Emotional Reasoning
Having posted about Cognitive Distortions, I wanted to follow up on a thread dedicated to one insidious cognitive distortion according to CBT.
The name for it is "Emotional reasoning".
Wikipedia describes it as follows:
Quoting Wikipedia
I'm wondering if anyone else falls into this trap of reasoning emotionally? In trying to pinpoint a singular cause for our distress, I attempt to highlight this cognitive distortion as one which stands out from all the others in contributing to distress, depression, and a whole host of other negative affective moods. It seems to be the target for propaganda, advertising, and afflictions like depression.
Has anyone else recognized this as a fundamental cognitive distortion and how does one combat it or not fall into its lure?
The name for it is "Emotional reasoning".
Wikipedia describes it as follows:
Quoting Wikipedia
Emotional reasoning is a cognitive process by which a person concludes that his/her emotional reaction proves something is true, regardless of the observed evidence. For example, even though a spouse has shown only devotion, a person using emotional reasoning might conclude, "I know my spouse is being unfaithful because I feel jealous."
Emotional reasoning amplifies the effects of other cognitive distortions. For example, a test-taker may feel insecure about their understanding of the material even though they are perfectly capable of answering the questions. If he (or she) acts on his insecurity about failing the written test he might assume that he misunderstands the material and therefore might guess answers randomly, causing his own failure in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm wondering if anyone else falls into this trap of reasoning emotionally? In trying to pinpoint a singular cause for our distress, I attempt to highlight this cognitive distortion as one which stands out from all the others in contributing to distress, depression, and a whole host of other negative affective moods. It seems to be the target for propaganda, advertising, and afflictions like depression.
Has anyone else recognized this as a fundamental cognitive distortion and how does one combat it or not fall into its lure?
Comments (46)
I hope this is allowed.
Thanks.
I have, for instance, had feelings of free-floating anger and resentment which has led me to blame complete strangers for deliberately annoying me. "It's their behavior that is making me angry." Of course, sometimes other people's behavior is enough to piss off the Virgin Mary. So one has to try and sort out whether other people are guilty by reason of my craziness, or whether they are guilty of objectively obnoxious behavior that is anybody's day spoiler.
Voila! CB Victory!
I agree that there is a line where you must reject emotional appeals. But you cannot reject absolutely all emotions because philosophy is based on them as well.
Moodie De Cartes
Haha, but, that's wrong? How do you get out of it then?
What, exactly, is our distress, and why would you be trying to pinpoint a singular cause for it?
Just distress in terms of emotional health. When emotions fail us, then things go sour? I think that I'm unhappy, therefore I am?
If thinking can make it so then just think that you're happy.
But, that's not how depression or anxiety works. First comes the thought that you feel like crap, and then come to the endless rationalizations as to why.
Ah. I don't have depression and only rarely have anxiety. So I don't have much experience with how they work.
They are fickle beasts. They nag on emotions to get their work done, or lack thereof.
If it is the case that the spouse is not being unfaithful, then the problem is that the other has drawn conclusions based upon the behaviour(s) of the one who is mistakenly thought/believed to be unfaithful.
The same behaviours can arise from different causes. It does not follow from the fact that one does not want to have sexual intercourse with another that the only reason for that is infidelity... although that could be the case.
Yes, but how do you delineate between the two?
Well, on my view that's not always easy because there is always an emotional element somewhere within thought/belief. Emotion is not always part of the immediate correlation. It is often 'buried' somewhere within one of the things being correlated to one another.
I just offered a simple account which 'separated' the two...
So, can one have a thought without emotion? I feel a certain way; but, this does not correlate with my thought. Therefore what?
No.
But the proposition such as 1+1=2 is an emotionally devoid proposition. No?
Quoting Posty McPostface
The problem of emotional reasoning seems to surface in a situation that one ought to look at the facts, ought to reason and not let your feelings be the judge. Let's say that one is making a financial investment and one feels the financial advisor promoting the investment feels nice and honest, yet one doesn't focus on what actually he or she is selling to you. When people have to make a choice and cannot get to the decision by reasoning, then they'll go by emotional reasoning. The famous "gut-feeling" as it's called.
