My question is: who is deciding what is the correct reality to perceive?
For example, this from their questionnaire:
>Kim’s friends told her that she could not come to the concert with them because
they were unable to get enough tickets for everyone. Kim knows they probably
didn’t exclude her on purpose, but she feels rejected. Therefore, part of her
believes she was rejected
What in such a scenario gives the impetus to the charitable interpretation (that they simply could not get tickets)? which they seem to indicate would be what a 'well-adjusted' person free of cognitive distortion would assume.
Secondly, while intentionality can be important, why is there so much weight seemingly being placed on it these days (or is that just my perception?) People can intend one thing and harmful outcomes still result. One could drive drunk without any intention of anything bad happening and still get into an accident. One could fire a gun randomly into the air with no intention of harming anyone and the bullets still come down and hit someone.
The main intent, it seems to me, at least by some, is to obscure the notion that humans and systems may act in ways contrary to their expressed intent. Much atrocity and discrimination has been predicated on actions justified by philanthropic intent, ie 'elevating the savages'.
And I wonder if a person free of cognitive distortions would even be referred to as human, as the quote goes:
"Reason Is and Ought Only to Be the Slave of the Passions." --David Hume
> What in such a scenario gives the impetus to the charitable interpretation (that they simply could not get tickets)?
The cognitive distortion is taking uncertainty and replacing it with the worst possible interpretation.
Or, inserting artificial uncertainty into a direction and using that opening to pretend that an alternate explanation is true.
> People can intend one thing and harmful outcomes still result. One could drive drunk without any intention of anything bad happening and still get into an accident. One could fire a gun randomly into the air with no intention of harming anyone and the bullets still come down and hit someone.
Your examples aren't really relevant, though, because they have concrete and definitive harms.
The article is about imagined harms that only arise from different subjective interpretations of something. There is no subjective interpretation of getting hit by a bullet or killed by a drunk driver in which the person isn't harmed. Claiming good intent doesn't bring someone back from the dead.
You're making the mistake of equating speech with violence, which is explicitly discussed in the paper.
> One could fire a gun randomly into the air with no intention of harming anyone and the bullets still come down and hit someone.
The difference is that getting hit by a bullet harms you regardless of what you believe about it. Your friends not getting a ticket to a concert for you can only harm you if you believe it harms you. If you choose to ignore their intentions and feel harmed by it, then you're harmed. If you choose to give your friends the benefit of the doubt and believe that they didn't intend to harm you, then you aren't harmed.
This is why the safetyism that equates emotional harms to physical harms is fundamentally flawed. You have a level of control over what happens in your own head that you don't have in the physical world.
>What in such a scenario gives the impetus to the charitable interpretation (that they simply could not get tickets)?
Did you read it? It says: "Kim knows they probably didn't exclude her on purpose" — that is the impetus, and more importantly, it is exactly the kind of thing that should be tested for here. The wrong answer is asking Kim to mistrust her own knowledge; not trusting your own knowledge is obviously a cognitive distortion. The other advantage of expressing it this way is that you evade any situation where the reader gets distracted by overanalyzing the specifics of the justification, which are not the point.
So I find the question to be worded reasonably and to accurately check for a cognitive distortion.
>Secondly, while intentionality can be important, why is there so much weight seemingly being placed on it these days (or is that just my perception?)
There has always been a lot of emphasis placed on intentionality in morality. That's why we have Latin phrases like mens rea.
>One could drive drunk without any intention of anything bad happening and still get into an accident. One could fire a gun randomly into the air with no intention of harming anyone and the bullets still come down and hit someone.
We have specific laws for these exact situations. You might not have intended to harm anyone, but you must have intended to break the law. This has the advantage of not punishing people for unintentional actions.
Cognitive distortions are explicitly defined as a thinking pattern that occurs regardless of reality...that is why it is a distortion. Referring to a specific example makes no sense because it is a pattern of thought. Referring to reality makes no sense because the thought occurs regardless of reality.
As an example, a hypochondriac will believe they are sick when they are not. That does not mean one should not feel anxious about being sick, it means that one should not feel anxious about being sick when you have no evidence that you are sick. The reason for observing that such a person has cognitive distortions is to examine the impact of those thoughts on feelings and behaviour, not engage in a debate about the meaning of reality. Most of these distortions occur in people who are have poor mental health, it is not academic, it is a clinical treatment.
