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.

 

[Josheb]

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.

Keep it simple. University level classes are taught on logic but that's not necessary or useful for the average internet forum poster. I recommend starting HERE. Even with that resource, an op with half of those listed there would be a valuable resource for the average poster.

One on exegetical basics would help many, too (I thought I'd posted one here but I can't find it so it must have been another forum).

 

[John Bauer]

I will keep it simple—just as I kept these cognitive distortions simple.

What were you thinking of regarding exegetical basics?

 

[Josheb]

I will keep it simple—just as I kept these cognitive distortions simple.

What were you thinking of regarding exegetical basics?

Well, off the top of my head, and in no particular order...

1. Read the text as written...
2. Understand the text as the original author and his audience...
3. (Correctly) Identify the author's purpose...
4. Identify the local contexts, working outward from paragraph, chapter, book, Bible...
5. Scripture is the first best interpreter of scripture...
6. Scripture never contradicts itseelg.
7. The literal explains the non-literal.
8. The OT informs the NT, the NT explains the OT.
9. Base inferences first on what is stated...
10. Scripture is practical (or practicable)....

A number of other rules could be swapped in for the above (such as considering precedent, genre, original language, avoiding personification, etc.) but the above are among the most basic concepts that should be used and developed anytime we read scripture.

 

[prism]

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.​

​

I'll ask, what's the source of these statements? They sound quite psychological.

 

[John Bauer]

I'll ask, what's the source of these statements? They sound quite psychological.

You are exactly right: They are psychological.

Cognitive distortions are a psychological category because they refer to systematic errors in thinking—predictable ways in which perception, reasoning, or interpretation departs from reality, either producing or intensifying emotional distress. They are studied as mechanisms by which emotion and behavior are influenced through cognition.

For Christians, this can be helpful in revealing the creaturely mechanisms through which sin’s distortion of perception and disordering of affection take shape in daily life. Cognitive distortions are simply the psychologically described expressions of what Scripture attributes to the fallen mind. By understanding them, believers gain insight into how the noetic effects of sin—the corruption of thought and judgment—work their way into our habits of thinking and patterns of response.

Many benefits could be suggested, I’m sure, but one springs immediately to mind: Awareness of distortions can expose hidden pride, fear, or unbelief shaping our interpretations of events—understanding how thought patterns reinforce sinful emotions (resentment, envy, despair). Identifying them enables confession at a more precise level than vague guilt or general anxiety.

 

[Josheb]

I'll ask, what's the source of these statements? They sound quite psychological.

You are exactly right: They are psychological.

Cognitive distortions are a psychological category because they refer to systematic errors in thinking—predictable ways in which perception, reasoning, or interpretation departs from reality, either producing or intensifying emotional distress. They are studied as mechanisms by which emotion and behavior are influenced through cognition.

For Christians, this can be helpful in revealing the creaturely mechanisms through which sin’s distortion of perception and disordering of affection take shape in daily life. Cognitive distortions are simply the psychologically described expressions of what Scripture attributes to the fallen mind. By understanding them, believers gain insight into how the noetic effects of sin—the corruption of thought and judgment—work their way into our habits of thinking and patterns of response.

Many benefits could be suggested, I’m sure, but one springs immediately to mind: Awareness of distortions can expose hidden pride, fear, or unbelief shaping our interpretations of events—understanding how thought patterns reinforce sinful emotions (resentment, envy, despair). Identifying them enables confession at a more precise level than vague guilt or general anxiety.

More specifically, cognitive distortions are an effect of sin. Good, healthy, sinless creatures with good, healthy, sinless minds, do not think crookedly. This goes all the way back to Eden. John describes the problem in cognitive-behavioral means when he says, "Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed" (Jn. 3:20). We see that in the garden when Adam thinks making coverings for Eve and himself and hiding are the correct response to his wrongdoing. His thinking is distorted. Paul describes the effect of sin on the mind in Romans 8:6 when he states the mind of flesh is hostile to God. Contextually, he's writing about the mind of sinful flesh. The mind of the Spirit, alternatively, is life.

Cognitive distortions are a form of hiding .

Blessedly, we have the ability to self-examine our own thoughts, and all the more so when aided by God and those he places in our life for that purpose. The problem is that of our underlying desire to hide and not acknowledge our own crooked thinking. Part of that problem is that the heart and mind are inherently connected. It is out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (Lk. 6:45) so there's a "heart" issue present every time we think distortedly, especially when we're hiding.