Perhaps when people are depressed and in huge emotional distress, they cannot reason logically their decisions, but go with emotional reasoning as their emotions play such a huge role already. (I'm not a psychologist and I don't know if this is any use to you Posty, but my 2 cents.)
No.
As before, the emotional content is not always a part of 'expressed' correlation except that there is - at the very least - fear and/or contentment 'buried' somewhere in all the thought that led up to asserting and/or expressing that proposition. The expression is built upon and/or grounded by some previous thought. Somewhere along the 'line', fear and/or contentment is part of the correlation itself. It is one of the things being connected, as compared/contrasted with being just a smaller part of one of the things being connected.
Hence...
One who is entertaining thoughts that his/her spouse is unfaithful, could be drawing correlations between the fear, all of it's affects, and the idea that the spouse is being unfaithful(whatever that idea includes).
Not necessary to have psychologists explain the idea. I think you did a good job at explicating the overt and rational mind contrasted with the implicit and ambiguous emotive aspect of reasoning. Which I wonder about, is the reciprocal relationship between the emotive aspect of reasoning with the rational and logical elements to reasoning? How do they influence one another?
But, there really isn't anything emotional about expressing the proposition that 1+1 is 2. Is there?
Are you uncertain, certain, or neither?
Which of these is not emotional?
My confidence statement (of how certain I am about ascertaining the truth of the proposition) exists independently of the truth of the proposition that 1+1 is 2. Can there be any other way of understanding such a statement?
How so?
Okay. Then, I shall ask the very basic question as to whether thoughts can exist independently of emotions. Your answer to this question was a "no". Now, I ask why?
Please tell me again, for I am dumb and slow.
Thank you.
And, as well as philosophy, ... everything else. Emotion is an intrinsic part of any human personality. We cannot function without emotions. I despair when I see, time and time again, people proposing that we leave our emotional heritage behind us, and move toward logic and reason. It is not possible for humans to achieve this, whether you think we should or not, because our emotions are linked to every part of us. That we should try to understand ourselves better, particularly the effect that our emotions have on our thinking, is a good idea, IMO. But to try to deny what actually is (i.e. that humans are unavoidably emotion-based) is surprising and unhelpful, I think. :chin:
Zen practice is about breaking this unthinking submission to what comes out of the subconscious. It's about realising the 'self', which your subconscious always feels is under attack, doesn't really exist. Once you stop feeding the subconscious with negativity - based on your conscious experience of your 'self's' actions in the world, it stops feeding back the fear-based emotional reactions to new events, or at least scales them down. We are emotion-based, but we can influence whether those emotions come to us as advice or commands. This practice isn't easy, which I suppose is why so few do it or are capable of doing it.
Do they? Specifically, what I'm wondering is if our emotions are associated only with our subconscious minds? You state this as though it's a fact, but I don't think this is a fact that we know, but maybe wishful thinking? Maybe I'm wrong, do you know this to be so?
Quoting Tim3003
I don't think we can do that either. This is what I'm getting at. People like you suggest that we should somehow become more logical, and less emotion-based, but it isn't possible for us humans to achieve this. Yes, by following the Zen path, there are changes we can achieve, and maybe we should. But 'taking charge' of our emotions, as you suggest, is this really possible, or do you just wish it was?
I'm completely open to learning something new here. Do you really have something new to offer, though? :chin:
No. The shortcoming of cognitive science as a vade mecum to human mental health is that it includes AI as part of its paradigm, as well as a extraneous focus on neuroscience. Not that cognitive science, like cybernetics, isn't useful for understanding up to an extent, it's just that the human mind works quite differently than these disciplines allow for. Unfortunately, it seems like the truth of the mind pendent to metaphysical pathos(as described by various other schools of thought going back in time a very long way), limned by allegory, mythopoesis, religion, literature in general (especially fiction), spirituality and mysticism, etc., is dimming next to the dominance of cognitive science.
Quoting WallowsThe cause of unhappiness is the belief you should always be happy, clinging to or chasing after happiness. Further, projecting into the ego ideal (a target state of mind would be part ego ideal, e.g., something you'd like to be except aren't) is associated with most unhealthy and volatile manic states; identification with the ego ideal is like trying to trick yourself or hide from the true Self; we are taught from our parents and society's conditioning to do this in a variety of ways, so deconditioning from these insalubrious dynamics of extrinsic locus of control and motivation is requisite to establish peace and balance. E.g., feelings of humiliation and shame will hold one back from his highest potential and peace of mind. Where did one learn to feel ashamed?