If you are curious, read more about CBT rather than jumping to conclusions wildly. You can disagree with the theory of mind used, but what you have said seems to misunderstand fundamentally what the paper is about.
Mental illness is not passion. Cognitive distortion do not mean someone is mentally ill, people can have all kinds of thoughts that are not based in reality with no impact on their life. At the same time, cognitive distortions can be ruinous for other people. Would you say someone with anorexia was just very passionate about winning their joust with Reason? No. Again, the point of "cognitive distortions" is the idea that your thoughts impact your feelings and behaviour which can lead to poor mental health if those thoughts are not accurate in some way. There are several very common cognitive distortions that occur with anxiety and depression, for example, which should indicate that they are not totally fictional.
Also, I am not really sure why this is controversial or unexpected. Some of the most common cognitive distortions are word-for-word how people explain what the OP calls "safetyism"...it shouldn't be a massive surprise. It is quite reasonable to ask whether everyone else in society needs to adjust their behaviour (to be clear, everyone can adjust their behaviour ad infinitum, it will make no difference to how these people feel...I think it is self-evident that increasing "awareness" or whatever has actually added to the anxiety because the media has taken the view that good journalism is triggering...it is unbelievably toxic, whether this stuff makes you unusually upset or not, ironically I know a psychologist who is remarkably even-handed and they stopped reading the news because they felt it made their life worse...again, is this helping anyone? It is just a race to the bottom).
I thought about this for a while, my conclusion was - in the presence of incomplete information, you can choose to believe in many interpretations. But the trick is, whatever you believe will in the long run become a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, if hypothetical Kim believes it was an accident, she might continue to treat her friends the same and so have a better chance of maintaining/improving the relationship. So its generally better to bias towards positive interpretations over negative. (inb4 "but not always", yes reality is nuanced).
> And I wonder if a person free of cognitive distortions would even be referred to as human, as the quote goes:
There's a difference between emotional intuition and emotional reasoning (the cognitive distortion in OP's example).
Emotions are extremely valuable for decision-making (e.g. this house ticks all my boxes but do i love it?) and making judgements (e.g. this situation does not feel right to me).
Emotional reasoning is when people distort reality in favor of their (often self-destructive) emotional impulses, discarding physical evidence in favor of their emotions.
>What in such a scenario gives the impetus to the charitable interpretation (that they simply could not get tickets)? which they seem to indicate would be what a 'well-adjusted' person free of cognitive distortion would assume.
Because thinking anything else requires Kim to believe her friends are liars or sociopaths. They obviously could be, and if there is a pattern they probably are, but if you assume that by default what's the backstop on the way to paranoid delusion?
>Secondly, while intentionality can be important, why is there so much weight seemingly being placed on it these days (or is that just my perception?)
Intent has always been part of the conversation, the question is which intent...the one stated or the one derived. Microaggressions are a pretty good example of this, in which acts that may have not even been perceived by the actor begin to create a layered story of malicious intent by the individual that perceived them as such.
>The main intent, it seems to me, at least by some, is to obscure the notion that humans and systems may act in ways contrary to their expressed intent. Much atrocity and discrimination has been predicated on actions justified by philanthropic intent, ie 'elevating the savages'.
And this, to me, is a good example of what happens as a result. First of all, we don't even know if it's true that intentionality is now more of a focus in conversations or not. Regardless, you've now imagined a concrete intent behind the increase you perceive and now assume it to be true. Intents being unfalsifiable, it's impossible to prove otherwise. So what happens in your mind now when you see someone explain that an outcome was unintended...are they liars? Why would they lie? What is the intent? The recursive nature of this question is the path to conpsiratorial thinking and delusion.
In your example, if Kim disbelieves the offered excuse and complains about this shabby treatment by her so-called friends, is she more or less likely to be invited along for the next concert?
What you quoted isn't from any questionnaire. It's an illustrative example given in the paper.
Edit: I am wrong. Those examples actually showed up in a questionnaire and participants were asked to rate how likely they are to engage in that kind of thinking.
Is this an extension of epigenics? The idea/study that stressors within the current generation can be passed down, instead of purely genetic combination causing differences in the next generation?
I'm not sure if I'm reading these results correctly but the correlations they seem to be reporting in Table 1 look both really significant and really really small.
Which is an odd combination, if there was a strong causal link you'd expect both a big effect and high significance. You'd have to be pretty confident in the specificity of your test to rule out that there's not some confounding variable that accounts for the 10~20% of explained variance between most of their metrics (assuming they're reporting Pearson's correlation coefficients).
