“I am responsible for all the mess in my life.” As much as we know this is fallacious and misleading nine out of ten times, we do find ourselves giving into this pattern of beliefs. This article, 10 Cognitive Distortions: Fallacies befalling our cognition, propounds the common categories of irrational beliefs that we tend to hold. Read further to realize where we often go wrong, for if ignorance is bliss, awareness is real bliss!
In 1976, psychologist Aaron Beck first proposed the theory behind cognitive distortions and in the 1980s, David Burns was responsible for popularizing it with common names and examples for the distortions.
10 Cognitive Distortions: Fallacies befalling our cognition
Filtering:
A person engaging in the filter (or “mental filtering) takes the negative details and magnifies those details while filtering out all positive aspects of a situation. For instance, a person may pick out a single, unpleasant detail and dwell on it exclusively so that their vision of reality becomes darkened or distorted. One may accomplish four tasks out of five with absolute precision, but what will keep bothering them is that one teeny-tiny task they goofed up and continue ruing over the same for long hours, not appreciating the good in life. This can be fixed by seeking validation from people close to us about the tasks we have carried out up to the mark.
Polarized Thinking (or “Black and White” Thinking):
In polarized thinking, things are either “black-or-white” — all or nothing. We have to be perfect or we’re a complete and abject failure — there is no middle ground. We may have come across at least one person who frames sentences using always/never a little too much, this is a clear indication of the presence of such a cognitive distortion. A person with black-and-white thinking sees things only in extremes, either pointing to a delusion of grandeur or deprecating tendencies toward self or others. Such individuals are generally found to be high on neuroticism on the Big-Five Model of Personality.
Overgeneralization:
In this cognitive distortion, a person tends to overly generalize the outcomes of most of the events based on a single incident in the past or a piece of evidence. If something bad happens just once, they expect it to happen over and over again. A person may see a single, unpleasant event as part of a never-ending pattern of defeat.
For instance, if one relationship fails to work out, an individual with this irrational belief would be dubious of every other prospective relationship they’d want to establish.
Jumping to Conclusions:
Without individuals saying so, a person who jumps to conclusions knows what another person is feeling and thinking — and exactly why they act the way they do. In particular, a person is able to determine how others are feeling toward the person, as though they could read their mind.
When we observe a person conclude that someone is holding a grudge against them, but doesn’t actually bother to find out if they are correct. In this bid to cast a foretelling spell, they end up jeopardizing and spoiling what’s in store not just for themselves but also for others around them.
Personalization:
Personalization is a distortion where a person believes that everything others do or say is some kind of direct, personal reaction to them. Excessively orienting the responsibility for every event, both positive and negative alike, toward themselves is a form in which Personalisation manifests itself. It encompasses comparing situations/problems from others’ lives to one’s own life, actually believing that everyone else is just an extension or simulation of oneself.
A person engaging in personalization may also see themselves as the cause of some unhealthy external event that they were not responsible for. For example, “My team could not crack the deal with our clients through our pitch because I was not good enough to convince them.”
Control Fallacies:
This distortion involves two different but related beliefs about being in complete control of every situation in a person’s life. There are two possibilities with respect to the locus of control, external or internal.
In the first, if we feel externally controlled, we see ourselves as helpless victims of fate. For example, “I’m not to be blamed for not being able to show up on time, the train was moving at an annoyingly slow pace.
The fallacy of internal control has us assuming responsibility for the pain and happiness of everyone around us. For example, “Why aren’t you happy? Is it because of something I did?”
For example, “Stop making me feel bad about myself!” Nobody can “make” us feel any particular way — only we have control over our own emotions and emotional reactions. Similarly, REBT, short for Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy states that events are neutral, it is the person viewing it a certain way that makes us term the event positive or negative.
Should Statements:
Should statements appear as a list of ironclad rules about how every person should behave? People who break the rules make a person following these should statements angry or simply uncomfortable. They also feel guilty when they violate their own rules. Some people contend that these rules ingrained in their conscience as should statement encourage them to conform to the norms of morality and that they prohibit them from tweaking around the fabric of ethicality.
For example, “I really should exercise. I shouldn’t be so lazy.” Musts and oughts are also offenders. It’s a great way to keep oneself motivated and lead a good life but when the rigidity borne by these shoulds start leaking into the relationships shared with others, it often results in discomfort and conflict, thereby rendering the emotional consequence is guilt.
The fallacy of Change:
In the fallacy of change, a person expects that other people will change to suit them if they just pressure or cajole them enough. This can be perceived as an extension to ‘Should Statements’ when viewed in relation to romantic relationships. For example, when a partner tries to get the significant other to improve their appearance or mannerisms, in the belief that they will appear more or less perfect only when a few changes are followed through as suggested by the partner. This aggravates even more when the change is not backed by a logical explanation.
Always Being Right:
When a person engages in this distortion, they are continually putting other people on trial to prove that their own opinions and actions are the absolute correct ones. To a person engaging in “always being right,” being wrong is unthinkable — they will go to any length to demonstrate their rightness. These individuals have an excessive, almost compulsive need to prove to others that they are, as a matter of fact, correct. It starts deviating from normal when it no longer remains only proving oneself right and goes a step further to prove others wrong so as to assert their supremacy.
Heaven’s Reward Fallacy:
The final cognitive distortion is a false belief that a person’s sacrifice and self-denial will eventually pay off as if some global force is keeping score. This is very congruous with self-pity, as it suggestively states. Sacrifice and compromise form yet another pair of words that are often used interchangeably, sacrificing would not pave the way to a better tomorrow. What truly contributes to building a genuinely good life is the kind of effort one consciously puts into taking things to the pinnacle. There can probably be no good coming out of simply having oneself knocked over and battered by others.
I’d like to thank each and every reader for sticking around till the end of this article. I sincerely hope that you could relate to at least a few of these irrational beliefs, aka cognitive distortions. One must realize that these distortions are not irreversible, they can be unentangled with focussing intently on the particular problem areas in which these beliefs have an impact to make.
Artwork by- Parveen Sultana
Please visit our website to read more related blogs!
References:
