ehowton: (Default)

Just because some people only see paradoxically when there is an internal emotional struggle, doesn't necessarily mean it may accurately reflect the situation in which the label has been applied. I've been told many times, IF(action)/THEN(meaning) which has resulted in some dazzling over-simplifications. I paint the picture of 1000 disparate emotions - each represented by a different color - being swirled together on a spinning canvas. One cannot look at all the emotions sometimes conflicting and sometimes not, then issue a generalized statement which tidily explains everything in black and white terms. Rarely is life ever as simple as that.

As a literary device, paradox refers to the use of concepts or ideas that are contradictory to one another, yet, when placed together hold significant value on several levels. The uniqueness of paradoxes lies in the fact that a deeper level of meaning and significance is not revealed at first glace, but when it does crystallize, it provides astonishing insight.1

In many situations, I believe the "astonishing insight" cannot be achieved without first initiating a sort of internal brainstorming session - cataloging all the different scenarios in which the perceived outcome would be true - up to and including our own actions. It would be a gross misjustice of causality to assign fault and look for blame while seeking conclusions. These things rarely occur in a vacuum. In fact that's probably the best way to ensure an unfavorable outcome, because the answer will invariably be based upon false pretenses - means it'll be wrong.

My kids ask the hard questions sometimes, out of curiosity. Trying to think of the worst thing possible, my son asked my wife and I several years ago, "Would you still love me if I killed someone?" We explained intent. This was followed by numerous questions trying to determine if a series of bad behavior would ever stop us from loving him, which eventually lead into the subject of unconditional love - which turns out some people fantastically misapply. Once the conversation had moved off his own actions, and onto the actions of others I began struggling with articulating the complexity of loving someone so wholly, and yet not wanting to have anything to do with them because of their behavior; black and white thinkers lack comprehension of the complexity of human emotion, and to them LOVE and HATE can be turned on or off, like a switch, since its how they experience them. But then I ran across this, which helped me explain the many diversities of love and behavior and joy and sadness:

My personal philosophy is that there is a difference between unconditionally loving someone and unconditionally living with them, staying in close proximity to them, or remaining in a relationship with them. We can love someone unconditionally from a distance while having conditions for how they treat us.2

My kids, while young and inexperienced, are more emotionally mature than I was even 20 years ago. I say this because I've tried explaining to some adults that IF(action)/THEN(meaning) can sometimes be an inaccurate oversimplification, especially when considered from a broader emotional perspective - the reply to which is usually (of course), "Nuh-uh." Because when we think in EITHER/OR terms, the only correct answer is ever going to be our own answer, despite whether its actually true, or not. We then disbelieve any seemingly contrary explanation and close our minds in purposeful ignorance. That's no way to go through life.

If you can, I beg of you, challenge my point of view, and show me something new and fantastic. I'll be here waiting.



1 - http://literary-devices.com/frontpage?page=5
2 - http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2014/04/06/when-unconditional-love-has-conditions/
ehowton: (Default)

When one looks for someone/something to blame, growth cannot take place. By owning it, however - taking personal responsibility - we are empowered to better our lives; to improve every part of ourselves. Acknowledging that life is not "good" or "bad" rather that it simply is. Our relationship with ourselves, and to a larger degree life, is what assists us in seeing where that improvement may or may not need to take place.

Its not just a matter of questioning everything around us, but also ourselves. Is the entire world really against us or are we making the same mistakes over and over again? Imagine an infinite plane as represented by the black field below. This infinite black plane represents everything that is unknown to you. The white circle represents all that is known to you. The boundary between the known and unknown (black vs white) represents your capacity to be aware of and to question the unknown. The less you know the fewer questions there are. The more that becomes known to you the more questions present themselves. This ever increasing dynamic of the boundary between the known and unknown sometimes drives me crazy. The more I learn through introspection the heavier the burden of my questions becomes. The bitch of it is when you really get this ball rolling there is no stopping it and there is certainly no going back, you can’t un-know something.*

The black & white thinker's recap from *actual* conversations I've had:

  • Win7 is AMAZING!

    • "So what you're saying is that its the best operating system on the planet and you renounce unix?"


