiday - just as I had expected it to be.

The answers will be examined once you've familiarized yourself with the flow chart.

Introducing the Event Response Flow Chart (ERFC)

The flow chart on the following page strives to be a ubiquitous tool capable of diagnosing any patient with any
problem, and it automatically presents the necessary solution. It will help the user in realizing what the correct
destination (response) to any event truly is, as well as explain how unnecessary symptoms e.g. (DSM-III-R related)
are the direct result of incorrect event responses (you linger in the wrong destination).

The most notable edge on this flow chart is not only that it explains how you should or shouldn't think about any
event one can think of and experience, but also what you should or shouldn't do in any event one can think of and
experience. Both need to be carefully examined to ultimately get/have more good events and less bad events*. Thus,
with the use of the chart you will be able to personally create and increase the permanence and prevalence of good
events and personally eliminate and decrease the permanence and prevalence of bad events. The nature of reality
dictates which events are caused internally and which events are caused externally, but a human being dictates
which events are good and which events are bad.

In other words, one has to identify and acknowledge the incorrect line of thought that keeps people trapped in
suffrage, incapable of finding the correct line of thought that presents the solution. After this, it's up to each person
to change their response (thought, act or lack thereof) to the alternative, which without exceptions leads to more
positive results in life. This is where different methods of persuasion and conviction take over the spotlight in order
to help the patient to elicit the required change. I will not go into this detail in this paper, but it is nevertheless an
undeniably crucial element.

*This is why the BE - DO - HAVE paradigm works wonders with its infallibility [1].
I don't see increasing optimism and decreasing pessimism as the most effective starting point or notion in improving
people's overall well being. Optimism and pessimism are merely definitions that people use in measuring and
differentiating** human beings who have more correct lines of thoughts in the flow chart compared to people who
have more incorrect lines of thoughts in the flow chart. I might be so bold as to say that positive psychology is
simply "correct psychology".

**Thinking about the correlation between pervasiveness and permanence in good or bad events does not guarantee
less risk of getting depressed. The measurement and notable change of pervasiveness and permanence in a patient's
words/thoughts merely loosely indicate greater or lesser incorrect lines of thoughts, but it does not present easily
understandable solutions to the underlying problems. Measuring the dimension of personalization provides arbitrary
information since the whole event response system isn't taken into account.

Event Response Flow Chart (ERFC)

Breaking down the test questions

Boxes 13 and 14 suggest that you neither think nor do anything in a bad, external event.
Boxes 11 and 12 suggest that you don't think, but do something in a bad, internal event.
Boxes 5 and 6 suggest that you thoroughly evaluate whether a bad event truly is internal or external.
Boxes 1 and 2 suggest that you thoroughly evaluate whether an event truly is good or bad.
Boxes 3 and 4 suggest that you thoroughly evaluate whether a good event truly is internal or external.
Boxes 9 and 10 suggest that you think, but don't do anything in a good, external event.
Boxes 7 and 8 suggest that you both think and do something in a good, internal event.

This is the order in which we will assess which answers increase the risk of depression and which answers reduce
the risk of depression. There are three questions for each of the seven cognitive and action "traps".
Disclaimer: Note that the questions and assessments are meant to illustrate how the ERFC is put to use. The
objective or subjective truth of a matter is sometimes purely in the mind of the beholder (quantum physics etc.).
What the thinker thinks, the prover proves, as described by Robert Anton Wilson in the book "Prometheus Rising".
Answers 3B, 14B and 16A depict incorrect event responses to bad, external events (boxes 13 and 14).
Nothing you do will reduce or eliminate the permanence or prevalence of the events - attempting to take control over
them is futile. Thinking about the events equals worry and rumination.
Answers 3A, 14A and 16B depict the correct event response to bad, external events - equanimity [2].

Answers 10A, 13B and 18A depict incorrect event responses to bad, internal events (boxes 11 and 12).
Thinking and concentrating on the incidents equal worry and rumination, incapable of eliminating or reducing the
permanence and prevalence of the events. Doing and taking care of the bad, internal events reduce and eliminate
their permanence and prevalence. Box 12 is the destination of analysis paralysis and perfection procrastination,
which appear to be more permanent and prevalent in women than men.
The "ready - aim - fire approach" is risky as its user may get trapped in aiming and never firing. On the other hand,
the "ready - fire - aim approach" enables constant enhancement through the reciprocity of fine-tuning your earlier
actions and their results. Caring is being proactive while worrying is a feeling of guilt for not caring enough about
the event and its necessary response in the first place.
Answers 10B, 13A and 18B depict correct event responses to bad, internal events - caring for & about [3].

Answers 1A, 9A and 15B depict incorrect evaluations of the true nature of bad events (boxes 5 and 6).
External stimuli (ink on a financial statement, unfinished homework or storm) do not have the power to create
emotions (e.g. anxiety and anger) and then miraculously transfer them into a human being. When lingering in such
irrational faith, the correct responses (thought, act or lack thereof) remain clouded. The person either stagnates to
take care of the issue (eliminate and reduce permanence and prevalence) or ruminates in worry and learned
helplessness.
Answers 1B, 9B and 15A depict correct evaluations of the true nature of the events, which therefore guide the
respondent to identify the correct event response. When applied, either the bad events' permanence and prevalence
are eliminated or reduced (external control), or the person understands to improve their level and mastery of
equanimity (internal control) [4].

