This Is TERRIBLE! (Or Horrible, Or Awful, Or a Catastrophe, Or The-End-Of-The World, Or Devastating, Etc...)

Catastrophizing (kuh-TASS-truh-feye-zing), or believing ourselves to be so inept that we cannot effectively deal with a situation, often leads us to view situations as worse than they actually are. We describe these situations or events as terrible, horrible, awful, devastating, catastophic, end-of-the-world types of scenarios rather than situations we actually have some control over. When we think about situations this way, we tend to create so much anxiety around the situations that we cause ourselves to freeze and to completely forget that we may in fact have some influence over this situation after all.

Research has shown (Yerkes, 1908) that there is an optimal level of arousal for every task. For example, to rescue your child from a burning building takes quite a bit of arousal, but too much arousal might leave you frozen in the front yard. Too little arousal might lead you not care and the child would not be rescued. Now imagine if that high amount of arousal were present when you were to give an oral presentation in front of a crowd. You would likely be too aroused to effectively remember what you had so diligently prepared. In that situation, less arousal is required to optimally perform the task.

Sometimes we believe that there are situations that are objectively awful, terrible, hideous, devastating, or catastrophic. But again, these situations are not objectively awful. If they were, everyone would think exactly the same way about them. Let's take the recent recession as an example. Many people view the recession as horrible, awful, or even devastating. And yet some people, like those who buy and sell gold for a living, are finding this recession to actually be profitable. If a recession were objectively awful, everyone would see it as awful.

Because there is no such thing as an objectively terrible situation, we are free to label anything as terrible. When we do, we upset ourselves and make ourselves miserable. We have another freedom here, though, that we never really think about. If we can label something as terrible, we can also label the same thing as unfortunate, undesirable, or unpleasant but survivable. It is a good idea to keep in mind that there is also no event or situation that is objectively unpleasant. So adding in the words, "for me" to your description of your situation helps you to calmly, rationally deal with that situation to help you to meet your goals. For example, changing a statement from, "This recession is completely devastating!" to, "This recession is unfortunate for me and my family, and I dislike it!" helps us to maintain an optimal level of arousal about the situation, and it places us in a much better position to correct the situation than labelling the situation as devastating, terrible, horrible, or awful.

So remember, if you hear yourself using the words, "terrible", "horrible", "awful", "devastating", etc., to describe your situation or a feared event, replace those words with, "unfortunate for me." You will find that you are much more effective at dealing with situations than you thought!

For more on this topic, read Aldo Pucci's The Client's Guide to Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy.

Yerkes, R. & Dodson, J. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Caparative Neurology and Psychology , 18 459-482.

I Just Can't Stand It!

There are a few phrases that make my skin crawl when I hear them. The first one is an inappropriate use of the word "should", and another is the use of the phrase "I can't stand it!". Both of these phrases are indicators that something irrational is about to happen, and I had better look out!

Why is "I can't stand it", or "Can't Stand-itis", irrational? Can't Stand-itis infers that a person cannot withstand or tolerate a situation, or that a person NEEDS a situation to be different than it is (see "But, Mom, I REALLY NEED it!"). This type of thinking often leads people to avoid situations out of fear rather than believing they can effectively handle the situation and therefore approaching the situation without fear.

When we say we can't stand something we are in effect saying that we will die or this situation will kill us if it doesn't change. So when someone tells me that they can't stand something, I often say, "Sure you can. You've been in this situation for a while now, and you're not sitting here dead. You can stand it. You just don't like it." Once I make my point, the person often has more confidence to approach their situation, seek a sound solution, and implement it effectively.

The next time you hear yourself saying, "I just can't stand ______!", replace that thought with "I really can stand it, I just don't like it. Because I don't like it, I'm going to do something about it."

For more information, check out Aldo Pucci's book Feel the Way You Want to Feel...No Matter What!

Do I HAVE to?

How many times have you heard this from a whining child (or maybe you just said it yesterday!). The truth is, we don't HAVE to do anything, unless we are physically overpowered and made to do it. Everything else is a choice. What gets us in trouble is when we confuse CHOOSING to do something with HAVING to do something.

When people are faced with a command or something that they believe they HAVE to do, they tend to resent it. The more unpleasant the thing they have to do, the more they resent that thing. They have the perception that they are being forced against their will to do something.

