Cognitive Distortions: Recognizing and Resisting Faulty Thinking

[John Bauer]

Our thoughts often shape our emotions and actions more than we realize. Yet many of our "automatic" thoughts contain distortions—errors in reasoning that twist reality and fuel conflict. Cognitive distortions are irrational thoughts that shape how you see the world, how you feel, and how you act. It is normal to have these thoughts occasionally, but they can be harmful when frequent or extreme.

The purpose of this thread is to equip people to recognize these thinking patterns so we can respond more rationally, charitably, and accurately both online and in life.

1. Jumping to Conclusions​

Forming a negative belief without sufficient evidence. You assume meaning, motive, or outcome rather than verifying facts, allowing inference to replace observation. There are three specific subtypes:

Mind-reading: Assuming you know what others think or feel without evidence. You interpret silence, tone, or behavior as proof of hidden motives—usually negative ones—rather than asking or clarifying.

Example: Kevin assumes, because he sits alone at lunch, that everyone else must think he is a loser.

Challenge: Don't assume. Ask. Clarify intentions directly instead of guessing what others think.
​

Fortune-telling: Predicting negative outcomes as if they're inevitable. You treat your expectations as facts—assuming failure, conflict, or rejection before it happens—creating anxiety and self-fulfilling results.

Example: "If I post this, everyone will just tear it apart—why bother?"

Challenge: Test predictions. Ask, "What is more likely?" Base expectations on evidence, not fear.
​

Labeling: Assigning a fixed, global judgment to yourself or others based on one action or trait. It replaces evidence-based evaluation with name-calling or moral shorthand.

Example: "I missed that text message. I really am stupid."

Challenge: Describe behavior, not identity. Replace "I'm bad" with "I made a correctible mistake."
​

2. Polarized Thinking (All-or-Nothing)​

Viewing people or situations in absolute terms—good or bad, right or wrong, biblical or heretic—with no middle ground. It ignores nuance and breeds rigidity.

Example: "Either the moderators are perfect, or the forum's completely unfair."

Challenge: Seek nuance. Ask, "What truths might exist between the extremes?" There is usually at least a third option. Complexity often reveals clearer understanding.
​

3. Blaming​

Attributing your emotions or outcomes almost entirely to the words or actions others, while ignoring your own choices or responses. It shifts responsibility outward to protect the self or justify resentment.

Example: "This discussion blew up because the mods handled it wrong."

Challenge: Own your part. Ask, "What is within my control here?" Responsibility brings clarity and calm.
​

4. Overgeneralization​

Drawing sweeping conclusions from a single event or limited evidence. One bad outcome becomes a permanent pattern, fueling pessimism and self-doubt.

Example: "My last two threads got no replies—nobody here cares what I post."

Challenge: Avoid "always" and "never." A single experience is data, not destiny—look for exceptions and patterns.
​

5. Catastrophizing​

Expecting the worst possible outcome or exaggerating how bad things will be. Small setbacks become disasters in your mind, heightening anxiety and hopelessness. There are two specific subtypes:

Magnification: Exaggerating the significance of problems, criticism, or setbacks until they seem disastrous. Minor issues feel monumental, distorting perspective and escalating stress.

Example: "If anyone complains about my moderation, I've completely failed as staff."

Challenge: Keep scale in check. Ask, “How big is this really, and what evidence supports that?”
​

Minimization: Downplaying positives—your strengths, progress, or achievements—until they seem trivial. You shrink success to preserve a negative self-view or avoid pride.

Example: "The thread went smoothly, but that was just luck—my input didn’t really matter."

Challenge: Acknowledge wins. Give credit where it's due. Progress counts, even when imperfect.
​

6. Mental Filtering​

Focusing on one aspect of a situation while ignoring the rest. You filter information through a narrow lens, creating a distorted picture that fits your mood or bias. There are two specific subtypes:

Negative Amplified: Dwelling on flaws, problems, or criticism while dismissing positives. Your attention fixates on what's wrong, reinforcing discouragement and cynicism.

Example: "True, my post received five likes. But that one who gave it a thumb down—the post must've been bad."

Challenge: Balance the frame. List what went right, before judging what went wrong.
​

Positive Amplified: Ignoring warning signs or negative feedback in order to maintain comfort or optimism. Overlooks risks, silences healthy caution.

Example: "Five people liked my post. Clearly, the issue's settled."

Challenge: Face the full picture. Growth needs both encouragement as well as correction.
​

7. Emotional Reasoning​

Assuming your feelings reflect objective truth. You treat emotion as evidence—if you feel anxious, rejected, or guilty, you conclude something must actually be wrong.

Example: "I feel ignored in this thread, so everyone must be against me."

Challenge: Feelings are signals, not proof. Ask, "What evidence confirms or corrects what I feel?"
​

8. Personalization​

Interpreting events as personally directed at you, even when they are not. You assume responsibility for outcomes beyond your control or see neutral behavior as rejection.

Example: "The mod closed that thread right after I posted—they must be targeting me."

Challenge: Pause the self-blame. Consider other causes. Most events aren't personal, even when they feel that way.
​

9. Labeling​

Reducing a person (including yourself) to a fixed, negative identity based on a certain action or trait. It replaces analysis with judgment, making growth or dialogue impossible.

Example: "He's right, the thread topic was clear. I'm honestly too stupid."

Challenge: Judge actions, not essence. Replace "I am..." with "I did..." Behavior can change, and identity isn't defined by mistakes.
​

10. “Should” statements​

Imposing rigid rules or expectations on yourself or others—how people ought to act. When reality falls short, it breeds resentment, frustration, or guilt.

Example: "I should never get upset during discussions. Losing my cool means I'm weak."

Challenge: Trade "should" for "could try instead to." Expect flexibility, not perfection. Real life rarely follows our scripts.
​

 

[Josheb]

That's pretty good. Do the same with ten of the most common logical fallacies.

 

[John Bauer]

That's pretty good. Do the same with ten of the most common logical fallacies.

That may be a worthwhile project. I am currently working on an exhaustive hierarchal family tree of logical fallacies—branching from formal and informal fallacies—but a top ten list certainly seems to have a place, too.

 

[makesends]

That's pretty good. Do the same with ten of the most common logical fallacies.

If I understand him correctly, JB didn't intend these 'treatments' to be definitive of the scope of any one item, but only as they apply to emotional influence over our arguments. For example, "Jumping to Conclusions", is not always negative in the sense that he means it here. It can be a simple logical fallacy. But to treat it as other than he deals with it on this thread would be off topic, (seems to me).

That may be a worthwhile project. I am currently working on an exhaustive hierarchal family tree of logical fallacies—branching from formal and informal fallacies—but a top ten list certainly seems to have a place, too.