  • Just because Massachusetts put a Republican in the senate doesn't mean that they were trying to send a message, nor that the rest of the country feels this way - while that's a valid opinion, and very likely a correct one, its still just your opinion.

    • "How sad that you admit to personally wanting to fulfill the agenda of Our Dear Leader Supreme Dictator for Life His Royal Majesty Lord Barack Hussien Obama, The Most Merciful."


  • See how the responses were completely opposite than my statements? Not "I see your point, let me clarify my own" rather, "If you don't entirely agree with me, then you must mean the opposite." Every single time, time and time again. Where is the pursuit for mutual understanding in that? Where is the desire for a consideration of ideas outside one's own? I start every hypothesis with seeking viewpoints which differ from my own, not by assuming I'm right and everyone else is stupid.

    I rejected the statement, "Maybe someone who thinks solely in black & terms recognizes happiness differently, so they really are happy just in their own way." due, in part, because of the hypothesis that those who think in binary terms - 1s & 0s, on or off, everything is 100% one direction or 100% the other, cannot see any other answer in-between, and many of us fear the unknown. Anything which falls between two knowns is an unknown, and therefore feared. How can happiness and fear peacefully coexist?

    `If we think in false dichotomies we will tend to draw false conclusions. Black and white thinking often reflects an underlying reluctance or refusal to deal with the uncertainly that results from complexity in an absence of definite answers. But leaping to flawed conclusions because you can't tolerate the ambiguity of not knowing is not about truth or curiosity, but comfort.`*

    Mutual understanding however, is about the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. So on one side, we have truth, and the other, comfort. There are those who will walk the path with me, between the two logically, until mutual understanding is gained. Those who won't can do nothing but blame.
    ehowton: (Default)

    I was first introduced to confirmation bias when [livejournal.com profile] dentin wondered if my ever-positive attitude wasn't its byproduct. A valid question as it turns out when I looked it up to see what he meant:

    A type of cognitive bias in which people tend to seek out information which agrees with previously held beliefs. They also lend more weight to informational input which supports their beliefs, while discarding contradictory information.*

    Right off the bat I knew that my primary modus operandi was to assume I was wrong, and seek out to first debunk my beliefs prior to strengthening them through validation. So no, I do not suffer from confirmation bias. But I know people who do. While that kind of cognitive defect doesn't work for me, what harm is there in it working for others who by all accounts are just trying to survive in this world day by day? If your own personal pair of rose-colored glasses is working for you, where's the harm?

    The confirmation bias is one of the most common cognitive biases, and it can also be the most dangerous, because it can lead people into very poor decisions on the basis of questionable information.*

    This is why cognitive distortion is so harmful and actually doesn't work long-term. Click the graphic to understand how not to think and why:



    "There is no more important skill in today's world than being able to think about, understand, and act on information in a way that is both effective and responsible. Critical thinking transforms you from a passive member of society into an active participant in the ideas and issues of the day. It empowers you to better understand nearly every single aspect of everyday life, from health and nutrition to science and technology to philosophical and spiritual belief systems."*

    If there is such an easy, repeatable way to verify that what we may believe is wrong, and an easy, repeatable way to greatly enhance all aspects of our quality of life, why don't more people do it? The answer to this is far more problematic - some people just don't wish to change.

    Why is it so hard to change? Fear. "Below are some -- only some -- of the more common issues that get in the way of change. They are presented in no particular order and in no particular order of severity. Some of these are reasonable, logical causes for simply generally not wanting to change things. Some of these are simple glitches in judgement or logic or data collection. Some reach the level of toxicity and can be so extremely painful that many people wouldn't find it comfortable to imagine how someone can sustain such difficult attitudes and beliefs."

    "But most fear is not irrational. The fear stems from a lack of understanding, a lack of experience, or similarities to a negative experience. With unknowns and bad vibes looming, the risks of the situation start to completely overshadow any benefits. The fearful tend to dig in their heals. They have trouble seeing benefits at all and begin to distrust those who push them too hard. They aren’t going to suddenly lose their fear if you try to trick them, manipulate them, or slip something past them. Furthermore, the fear can feed on itself. Selling benefits in this situation is simply futile. If you hope to resume progress, you have to reduce the fear. And as with most problems, you can’t reduce a symptom without identifying and addressing the cause. You have to get to the underlying cause of the fear."*

    I imagine one day living in a world where everyone I interact with is open and receptive to resolving conflict though the simple mechanics of not just acknowledging that other viewpoints may exist, but actively understanding them to avoid future conflict. To address fear - not to showcase it - but to conquer it.