It’s great that you actually looked at the paper and you inspired me to do the same. But could you please explain why you think the correlations seem “really really small”? To me they actually seem surprisingly high. Some examples: 0.25 for safetyism, -0.47 for resilience, 0.45 for loneliness. Especially the latter two are almost shockingly high given what we see elsewhere in psychology. You can’t expect one multi-faceted construct like social cognitive distortions to fully or almost fully explain some other complex and multifaceted construct like safetyism. If the correlation was super high, that would just mean that we’re likely using two different names for the same thing. Plus it’s not just a single correlation that supports the hypothesis in this paper but the whole pattern of correlations is consistent with it as far as I can tell as a non-expert. I haven’t read the paper closely, and the conclusions may very well be entirely wrong, but I wouldn’t conclude that based on the correlations.
Couldn't you just as easily say that a vulnerable population seeks extra protection?
Another question, are these authors legit? I think its difficult for a bunch of software engineers to evaluate the quality of scientific work so far outside of their field.
But what he actually means is, "Crazy people go safety-crazy".
And it's true. I know a few crazy people and they are unanimously and vehemently onboard with safetyism, as of the recent hubub. Markedly moreso than everybody else.
"the final sample consisted of 786 participants (653 female, 127 male, 6 other/unspecified) ... 39% Asian, 32%
Latino/a/x, 13% White; approximately 40% with household income $0 to $39,999, 28% with income $40,000 to $80,000, 31% with income $80,000 or higher .... an overwhelming majority of participants (94.3%, n = 739) indicated support for the use of trigger warnings in our sample."
That's one heck of an unbalanced sample. The vast majority were women, nearly 1% were "other" and nearly 90% weren't white? Yes they're aiming to study college students specifically rather than the whole US population, but, how representative can this sample really be of even the college population? It feels like anyone who thinks safetyism is bunk didn't even show up for their study at all.
Yes they go ahead and use the normal statistical techniques on the data but there are limits to how far you can fix a sample this overwhelmingly dominated by certain types of people.
Although I appreciate the results of this study, there's a big misconception in here about Cognitive Distortions:
> Cognitive distortions are errors in reasoning resulting from negative intuitive thoughts that are not evidence-based (Burns, 1980; Covin et al., 2011).
This is not true. Cognitive Distortions are (a) not errors in themselves, and (b) usually do have lots of evidence for them.
Take, for example, the Cognitive Distortion of Fortune Telling. In a CBT session, it typically applies to a thought like "I'm going to fail this test." Well, that thought might not be erroneous — you very well might fail. And there is probably plenty of evidence for it — you might have done poorly on your homework, or you might be behind on studying, or you might not know the answers to questions on a practice test.
The issue with a Cognitive Distortion is not that it is erroneous, nor that it lacks evidence. The issue is that it makes you depressed, anxious, scared, and unable to function. In CBT, if you think that you will fail a test, you naturally start to feel anxious, frightened, and lose morale, and get really sad — after all, you think you are about to fail! It's pretty scary to fail. You start thinking about what's going to happen when you fail. All these actions actually prevent you from studying dutifully for the test and doing better on it.
We need to stop thinking of people using Cognitive Distortions as being irrational. In actual practice, we all have Cognitive Distortions (like Fortune Telling) in most of our thoughts. They are little shortcuts that we use all the time to get by, because we can't think infinitely about everything, so we use shortcuts that explain the evidence as best we can. The problem is that we can sometimes get stuck in depressive loops on deeply distorted thoughts.
In other words: a distortion by itself is not bad; but if you are doing bad, you are probably in a distortion.
So it's no surprise that people who are fragile, who feel any thought or statement could trigger them into a dangerous panic attack, tend to have distortions in their thinking.
Another way to put this is that people who are depressed and anxious are likely to be emotionally fragile and need restricted safe-spaces of speech in order to avoid being triggered into an anxious loop.
The problem is that we're letting college students, and the public at large, become depressed, anxious, and lonely. Our mental health is suffering a psychic epidemic, as Carl Jung put it. Getting mad at overly restrictive safe-spaces doesn't help. We need to cure the depression, and heal each other's psyches. Calling people irrational isn't going to help. We need to listen to each other, love one another, and heal and grow our way out of this, by caring for each other as individuals and mending each other's minds. We have to do this in love.