Sometimes we choose things because even though that thing is unpleasant, the consequence of doing that thing is desirable. For instance, I hear lots of people say, "I have to go to work." That is actually an inaccurate statement. It is more accurate to say, "I choose to go to work, because I choose the rewards I get from work, namely, money to pay my bills and to buy food and other desirable things." We choose to do something unpleasant in order to help us meet other pleasant goals or to avoid possible negative outcomes (paying taxes vs. going to prison, for example). These often unpleasant things are merely a means to an end.

What's the big deal about correctly stating whether we choose to do something or whether we have to do something? The big deal is that when we realize that we choose things rather than being forced to do them, we significantly reduce our resentment (our "upset", if you will). Even though the event itself is no more appealing, at least our experience with it is more pleasant. The other big deal is that realizing we are choosing something rather than being forced to do it allows us to take credit for making a wise decision.

You see, many people believe that they HAVE to stop smoking, and therefore they resent the process of ceasing to smoke. They may believe that they need to stop smoking to be able to walk farther or to breathe better, but THEY DO NOT HAVE TO walk farther or breathe better. Those things are optional. When people realize that it is their DECISION that leads them to stop smoking, and they realize that they can decide to smoke again at any moment, they feel much better about ceasing to smoke and they tend to me much more willing to quit.

The only two things in life that we have to do are to be born (because you were) and to die. Dying is unavoidable. Everything else is optional.

Remember the difference between "choosing to" and "having to", and you will lessen your frustration and resentment level and possibly be more successful in all your endeavors!

For more information, read Dr. Aldo Pucci's book Feel the Way You Want to Feel...No Matter What!

But Mom, I REALLY NEED it!

Confusing needs with wants is a very American thing to do. We are pretty spoiled here in America, thinking that we need all kinds of things. In fact, there are very few things that are considered absolute needs, or things we need in order to survive. A fairly exhaustive list includes adequate food, water, some degree of warmth, air, and medication in some instances. Everything else is a want.

When we mislabel our wants as needs, we tend to feel just as bad as if someone were sucking all the air out of the room. Our culture has conditioned us to believe that some wants are needs. For example, love, respect, attention, confidence, job satisfaction, money, approval, a car, a washing machine, peace, health, etc. When we say that we need something that we actually only want, we tend to upset ourselves by causing ourselves undue anxiety and anger. So, one way to differentiate between a need and a want is to ask, "How long can I live without this before I die?"

Another aspect of needs and wants is the concept of conditional needs. Conditional needs are things that we need in order to get a desired effect or to meet a goal. Conditional need statements can be accurate or inaccurate. For example, "In order for me to buy a house, I need to earn some money," would be an accurate statement. An inaccurate statement might be, "In order for me to be happy, I need to own my own house."  Has that person ever been happy not owning their own house? Then it is untrue that the person would need to own their own house in order to be happy, although the person believes, feels, and acts as if the only way for them to experience happiness is by owing his or her own house.

Another danger with conditional need statements is that we often hide inaccurate absolute need statements within conditional need statements. For example, while the conditional need statement "In order for me to buy a house, I need to earn some money," is true, if I panic because I don't have any way to earn money, I am equating my failure at earning money and buying a house with a life-or-death situation, which would be an absolute need.

For more on this topic of needs vs. wants, read Dr. Aldo Pucci's book Feel the Way You Want to Feel, No Matter What! A link to this book appears at the top of this post.

Do You Believe in Magic?

As I promised in the last post, I am addressing the second type of irrational "should".  Sometimes shoulds imply a belief in magic. Yeah, I know, when I first saw this I thought, "Really? I would never do that! I don't believe in magic! That is just ridiculous! This shouldn't even be taught!"  But then I listened and realized I had just made the mistake of using "should" to imply a belief in magic.

I have in my office a little white coffee maker. Now, suppose I take the coffee pot, fill it with water, pour the water in the coffee maker's reservoir, pull out the basket, insert a filter, put in some coffee grounds, push the basket back in, put the pot underneath the basket, push the on button and make sure everything is plugged in. I SHOULD get coffee, right?

Okay, suppose I do all of the above and yet forget to put the the coffee grounds in the filter. If I say I SHOULD get coffee, I would be wrong. If I get angry or verbally beat myself because I didn't get coffee, that would be silly! In fact, I SHOULD just get hot water, because I left out the key ingredient to the coffee!