    At the risk of introducing the Holmesian Fallacy (much like the flawed golden-rule), it is nonetheless a good starting point:

    When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

    "The presumed independence of emotion and reason are illusory. Rather than chosing which is right, we should understand how they relate and let them work together."* Former President Richard M. Nixon said, "People are persuaded by reason, but moved by emotion." I awkwardly get moved to action by being emotionally motivated by reason. While I may ultimately disagree with someone's opinion about how they wish to live their life, I will only argue that they are in error if they come by their conclusions erroneously.
    ehowton: (Default)

    SHOULD

    The more I discover, the more I am in awe. The more I thought I knew how life was supposed to be, the more I've had to unlearn. Simply put, I was wrong. About everything. I now understand that even thinking that things "should" be a certain way is indicative of cognitive distortion, the hideously opaque mask of mood disorders - once we know what to look for.

    When we know what to be on the lookout for, it becomes rather easy to spot the cognitive distortions in others. It may be a little more challenging to spot our own, but it is possible. Doing so usually brings lasting positive change in the way we experience stressors in our life.*

    Of course given my nature I am far more interested in spotting and cutting out my own seeds of negativity. Besides, its near-impossible pointing out shortcomings in others. They become irrationally defensive (despite the fact I wasn't even accidentally attacking the poster). No thank you. I'll pull the plank from my own eye first to empower myself with jesus-authority prior to removing the speck from theirs. I do this for one reason alone - I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE LIMITATIONS OF LOVE. I seek lasting positive change in the way I experience stressors in my life.

    "Should Statements" occur when anyone thinks anything should happen a certain way. No matter what we think is normal or right is immediately wrong if we believe it should be that way - and all of a sudden we're treading the dangerous waters of expectation - where disappointment lurks. When someone doesn't behave as we think they should, we become hurt or angry or resentful. When we ourselves break our own rules of how we think we should act or behave, the emotional consequence is guilt. The problem lies with reality - which often never seamlessly matches up with what we experience. "Should" is someone else's ideas planted in our head that we didn't know were false, and which have no basis in our everyday lives except to frustrate us when nothing seems to go as planned. The problem isn't anyone else, rather entirely our own fault. Unsurprisingly, this brings us right back to personal responsibility. We alone are solely in command of our every thought, our every action, and our every consequence. Right or wrong we feel how we choose to feel 100% of the time.

    Our feelings follow what we are thinking. When we’re feeling stressed, anxious, or worried, our thoughts about ourselves or the thing we’re worried about are almost always negative.* And negative thoughts like these can send us spiraling down into depression. If we think something often enough, we begin to believe it's true and our feelings match what we are thinking.*

    OPTIMIST

    The funny (or sad, really) thing about cognitive distortion is that it very nearly (not entirely) falls along the same lines as self-fulfilling prophesies. That being, negative beliefs predicate negative behavior. Its entirely about false definitions evoking new behaviors - nothing positive ever comes from it. But it was being led down this primrose path in which I discovered why I am an optimist - cognitive distortion! Optimists apparently can subvert cognitive distortion into positivity. And all this time I used to think pessimists were a natural balance to optimists. Nope! Pessimism is nothing more than another brutal mask of mood disorder. Goes to show how much unlearning is required when we think things should be a certain way.

    Optimists explain positive events as having happened because of them (internal). They also see them as evidence that more positive things will happen in the future (stable), and in other areas of their lives (global). Conversely, they see negative events as not being their fault (external). They also see them as being flukes (isolated) that have nothing to do with other areas of their lives or future events (local). Understandably, if you’re an optimist, this bodes well for your future. Negative events are more likely to roll off of your back, but positive events affirm your belief in yourself, your ability to make good things happen now and in the future, and in the goodness of life.*

    TRIFECTA

    Psychology, Spirituality and Eastern religions. The more I know, the more I know I don't know. When I first read the quote in Psychology Today which stated, "Attachment reduces marriage to a quest for safety, security, and compensation for childhood disappointments." It didn't immediately dawn on me they were using the word attachment as the Buddhists do, as the origin of suffering as detailed by the Four Noble Truths on which the cessation of such is the Noble Eightfold Path. The Wheel of Dharma. Psychology. Spirituality. I've read many times over that the application of Buddhism is eerily similar to that of cognitive-behavior therapy. One might draw the correlation that psychology is our version of those Eastern religions.