They cite Burns (1980). Burns is still going. His recent work is on why CBT practitioners often fail and how they go wrong. One aspect of his approach is that distortions aren’t all bad. There a good things about them, and are in a way a powerful source of strength. A well-meaning practioner can paradoxically trigger resistance and cause a patient to dig in deeper. (Reactionaries with an agenda like Haidt etc is another story).
So a bunch of professors get together and decide that if students have issues with their (extremely expensive) education it’s the result of pathological cognitive distortions. They’re weaponizing CBT against people below them in the status hierarchy. Employers do this stuff too. If you’re not a good enough cog for the machine it’s a flaw in your psyche.
This take floats on the assumption that the writers want those that aren't a "good enough cog" replaced. Perhaps the writers want those that react inappropriately negatively to situations get help in order to both improve the efficiency of the system and for the individual's healing? This and other similar takes in the comments section seem to just be anxious projections. Do we really think the authors want to watch the world to burn, or is it more likely they want to help everyone in reality?
Looks like the degree of engagement in cognitive distortions such as ‘emotional reasoning’, though, were measured based on self-reports. Seems likely to me that someone with an empathy deficit would be both less likely to agree that words can harm and less capable of realistically reporting how much emotional reasoning they engage in.
Also the study that correlates the cognitive distortion of catastrophizing with "safetyism" states that "greater empirical scrutiny of safetyism-inspired beliefs and practices is warranted before such customs become more widely adopted."
It'd be such a catastrophe if those "customs" were adopted, wouldn't it?
[+] [-] apocalypstyx|4 years ago|reply
For example, this from their questionnaire:
>Kim’s friends told her that she could not come to the concert with them because they were unable to get enough tickets for everyone. Kim knows they probably didn’t exclude her on purpose, but she feels rejected. Therefore, part of her believes she was rejected
What in such a scenario gives the impetus to the charitable interpretation (that they simply could not get tickets)? which they seem to indicate would be what a 'well-adjusted' person free of cognitive distortion would assume.
Secondly, while intentionality can be important, why is there so much weight seemingly being placed on it these days (or is that just my perception?) People can intend one thing and harmful outcomes still result. One could drive drunk without any intention of anything bad happening and still get into an accident. One could fire a gun randomly into the air with no intention of harming anyone and the bullets still come down and hit someone.
The main intent, it seems to me, at least by some, is to obscure the notion that humans and systems may act in ways contrary to their expressed intent. Much atrocity and discrimination has been predicated on actions justified by philanthropic intent, ie 'elevating the savages'.
And I wonder if a person free of cognitive distortions would even be referred to as human, as the quote goes:
"Reason Is and Ought Only to Be the Slave of the Passions." --David Hume
[+] [-] PragmaticPulp|4 years ago|reply
The cognitive distortion is taking uncertainty and replacing it with the worst possible interpretation.
Or, inserting artificial uncertainty into a direction and using that opening to pretend that an alternate explanation is true.
> People can intend one thing and harmful outcomes still result. One could drive drunk without any intention of anything bad happening and still get into an accident. One could fire a gun randomly into the air with no intention of harming anyone and the bullets still come down and hit someone.
Your examples aren't really relevant, though, because they have concrete and definitive harms.
The article is about imagined harms that only arise from different subjective interpretations of something. There is no subjective interpretation of getting hit by a bullet or killed by a drunk driver in which the person isn't harmed. Claiming good intent doesn't bring someone back from the dead.
You're making the mistake of equating speech with violence, which is explicitly discussed in the paper.
[+] [-] imgabe|4 years ago|reply
The difference is that getting hit by a bullet harms you regardless of what you believe about it. Your friends not getting a ticket to a concert for you can only harm you if you believe it harms you. If you choose to ignore their intentions and feel harmed by it, then you're harmed. If you choose to give your friends the benefit of the doubt and believe that they didn't intend to harm you, then you aren't harmed.
This is why the safetyism that equates emotional harms to physical harms is fundamentally flawed. You have a level of control over what happens in your own head that you don't have in the physical world.
[+] [-] scythe|4 years ago|reply
Did you read it? It says: "Kim knows they probably didn't exclude her on purpose" — that is the impetus, and more importantly, it is exactly the kind of thing that should be tested for here. The wrong answer is asking Kim to mistrust her own knowledge; not trusting your own knowledge is obviously a cognitive distortion. The other advantage of expressing it this way is that you evade any situation where the reader gets distracted by overanalyzing the specifics of the justification, which are not the point.
So I find the question to be worded reasonably and to accurately check for a cognitive distortion.