 

[John Bauer]

More specifically, cognitive distortions are an effect of sin.

That was precisely what I said: cognitive distortions are the creaturely expression of sin’s noetic effects—the corruption of thought and judgment within fallen humanity:

For Christians, this can be helpful in revealing the creaturely mechanisms through which sin’s distortion of perception and disordering of affection take shape in daily life. Cognitive distortions are simply the psychologically described expressions of what Scripture attributes to the fallen mind. By understanding them, believers gain insight into how the noetic effects of sin—the corruption of thought and judgment—work their way into our habits of thinking and patterns of response.

 

[prism]

You are exactly right: They are psychological.

Cognitive distortions are a psychological category because they refer to systematic errors in thinking—predictable ways in which perception, reasoning, or interpretation departs from reality, either producing or intensifying emotional distress. They are studied as mechanisms by which emotion and behavior are influenced through cognition.

For Christians, this can be helpful in revealing the creaturely mechanisms through which sin’s distortion of perception and disordering of affection take shape in daily life. Cognitive distortions are simply the psychologically described expressions of what Scripture attributes to the fallen mind. By understanding them, believers gain insight into how the noetic effects of sin—the corruption of thought and judgment—work their way into our habits of thinking and patterns of response.

Many benefits could be suggested, I’m sure, but one springs immediately to mind: Awareness of distortions can expose hidden pride, fear, or unbelief shaping our interpretations of events—understanding how thought patterns reinforce sinful emotions (resentment, envy, despair). Identifying them enables confession at a more precise level than vague guilt or general anxiety.

Psychology was my minor in college. What turned me off was that each professor had a new theory on what made people tick. Sorry, I asked for the source of post #1 and never got it.

 

[John Bauer]

Sorry, I asked for the source of post #1 and never got it.

I am the source. It was taken from my own personal notes (but greatly expanded here).

I never took any psychology classes, though. For one thing, my formal education never went beyond high school. I approached psychology from a different angle: As a survivor of childhood abuse and trauma, my engagement with psychology was through psychotherapy (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy, which is where this is from).

 

[Josheb]

That was precisely what I said....

...and Post 10 can be understood as an affirmation of that content .

 

[Josheb]

Sorry, I asked for the source of post #1 and never got it.

Secularly speaking, the "cognitive distortions" list is the work of a guy named Aaron Beck.

There were actually two main sources for the construct of cognitive-behaviorism but before I elaborate a little history is order. Prior to Freud, Durkheim (and others most folks have never heard of) psychology was considered a field of philosophy. Freud was a neurologist, a medical doctor. His theory was a formal articulation of anthropological psychology, but his most important accomplishment was the melding of science and philosophy. He took empirical evidence and formal research methods and applied them to the philosophy, or at least that was the attempt. It turned out to be more philosophical than empirical, but because he was among the first and the most prolific author in the endeavor he and his work gained prominence. He produced a pile of progeny, and they, in turn, produced more like themselves. However, with the passage of a very brief amount of time all his progeny began to dissent. Jung, Adler, Erickson and other either added or substantively altered Freudian psychological theory and its practices. Most people today do not realize that in Freudian psychoanalytic practice the patient laid down on a sofa and the therapist sat behind the patient. It was not a face-to-face dialogue of exploration. The patient "freely" associated, and the therapist prejudicially looked for content fitting the pre-existing model. The chief competitor to this model was the behaviorist alternative. Wolpe and Pavlov disregarded the inner working of thought and approached psychology through strict behavior modification.

The psycho-analytics ruled psychotherapy from Freud through WWII, but veins of dissenting alternatives developed, finding their realization after the war. The first big alternative was by a guy named Bowlby, who was asked by the British government to address the problem of the orphan population existing at the war's end. He developed a theory based on how children attach to others and his acolytes took that research on into the developmental milestones of adulthood. He'd been trained in the Freudian psychoanalytic "tradition," but eschewed in favor of the more psycho-social alternative that Erikson had begun. A decade later a handful of others made further departures from the psychoanalytic model to olook at how people operated in groups and how group interactions drove and sustained human cognition and behavior. Their views are systemic, or how people operate in a "system" of others like the family. As those veins were developing two other veins also left Freudianism and created separate theories and practices: the existentialists and the cognitive behaviorists. The two most prominent cognitive behaviorists were Aaron Beck (and later his daughter, Judith), and Albert Ellis. Beck focused primarily on specific thoughts that proved problematic to human development and healthy living. Ellis looked at how thought itself proved problematic. Content versus method. Back's theory was called Cognitive Behavioral Theory, and Ellis' was called Rational Emotive Behavioral Theory. Both men created a list and a series of practices, or exercises, that helped people effect positive change in their lives. These theories also generated a huge, ginormous pile of research proving the efficacy of their approach. The theories turned into therapies.