    Take a look at the prism of self-realization as filtered through this trifecta:


    Even Plato taught that the attachments and defining illusions & behaviors that human beings conventionally rely on for security, respect, affection, social identity, and other needs must be questioned and abandoned in their original form.* In short, continual, aggressive reevaluation without provocation.*

    RELATIONSHIPS

    It just so happens that I was introduced to interdependence through a Psychology Today article on marriage - but my initial, though limited understanding of it, is that it can be applied much more broadly. To all relationships, friendships, acquaintances and even to society at large for there is no society without us, without our individual thoughts and actions operating in relationship to the greater whole. Therefore attempt to search for application in that vein despite the martial context of the quotes. Unhealthy and unsustainable can transcend marriage and seep into our personal lives no matter what our station is.

    Wikipedia revealed to me that the first recorded use of the word was in Karl Marx' Communist Manifesto which I then delved into to glean the original meaning - in this case the opposite of narrow-mindedness in the required adaptability of burgeoning nation-states. This jives with interdependence psychologist David Schnarch (the subject of Pamela Weintraub's article in PT) who likens dependency in relationships to the emotional security an adult would provide an infant. The opposite in relationships isn't independence, which is easy compared to pursing our own goals and standing up for our own beliefs, personal likes and dislikes in the midst of a relationship, no, the relational opposite is interdependence.

    Interdependence allows partners who are each capable of handling their own emotional lives to focus on meeting their own and each other's ever-evolving goals and agendas in response to shifting circumstances. Dependent partners by contrast spend their lives compensating for each other's limitations and needs.

    Therapeutically Schnarch recommends a dynamic process he calls differentiation; living within proximity to an emotional partner while not caving to pressure from them in order to maintain a sense of self. This could again be applied between not only spouses but lovers and friends and neighbors as well. Acknowledging and overcoming differences in who we are rather than making excuses for them or worse, trying to change ourselves or our partner. A process which requires discomfort and confronting conflict. A dynamic process remember; Active. Not passive. Basically, continual, aggressive reevaluation without provocation. Interesting how that keeps coming up.


    There are twelve nidanas or "preconditions" for causal relations in Buddhist philosophy, of which two are agreed upon to be the most important for enlightenment/self-realization/interdependence:


    • Ignorance

      • The lack of wisdom not limited to not having learned some fact that they need to know, but rather rather that their habitual ways of perceiving the world are fundamentally flawed thus they are "blinded" by greed, desire, lust, etcetera.


    • Craving

      • A desire not to be separated from pleasurable sensations and to be free from painful sensations becoming reinforced into habitual patterns of attachment and aversion.


    Believe it or not, I'm not making this up - though I admit it sounds like some shit I would say - this is actual Buddha philosophy. And it fits into our Western psychology quite seamlessly. Point is, for those of us who may eschew one over the other, it becomes increasingly difficult to pretend both sources are in error.

    An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion. It would be self-contradictory to affirm the premises and deny the conclusion.

    And my point is this gives rise to self-validation (see optimist, above). Schnarch suggests rather than asking someone else for their stamp of approval, in which case rejection affects our self-worth, even if our partner were to aggressively reject or withhold that approval, by having respected our own thoughts and feelings we've maintained our sense of self-worth. He goes on to say that by having said what we think without fear of rejection, we are ironically loved and respected even more by our partner for speaking our true mind and are therefore now free to choose to be with our partner out of mutual respect instead of feelings of dependency - dependency being the state in which one person uses another person for a specific purpose. I wish to neither "use" someone nor in turn be "used" by them. Its not sustainable.

    True, sustainable security can only come through self-reliance. I personally have been seeking communication without repercussion for a very long time. It would appear the search is now over, for apparently I alone am responsible to be the very thing I desire.