Answers 5A, 11B and 20A depict incorrect evaluations of the true nature of the events (boxes 1 and 2).
The concept of morality makes creating a theoretical framework proving which events truly are bad and which ones
are truly good challenging, but nevertheless, worthy of attempting to construct. In the three examples in this test, all
challenges [5] are worthy of attempting to solve, but if doing your best isn't enough, the outcome still isn't
subjectively a bad one. Alternatively as an example, if you make a lot of money from your own business (good,
internal event), but fail to enjoy it mentally (guilt, shame, false pride), it quite simply means that the event is
immoral (e.g. you are a drug dealer!).
Answers 5B, 11A and 20B depict correct evaluations of the true nature of the events - improved metacognition [6],
the virtue of selfishness [7] and enhanced self-esteem [8].

Answers 2A, 7B and 17B depict incorrect evaluations of the true nature of good events (boxes 3 and 4).
When having irrational faith that good events were caused by external forces, the respondent fails to see the option
of taking control over the events, creating and increasing the permanence and prevalence of good, internal events.
On the other hand, irrational faith in attempting to take control over truly good, external events means taking futile
measures possibly leading to frustration.
You are what you love, not what loves you - the feeling is internal, self-actualized and subject to internal control
(permanence and prevalence). Being health-conscious and taking care of one’s health equals healthy results. And no
matter how natural, intuitive and self-evident everything presented on this paper is and has been to me without ever
having taken a single course or class in psychology, the mind always stagnates and leaves no room for improvement
if knowledge is taken for granted.
Answers 2B, 7A and 17A depict correct evaluations of the true nature of the events - internal control [4].
Answers 4B, 8B and 21B depict incorrect event responses to good, external events (boxes 9 and 10).
Nothing you do will create or increase the permanence and prevalence of the events - attempting to take control over
them is futile. There's no point in setting expectations [9]. Thinking and emoting over the events equal joy and
happiness.
Answers 4A, 8A and 21A depict the correct event response to good, external events - empathy [2].

Answers 6A, 12B and 19A depict incorrect event responses to good, internal events (boxes 7 and 8).
Whenever an internal, bad event that previously lingered in box 12 gets taken care of (permanence and prevalence
eliminated and reduced in box 11), its opposite, good, internal event's permanence and prevalence is created and
increased in box 7 (e.g. wealth, health, relationships, abundance and wisdom). Both thinking (enjoying) and doing
(taking care of) internal, good events is the key to unlocking the path towards unlimited well being and happiness.
Answers 6B, 12A and 19B depict correct event responses to good, internal events - personal growth [10].

In a nutshell, the Event Response Flow Chart suggests that all internal, bad events be eliminated and reduced, that
equanimity is the key to peace in external, bad events, that empathy is the key to joy in external good events and that
constant personal development, caring about the self and the creation and increase of permanence and prevalence of
good, internal events are the keys to happiness.

References to added in-depth material

[1] Be - Do - Have
[2] Empathy or Equanimity?
[3] Caring and Worrying
[4] Taking Control of Your Life
[5] Problems and Challenges
[6] It's Your Fault that You Feel Bad!
[7] Impersonal Development
[8] Who Likes You - In the Long Run?
[9] Expectations and Outcome
[10] Topography of Self Growth
www.theprobabilist.com/be-do-have/
www.theprobabilist.com/empathy-or-equanimity/
www.theprobabilist.com/caring-and-worrying/
www.theprobabilist.com/taking-control-of-your-life/
www.theprobabilist.com/problems-and-challenges/
www.theprobabilist.com/its-your-fault-that-you-feel-bad/
www.theprobabilist.com/impersonal-development/
www.theprobabilist.com/who-likes-you-in-the-long-run/
www.theprobabilist.com/expectations-and-outcome/
www.theprobabilist.com/topography-of-self-growth/

The challenge and disclaimer

I urge whoever reads this paper to take out their biggest guns and blast the Event Response Flow Chart into
smithereens. If you find that the object still stands, please send me your suggestions on how I can enhance its
reliability, validity and applicability. Also, if something similar has already been constructed, assessed and applied in
cognitive therapy, please notify me.

I hereby pledge that whatever ideas and conclusions are presented in this paper, are the sole and complete result of
previous ponderings about psychology and the nature of reality written in the author's personal weblog
www.TheProbabilist.com, triggered by the author's allegations of contradiction and inconsistency found in the third
chapter (notably personalization) of "Learned Optimism" by Ph.D. Martin E.P. Seligman.

This paper is not at its current format attempting to abide by any academic standards of thesis construction.
This paper is free to redistribute, but not alter without the permission from the author.

Johan Holmberg
johan.holmberg@topleaders.net
http://www.theprobabilist.com/introduction-and-purpose/