Maybe simpletons can always be happy (some people are very unaware and unaware that they're very unaware), though I sincerely doubt anyone with enough intra-inter-personal awareness is always happy. Your moods are just what they are and attachment to happiness can lead to suffering just as much as attachment to unhappiness. Defining the word "negative" here would be necessary. Negative to whom? You? Me? Or any one of countless souls that are all different?
Identification with mental states of any kind can lead to violence. Western culture has insinuated a strong influence in making the average person believe they should have a strong personality and know what they stand for. Buddhism teaches anicca, dukkha, anatta: impermanent, unbearable, not self. These concepts are applicable to any and all mental states, not only ones that are disliked, but ones that are desired as well.
Understanding the spectrum of neurosis>>>>>>>>>>>psychosis is what helps to get a grasp on mental health. Too much repression of unwanted feelings/thoughts leads to an attack of those repressions at some later time in altered form (repression derivatives). Psychoanalysis is a far more correct description of the human mind than CBT or cognitive science, imo. When mental states change, there is a displacement into some other component of the mind. Emotional intelligence is also central to cultivation of balance and homeostasis of mind. Allowing some measure of peaceful insanity/psychosis goes a looong way toward quelling the intrusions of neurotic repression derivatives. Perhaps emotions seem like nothing but insanity to some...which would be very false. Violence, impulsiveness, and compulsion are the true harmful/negative emotions, and they tend to result from neurotic, controlling, repression....falsely believing you should always be happy and positive, e.g.
In my system, anger and acting out are considered non emotions, the sum total displacement of all the other repressed emotions. Yes, most consider anger an emotion, but it is the prime example of instinct returning to you all of your repressed emotions in an altered form you can't control. Thus, anger and acting out is the result of a lot of repression and displacement of normal emotion/moods.
Anger and impulse control disorder are much worse for the individual and the human system than depression or moods. Not in terms of usefulness or functioning, but in terms of cultivation of peace and overall eudaemonia.
If you suddenly see a car crash close by you feel an emotion (or two) - maybe shock, fear, concern - whatever. You don't consciously decide to have those emotions, they arise from the reaction your subconscious has to the sensory information it receives through your eyes and ears. If this is not so, where else (and how) can such an externally driven emotion come from?
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Have you seen Star Wars? There is much in common between the Jedi training and Zen based mindfullness! From my own experience of mindfullness meditation I can testify that it does work (I still can't levitate objects though!). I suggest reading Charlotte Joko Beck, an excellent Zen teacher and writer, if you want to find out more.
So, you have your own theory as to how the mind works?
The short version answer to your question: the combination of psychoanalysis and eastern philosophy (Buddhism, especially) has made a lot of sense to me. In truth, Buddhism not watered down by western influence may be too strict for our times. Slowing down enough to meditate, contemplate, and still the "monkey mind" may be beyond the boundaries of smartphone culture; not to mention that so much about our culture is geared toward polishing a sense of identity and seeking rewards (both which are known defilements to an advanced Buddhist; yes, initially desire to improve your mind leads to trying out Buddhism, but then you detach from this desire effortlessly through practice). Still, despite the restless western culture, many of its tenets have appealed to me and helped to detach from defilement and violent states of mind (aggressiveness, achievement orientation, and craving are an unfortunate prodigious part of the market society).
Once peace is established and nothing is done by impulsiveness or compulsiveness, making spiritual practice of using various creative mediums to further investigate the subconscious is an additional element in dispelling worldly dharmas like obsession with gain and loss, honor and dishonor, praise and blame, reward and punishment, like and dislike......life and death. False spliiting or separating of reality into dichotomies obscures the monist orientation, which I think, is where Buddhism comes in to show a path back into pure potentiality or "the one" without need to take any action whatever when face to face with inner "demons."