    Be the change you want to see in the world. ~Ghandi

    Schnarch has his own version of the Four Noble Truths he calls "Points of Balance" which emphasize resilience. As a gentle reminder, these are in direct opposition with cognitive distortion's inflexible all-or-nothing-no-change-under-any-circumstance viewpoint. These require adaption and quick redirection without losing track of one's overall goals, agendas, or sense of self.

    1. Operating according to deeply held personal values and goals even when pressured to abandon them.

    2. Handling one's own inner emotional life and dealing with anxiety and emotional bruises without needing to turn to a partner for help.

    3. Not overreacting - but still facing - difficult people and situations.

    4. Forbearance and perseverance in the face of failure and disappointment to accomplish one's goals.


    We alone are responsible for our happiness - easily enough said, more difficult to comprehend. But these are the repeatable metrics, recipes if we must for excelling at life, no matter what it throws at us. Not life as we expect it should be, but life as it actually is. These are the tools to use to manufacture our own hopes, our own dreams, and to realize our own desires. We can use others to bolster us, help propel us toward those goals - but only ever mutually, never at our own expense. Dependency and attachment weakens us. The more we become their master, the more we take charge of our destiny. Do not settle for anything less.

    Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.*

    ehowton: (Default)

    I used to be so enamored with personal responsibly that I would often accept responsibility for things which were not mine to own up to. Of course understanding the true nature of personal responsibility means also knowing what not to claim.

    It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities. ~Josiah Charles Stamp

    Personal responsibility is a big subject, with many far-reaching ramifications and it alone holds the key to real (not perceived) happiness, self-confidence, and all the rewards which self-actualization affords. True happiness is knowing ahead of time you will have all the courage you'll need in the face of adversity, and unflinching confidence in your decisions - its the absence of fear. Not the healthy fear which keeps us alive, rather the pervasive fear which destroys lives. Because happiness itself requires unconditional acceptance of personal responsibility, and personal responsibility requires courage.

    A Native American grandfather was talking to his grandson. He said, “I feel as if I have two wolves fighting in my heart. One wolf is the vengeful, angry, discontented one. The other wolf is the loving, compassionate, happy and contented one.” The grandson asked him, “Which wolf will win the fight in your heart?” The grandfather answered: “The one I feed.” *

    The choice to which to feed of course is just that, a choice. Many do not believe that to be the case; that it is simply a platitude without any realistic practical application. They would be wrong - and I am very aware of my use of the word, "wrong." It was less than a month ago that I said I wanted to teach my children there is no right or wrong just motivation and intent and behavior. It was I who was mistaken. There is wrong in the world. Cognitive distortion proved that to me. I was re-reading the definitions of the traits of those who suffer at its cruel hands and was struck at the despair these people who think this way think is normal, right and good: limited, expectation, discounting positive, negative, inflexible, inability, rigid rules, absolute, and blame. Its not enough to teach my children that happiness is a choice - I need to teach them discernment - the ability to recognize this damaging disorder and to run from it! People who suffer from cognitive distortion do not live their life as if happiness were a choice - they are often disappointed. They suffer at their own hands.

    If you want to live a happy life, tie it to a goal, not to people or things. ~Albert Einstein

    The problem I have in explaining personal responsibility, is that it can only be truly learned through experience - one cannot understand the sheer scope of its empowering ability without first shedding attachment of self, attachment of other, and stepping through the empirical tests. Fear must not only be faced to be conquered as the poets would have you believe, but also dealt with accordingly, and reconciled for optimum effectiveness.

    The enemy of my enemy may very well be my enemy also. ~ehowton

    For this exercise, I suggest using my oft-discussed proven-results checklist of character-building which is a marvelous example which can be applied to a broad range of personality flaws and shortcomings. More specifically, "No, its not magic. And sure its difficult - anything worth doing is. But only its unfamiliarity makes it so. Start small. Try it with little things. Try it on for size. See how it feels. Don't go too far outside your comfort zone, but go far enough. What do I mean? Its like this: What you're doing now is obviously not working, so you really have nothing to lose, despite the initial discomfort of uncertainty. Once you've had a few small successes - and failures, don't forget the importance of failure - you can branch out even further. Utilize your newfound power on even larger issues to tackle." Before you know it, by having confronted your fear in challenging the small things, you can now effortlessly - and this time without fear - face the larger issues. No one is going to do this for you. Ever.