>Secondly, while intentionality can be important, why is there so much weight seemingly being placed on it these days (or is that just my perception?)
There has always been a lot of emphasis placed on intentionality in morality. That's why we have Latin phrases like mens rea.
>One could drive drunk without any intention of anything bad happening and still get into an accident. One could fire a gun randomly into the air with no intention of harming anyone and the bullets still come down and hit someone.
We have specific laws for these exact situations. You might not have intended to harm anyone, but you must have intended to break the law. This has the advantage of not punishing people for unintentional actions.
[+] [-] chrismcb|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hogFeast|4 years ago|reply
As an example, a hypochondriac will believe they are sick when they are not. That does not mean one should not feel anxious about being sick, it means that one should not feel anxious about being sick when you have no evidence that you are sick. The reason for observing that such a person has cognitive distortions is to examine the impact of those thoughts on feelings and behaviour, not engage in a debate about the meaning of reality. Most of these distortions occur in people who are have poor mental health, it is not academic, it is a clinical treatment.
If you are curious, read more about CBT rather than jumping to conclusions wildly. You can disagree with the theory of mind used, but what you have said seems to misunderstand fundamentally what the paper is about.
Mental illness is not passion. Cognitive distortion do not mean someone is mentally ill, people can have all kinds of thoughts that are not based in reality with no impact on their life. At the same time, cognitive distortions can be ruinous for other people. Would you say someone with anorexia was just very passionate about winning their joust with Reason? No. Again, the point of "cognitive distortions" is the idea that your thoughts impact your feelings and behaviour which can lead to poor mental health if those thoughts are not accurate in some way. There are several very common cognitive distortions that occur with anxiety and depression, for example, which should indicate that they are not totally fictional.
Also, I am not really sure why this is controversial or unexpected. Some of the most common cognitive distortions are word-for-word how people explain what the OP calls "safetyism"...it shouldn't be a massive surprise. It is quite reasonable to ask whether everyone else in society needs to adjust their behaviour (to be clear, everyone can adjust their behaviour ad infinitum, it will make no difference to how these people feel...I think it is self-evident that increasing "awareness" or whatever has actually added to the anxiety because the media has taken the view that good journalism is triggering...it is unbelievably toxic, whether this stuff makes you unusually upset or not, ironically I know a psychologist who is remarkably even-handed and they stopped reading the news because they felt it made their life worse...again, is this helping anyone? It is just a race to the bottom).
[+] [-] zaptheimpaler|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theboat|4 years ago|reply
There's a difference between emotional intuition and emotional reasoning (the cognitive distortion in OP's example).
Emotions are extremely valuable for decision-making (e.g. this house ticks all my boxes but do i love it?) and making judgements (e.g. this situation does not feel right to me).
Emotional reasoning is when people distort reality in favor of their (often self-destructive) emotional impulses, discarding physical evidence in favor of their emotions.
[+] [-] jcims|4 years ago|reply
Because thinking anything else requires Kim to believe her friends are liars or sociopaths. They obviously could be, and if there is a pattern they probably are, but if you assume that by default what's the backstop on the way to paranoid delusion?
>Secondly, while intentionality can be important, why is there so much weight seemingly being placed on it these days (or is that just my perception?)
Intent has always been part of the conversation, the question is which intent...the one stated or the one derived. Microaggressions are a pretty good example of this, in which acts that may have not even been perceived by the actor begin to create a layered story of malicious intent by the individual that perceived them as such.
>The main intent, it seems to me, at least by some, is to obscure the notion that humans and systems may act in ways contrary to their expressed intent. Much atrocity and discrimination has been predicated on actions justified by philanthropic intent, ie 'elevating the savages'.
And this, to me, is a good example of what happens as a result. First of all, we don't even know if it's true that intentionality is now more of a focus in conversations or not. Regardless, you've now imagined a concrete intent behind the increase you perceive and now assume it to be true. Intents being unfalsifiable, it's impossible to prove otherwise. So what happens in your mind now when you see someone explain that an outcome was unintended...are they liars? Why would they lie? What is the intent? The recursive nature of this question is the path to conpsiratorial thinking and delusion.
[+] [-] jessaustin|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chmod775|4 years ago|reply
What you quoted isn't from any questionnaire. It's an illustrative example given in the paper.
Edit: I am wrong. Those examples actually showed up in a questionnaire and participants were asked to rate how likely they are to engage in that kind of thinking.