Another of my personal perspectives: neurosis has increased to an all time high. Whatever can be done to mitigate this should be done. This is why creativity is so important, inasmuch as it gives some power back to our instinct (or oneness, what have you). It's known to psychoanalysis ego is made of instinct, which tells you instinct is impossible to escape. This is why repressions boomerang, too much blocking of instinct, which it doesn't like. Once it's had enough, it'll send a conniption fit your way. As I see it, instinct is like psychosis; creativity is like psychosis. But neurosis can be as bad or worse than psychosis, since as we've just seen, neurosis leads to loss of peace worse than peaceful application of divergent states of mind. Someone who has no peace of mind would get no benefit from allowing instinct its way, it could be dangerous. So it varies whether neurosis or psychosis is worse for any given individual. Obviously one without peace could be brought to a bad place if he followed his divergent mental states (is this bipolar?). But one who has peace and sits back and watches his mind like a movie, with no fear can use divergent states of mind for mental health. The key point here, that I'm not misunderstood, is to remember the mechanism of neurotic repression pissing off your soul or instinct, the whole ball of wax, which then precipitates repressive derivatives back at you in impulsive acts, and acting out and hurting others.
I see. So, why are so many people twisted and grow up twisted? What's going wrong in the developmental process? Do you assert that Buddhist tenents ought to be instilled from a young age? If so, then wouldn't the market economy collapse if we were all Buddhists?
There's a lot that goes wrong with the development process. Yes, Buddhism and mediation should be taught in kindergarten. There's a reason why Tibetan culture was/is one of the most peaceful and successful of all time.
The economy will collapse it's certain, so wouldn't we figure out why and try to introduce stability? I'm a proponent of slow, planned degrowth, actually. The current boom-bust cycle is a little nuts (e.g., what would the analog of a boom-bust cycle of capitalism be on the microcosm scale of an individual, psychally and behaviorally? a wise, reasoning individual would never intentionally cultivate a boom bust cycle in his life). Greedy businessmen call it a recession...which sounds a little better...too bad the whole enterprise is built on shifting sand and fundamentally unstable. An individual can never have a balanced psyche if market values are all he believes in. This is why I think Buddhism is so hard to practice successfully in the market society...there's so much aggression, achievement-orientation, reward seeking, and general behaviorism that keeps peace at bay. The individual can adjust and correct his mistakes in a way the runaway market forces can never do; the individual seeks sustainability in his personal sphere, the market society has meagre consideration for the long term. Again, the person with love of money and has economic and political fundamentalism for his every example, is almost always a violent, impulsive, compulsive personage (to a degree) for the above reasons. Nobody is all bad, though, so there are good examples, but I don't believe they're from fundamentalism or sectarian systems. Most would agree there are too many dark triad types in high places.
Would you be willing to abandon all the luxuries that the economy has to offer just for having a stable peace of mind? I mean, if I were to choose between a brut and Spartan lifestyle of taking a bath once a year on in a cold creek or pond along with being at risk of starvation and simple illnesses such as the flu or an infection that could endanger my life, then would you choose peace of mind over those luxuries?
I'll say this, before allowing excessive ailments or death by a dangerous stress response, IBS, migraines, cancer, and all that goes with the common overachiever orientation and diseases of affluence/modernity, I would likely take a natural course of action (go to the forest) if it was appropriate to maintain what I felt was an adequately well-communicated mind. Would I go empty handed or without health provisions before dropping out, no.
Good question. If one lives in a developed country, it's probable he's never even experienced hunger unless he's chosen to by fasting. Sort of counterintuitive if you think about it, to have to choose to go hungry. Really starvation can only be triggered by the action or inaction we take...it's another one of those immovable natural laws. When asked whether the glass is half full or empty, a Buddhist would reply that it's broken.
Buddhists say to eat, sleep, and talk little.
Please expand.
When reality is split and one side favored over the other, the repressed side becomes violent and instinct can deflect it back on the ego in a tumultuous, mercurial fashion. In the case of the glass, you might experience the wrath of emptiness if you choose to believe it is only half full. Then it's wise not to put too much weight into any one-sided, black and white view of reality, if every pole has the seed of its opposite pole; since they create each other, digging too far in one direction might trigger a polar shift, maybe even a literal bipolar disorder in internal world.