    Be the change you want to see in the world. ~ Ghandi

    In researching personal responsibility I ran across Dr. Laura's blog where she had a hashtag for it. Not knowing anything about Dr. Larua but knowing quite a bit about personal responsibility I was horrified to discover that she was confusing personal responsibility with her own morals and values - what she herself thought was right and wrong action based on her beliefs alone. Responsibility assumption is an entirely secular doctrine insofar as it is universally applicable. Sure its been adopted into many different religions because of the truth of its nature - but to say that any one of those is the right way suggests that a different way is wrong, and we're suddenly back to cognitive distortion, the bane of critical thinking, personal responsibility's kissing cousin.

    Some pursue happiness - others create it.

    "You can’t accept responsibility for a situation and be angry at the same time. You can’t accept responsibility and be unhappy or upset. The acceptance of responsibility negates negative emotions and short-circuits any tendencies toward unhappiness. The very act of accepting responsibility calms your mind and clarifies your vision. It soothes your emotions and enables you to think more positively and constructively. In fact, the acceptance of responsibility often gives you insight into what you should do to resolve the situation."*

    Attack the evil that is within yourself, rather than attacking the evil that is in others. ~Confucius

    I think - and please disagree - I'm having difficulty finding anyone to bounce these ideas off of, I think the opposite of personal responsibility is victimization. If you cannot, will not, or refuse to take responsibility for your own happiness and well-being, or easily get your feelings hurt, you are blaming others. You are finding fault in others. Portraying a victim is the short-game, it is absolutely not sustainable. Something somewhere will most assuredly break - even if its a lifetime later - and when it does, the inevitable inescapable judgement day. How we handle this eventuality is also a choice.

    Choose wisely.
    ehowton: (Default)


    HOW TO KILL A GOD

    Deny him his nature.


    `An open mind is a mind of curiosity, wonder, learning, infinite possibilities and a beautiful desire for understanding.`

    The Critical Thinking Community defines critical thinking as the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.

    The Critical Thinking Company defines it as the identification and evaluation of evidence to guide decision making. A critical thinker uses broad in-depth analysis of evidence to make decisions and communicate his/her beliefs clearly and accurately.

    CRITICALTHINKING.NET defines critical thinking as reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do.

    Belief.

    In all three instances belief plays a role in critical thinking. Belief is a principle, a proposition or premise which is accepted as true. As belief is but the simplest form of mental representation - the lowest common denominator - it can be expanded through critical thinking. When someone learns a particular fact, they acquire a new belief.

    Understand and acknowledge that facts can support beliefs, as well as disprove or nullify inaccurate or incorrect beliefs.

    Therein lies two immediate issues with that:

    • People who "believe" only the former to be true, but not the latter.

    • People who don't "believe" facts.


    Belief without substantiating evidence is fine; belief without personal understanding of that belief is not. WHY is it believed to be true? Critical thinking can help.

    Analyzing, conceptualizing, defining, examining, inferring, listening, questioning, reasoning & synthesizing. Apply all of these to anything anyone says or any belief held and start taking personal responsibility through intellecutal independence which allows us to solve our own problems ourselves.

    Critical thinking can be applied to everything, across the board by very easily asking or analyzing; Ask to clarify indistinct or ambiguous statements, ask for verification of statements, ask for specifics, rather than use of subjective language, consider the relationship of the statement to the issue, consider the superficiality of statements which do not address the complexity of the issue - to be truly fair and unbiased other points of view and different perspectives must be considered - and the combination of thoughts should be mutually supportive and make sense both individually and once assembled.*

    But above all, be open-minded - how could one possibly think critically if the results were chosen to be ignored rather than applied? Critical thinkers are acutely aware of their own ignorance and biases and motivations and default societal rules and question it anyway, just in case they're wrong.

    Its difficult at best to seriously consider ideas which may run contrary to decades of conditioning. `Humans can be very logical but more often than not are swayed from its use by many traps. Our long evolutionary history of reliance on the "herd" has compromised rational thought in favour of going along with consensus of opinion. To not do so places us outside the herd and thus into an unfavourable survival position.`* No taboo is presently known to be universal - can the mind be expanded to accept what is considered unnatural things?