[+] [-] Supermancho|4 years ago|reply
"safetyism-inspired beliefs (e.g., emotional pain or discomfort is dangerous)"
[+] [-] safanycom|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vmception|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] contravariant|4 years ago|reply
Which is an odd combination, if there was a strong causal link you'd expect both a big effect and high significance. You'd have to be pretty confident in the specificity of your test to rule out that there's not some confounding variable that accounts for the 10~20% of explained variance between most of their metrics (assuming they're reporting Pearson's correlation coefficients).
[+] [-] tmalsburg2|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Seattle3503|4 years ago|reply
Another question, are these authors legit? I think its difficult for a bunch of software engineers to evaluate the quality of scientific work so far outside of their field.
[+] [-] swayvil|4 years ago|reply
And it's true. I know a few crazy people and they are unanimously and vehemently onboard with safetyism, as of the recent hubub. Markedly moreso than everybody else.
[+] [-] native_samples|4 years ago|reply
That's one heck of an unbalanced sample. The vast majority were women, nearly 1% were "other" and nearly 90% weren't white? Yes they're aiming to study college students specifically rather than the whole US population, but, how representative can this sample really be of even the college population? It feels like anyone who thinks safetyism is bunk didn't even show up for their study at all.
Yes they go ahead and use the normal statistical techniques on the data but there are limits to how far you can fix a sample this overwhelmingly dominated by certain types of people.
[+] [-] toomim|4 years ago|reply
> Cognitive distortions are errors in reasoning resulting from negative intuitive thoughts that are not evidence-based (Burns, 1980; Covin et al., 2011).
This is not true. Cognitive Distortions are (a) not errors in themselves, and (b) usually do have lots of evidence for them.
Take, for example, the Cognitive Distortion of Fortune Telling. In a CBT session, it typically applies to a thought like "I'm going to fail this test." Well, that thought might not be erroneous — you very well might fail. And there is probably plenty of evidence for it — you might have done poorly on your homework, or you might be behind on studying, or you might not know the answers to questions on a practice test.
The issue with a Cognitive Distortion is not that it is erroneous, nor that it lacks evidence. The issue is that it makes you depressed, anxious, scared, and unable to function. In CBT, if you think that you will fail a test, you naturally start to feel anxious, frightened, and lose morale, and get really sad — after all, you think you are about to fail! It's pretty scary to fail. You start thinking about what's going to happen when you fail. All these actions actually prevent you from studying dutifully for the test and doing better on it.
We need to stop thinking of people using Cognitive Distortions as being irrational. In actual practice, we all have Cognitive Distortions (like Fortune Telling) in most of our thoughts. They are little shortcuts that we use all the time to get by, because we can't think infinitely about everything, so we use shortcuts that explain the evidence as best we can. The problem is that we can sometimes get stuck in depressive loops on deeply distorted thoughts.
In other words: a distortion by itself is not bad; but if you are doing bad, you are probably in a distortion.
So it's no surprise that people who are fragile, who feel any thought or statement could trigger them into a dangerous panic attack, tend to have distortions in their thinking.
Another way to put this is that people who are depressed and anxious are likely to be emotionally fragile and need restricted safe-spaces of speech in order to avoid being triggered into an anxious loop.
The problem is that we're letting college students, and the public at large, become depressed, anxious, and lonely. Our mental health is suffering a psychic epidemic, as Carl Jung put it. Getting mad at overly restrictive safe-spaces doesn't help. We need to cure the depression, and heal each other's psyches. Calling people irrational isn't going to help. We need to listen to each other, love one another, and heal and grow our way out of this, by caring for each other as individuals and mending each other's minds. We have to do this in love.
[+] [-] viburnum|4 years ago|reply
They cite Burns (1980). Burns is still going. His recent work is on why CBT practitioners often fail and how they go wrong. One aspect of his approach is that distortions aren’t all bad. There a good things about them, and are in a way a powerful source of strength. A well-meaning practioner can paradoxically trigger resistance and cause a patient to dig in deeper. (Reactionaries with an agenda like Haidt etc is another story).
[+] [-] Emanation|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] viburnum|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skim_milk|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pxc|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cdot2|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomlockwood|4 years ago|reply
It'd be such a catastrophe if those "customs" were adopted, wouldn't it?
[+] [-] bpodgursky|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmeister|4 years ago|reply
I don’t know how the authors of this paper are related to Haidt et al
[+] [-] Proven|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] thizzbuzz|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]