The basics of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Rational Emotive Therapy are fairly easy to learn by the therapist so most counselors start there. The basics are also fairly easy to teach and fairly easy to learn by the client. So there are two other reasons why most counselors build whatever else they do on CBT. Personally, I believe Beck's approach surpassed Ellis' because Beck was a religious man, a practicing Jew, whereas Ellis was a raging anti-theist. Ellis' approach was also very directive and, at times, confrontational (there are videos of him counseling people and calling them liars!).

I also think CBT easily replaced the Freudian model because it is very scriptural. Scripture says a lot about human thinking, how the head and the heart work to drive behavior, how crooked thinking drives what we Christians would call sinful and destructive behavior. Truths like as a man thinketh, so he is, and out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks are the foundation of what was called CBT/REBT millennia later. I've often held a grin imagining having a cup of coffee with Ellis and telling him, "Jesus said it first."


Keep in mind Beck and Ellis had been trained in medicine and trained in the Freudian psychoanalytic model. Theirs was a radical departure from that model. CNT is still a psychodynamic model in that it starts treatment by examining what goes on within the mind, but it eschews sex-based and death-based developmental aspects of Freudianism. Most theories and therapies in psychology are psychodynamic. The systems models take a completely different approach. So too do the neuro-developmental and strictly behaviorist approaches. Most counselors nowadays take post-graduate, post-licensure training in various models and develop their own approach based on their individual strengths, their type of clientele they serve, and what they find most effective. In more recent history education in neurobiology and training in methods effective in restructuring the brain have become integrated into psychology. CBT has proven very useful in this field. It turns out Cognitive-behavioral techniques have always been helpful effecting changes at a cellular level and vice versa. Coupled with prayer, contemplation, and meditation AND, believe it or not what the research calls "spiritual experience" enormous improvements in solving life's problems can be made. That part about spiritual experiences? That's a real thing. Jung first postulated a spiritual experience was necessary to overcome addiction (or chemical dependence) after WWI ! Since then we've got 80-90 years of research confirming what, at the time was theoretical speculation. I don't recall the exact percentage, but the correlation in treating chemical dependency spiritual experience is something like 85-90%! Correlations in psychology rarely approach that kind of significance. Humans are way too dynamic to be sliced perfectly, pinned down and observed under a microscope. In Jung's day the prevailing religious worldview was Judeo-Christianity, so when he spoke of a "religious experience" he was couching that in the prevailing worldview. Sadly, that is not always the case today. Jung was also, at the time, referring primarily to a conversion experience, either toward God anew, or marked recommitment to an already existing faith.

The point is...

• Beck is the inventor of the cognitive distortions list in psychology but,
• God said it first,
• CBT proves to be amazingly effective,
• The effectiveness of CBT in treating certain mental health issues is demonstrably improved by religious/spiritual experience.

Like @John Bauer, I first learned the list as a client. I learned it again in college and have taken extensive training in the model after licensure (along with many other models). I've taught it to almost all my clients and witnessed it have profound and enduring positive effect helping others solve whatever problem they've brought to counseling. Everyone thinks crooked in some way at some time, and most of us have a propensity to practice one or two of the distortions more than others. The ability to see that in ourselves is life-changing and very much akin to overcoming what the Bible calls a "stronghold" in our lives.

One last comment. CBT is also known as a thinking-feeling-acting model or, in other words, a model that says if you make changes in your thinking then you will invariably be making changes in your behaviors, BUT there are also models that approach change taking the reverse approach. Change your behavior and eventually your thoughts (and emotions) will also change. These acting-feeling-thinking models are rarer, but they are also a very scriptural model. Scripture is near-constantly commanding obedience with the implication changes within will inevitably occur.