    Be passionate about critical thinking! I find each irrationality a challenge to unravel! For within lies truth and truth can soothe even the most hardened of disbelief in the closet critical thinker.

    `Stop worrying about what job will bring you passion. What hobby. Or even what person. Be passionate and its spirit will call itself out, attracting life to a you that is ready, willing, and able to dance that kind of dance.`* Without a passion for effective communication and commitment to glorious mutual understanding, what else is left but confusion, and where confusion leads? Acting on a perception of what might have been said instead of asking for clarification skirts dangerously close to the opposite of critical thinking, which as I've come to understand it, is cognitive distortion.

    And cognitive distortion is chock full of some of my most oft decried pet peeves:*

    • OVERGENEALIZATION – Extrapolating limited experiences and evidence to broad generalizations

    • WISHFUL THINKING - Expectation of certain outcomes based on performance of unrelated acts or utterances

    • DISQUALIFICATION OF POSITIVE - Discounting positive experiences for arbitrary, ad hoc reasons.

    • JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS - Reaching (usually negative) conclusions from little (if any) evidence.

      • MIND READING - Sense of access to special knowledge of the intentions or thoughts of others.

      • FORTUNE TELLING – Inflexible expectations for how things will turn out before they happen.


    • CATASTROPHIZING -Inability to foresee anything other than the worst possible outcome, however unlikely, or experiencing a situation as unbearable or impossible when it is just uncomfortable.

    • EMOTIONAL REASONING – Experiencing reality as a reflection of emotions, e.g. "I feel it, therefore it must be true."

    • SHOULD STATEMENTS – Patterns of thought which imply the way things "should" or "ought" to be rather than the actual situation the person is faced with, or having rigid rules which the person believes will "always apply" no matter what the circumstances are.

    • PERSONALIZATION - Attribution of personal responsibility (or causal role or blame) for events over which a person has no control.


    And my personal favorite:

    • FALSE DICHOTOMY - All-or-nothing thinking; conception in absolute terms, like "always", "every", "never", and "there is no alternative"


    More to the point, false dichotomy is generalized by BLACK AND WHITE THINKING:



    What's wrong with the simplicity of black and white? To start with `using dichotomous language boosts dichotomous thinking, and the latter is a type of cognitive distortion that can negatively influence the way you feel about yourself. If you’re dealing with anxiety, casual usage of extremely polar words can lead you to magnify thoughts and events through a distorted lens that can ultimately make you more anxious.`*

    Simply put, thinking critically can save us from the ill effects of polar words which can lead to polar moods. And this is something which can be accomplished from home! I imagine that critical thinking could very well be the cognitive behavioral therapy to less-severe cases of dysfunctional emotional-behavioral issues.

    `If we think in false dichotomies we will tend to draw false conclusions. Black and white thinking often reflects an underlying reluctance or refusal to deal with the uncertainly that results from complexity in an absence of definite answers. But leaping to flawed conclusions because you can't tolerate the ambiguity of not knowing is not about truth or curiosity, but comfort.`*

    Ah comfort. That warm blanket which is so effortless to draw up around us to shroud ourselves in the lazy pastime of assuming if we ignore the problem, it will surely go away. Or to even keep the pain we've so long identified with its now a part of our identity, intact.

    Herein lies the crux, the everything about everything.

    Most people don't care to think critically.

    I was shocked by an epiphany I had concerning something I feel strongly about, that being not ever denying anyone their opinion. But if I am going to live by my own rules, I must certainly incorporate new information as it becomes available if I expect others to afford me the same courtesy. So here it goes:

    If I arrive at my opinion through critical thinking and someone else arrives at their opinion though cognitive distortion, does that make their opinion wrong?

    I am a critical thinker.

    Its what I do.

    Its what defines me.

    Part time lover. Part time dreamer. Full time me.

    `The process of being open-minded is tied to not judging, being flexible, learning, letting go of attachment. Those who can change their minds can change everything.`*



    July 2025

    S M T W T F S
       1234 5
    6 7 8 9101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  

    Most Popular Tags

    Expand Cut Tags

    No cut tags