So many times we upset ourselves with our magical shoulds. "Men should never hit women" is a common should that makes sense until we unpack it. Men should never hit women, but if the ingredients are all there (the presence of a man, the presence of a woman, close proximity, some object or body part to be used as a striker, the appropriate amount of emotional stimulation, the appropriate of force applied to the striker, for example), chances are the man will hit the woman. Now, if the woman who has just been hit states that she did everything to avoid getting hit, and yet magically it happened, she is not facing reality. She is not likely to look at the situation as it is, figure out why this happened, and do everything to avoid this in future. She is likely to get struck again. If she said, "I really wish that hadn't happened. I wonder what I could have done differently to avoid that situation," she is more likely to figure out what ingredients stacked up in order to make that happen and to avoid making the same mistakes again.

Everything is as it should be, because all ingredients have been added in order for life to be as it is. To Instead of stopping at the should, make an "I wish" statement and then look for the ingredients you can change in order to prevent the undesired situation from happening again.

For more on this topic, read Aldo Pucci's The Client's Guide to Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy.

Stop "Shoulding" on Yourself!

Irrational should statements are one of my favorite mental mistakes to teach. I will go in to part one this time, and the next blog will hold part two.
Many of us use the word "should" irrationally everyday without even knowing it. Should is irrational when it is used as a moralistic demand, command or rule. When we direct these moral commands and demands against ourselves, we set ourselves up for feeling guilty or depressed ("I should be able to live up to my utmost expectations"). When we direct these shoulds outwardly, we set ourselves up for anger, anxiety, and blame ("You should not treat me that way!"). Shoulds are often expressed as absolute rules, and if those rules are broken there will be dire consequences.

Some shoulds are societal rules, which are good have in order to reduce societal chaos. The problem with societal rules is that they are not always based on fact. Sometimes they are just made up and blindly followed. We usually believe them because we do not know not to believe them.

Lets see how this plays out for a newlywed couple:

Wife: Don't put the roast in the oven yet, Honey! I haven't cut the ends off!

Husband: Why do you need to cut the ends off a perfectly good roast before you cook it?

W: You just should. My mom always taught me that.

H: What will happen if you don't?

W: I don't know. I have always cut the ends off roasts, and I have never seen it done any other way.

H: I want to get to the bottom of this...(picks up phone and dials Mother-In-Law)

M-i-L: Hello?

H: Hey mom! I have a quick question for you. Why do you cut the ends off your roast before you put it in the over?

M-i-L: That's just what you should do. My mother always did and her roasts turned out perfectly. If you don't cut off the ends, it just won't cook right.

H: (Unconvinced) Okay...thanks! (hangs up and calls Wife's Grandmother)

G: Hello?

H: Hey Grandma! I have a quick question. Why do you cut the ends off your roast before you stick it in the oven?

G: Well, if you come over to my house, I'll show you my oven. It's pretty old, you see, and back in the day they made ovens much smaller than they do today. I cut the ends off my roast because the oven was too small for these big ol' hunks of meat to fit in.  That's why I do it!

This is an example of how a should, an ought-to, a must, or a have-to can be passed down from generation to generation. It made sense at one time, but now it no longer makes sense. There was a dire consequence that the roast would be ruined, but that was not at all based on fact. If the wife had checked out where this "should" came from in the first place, she could have been eating much more roast in her lifetime, and an argument could have been avoided!

For more in-depth study on irrational shoulds see the book to the left of this post.

My UT Checkerboard Socks

I have two pairs of University of Tennessee orange and white checkerboard socks.  When I was younger, I assumed that these socks brought luck to my favorite football team, the Tennessee Volunteers, whenever I would wear them. I didn't have to be at the game, I just had to be wearing them during the game.  The problem was, one of these pairs of socks always won the game, and one pair only won some of the time.  I couldn't remember which pair brought the luck.  So if UT lost the football game, it was my fault for wearing the wrong pair of socks and not bringing the right mojo.

How many times do we assume responsibility for something when it really has nothing to do with us at all?  This is called personalization.  When my dad's friend looked over at me and told me the problem with the Vols was that I was wearing the wrong socks, that was called irrational blame.  Personalization and Irrational Blame are defined as mistakenly assigning the cause of something to either yourself or to someone else.

Why is this a problem? This can lead to inappropriate feelings of guilt or resentment and trying to change the wrong thing.  When we personalize or blame others for events, we either take total responsibility for an event or put total responsibility for that event onto someone else.  That can take the focus away from the actual problem and leave us focused on our anger toward ourselves or others. This does not help to solve the actual problem.

It is important to accurately assess the causes of problems and to work to solve those problems rather than constantly look for who to blame.  Attributing the cause of something to yourself or someone else is okay if it is accurate and if it helps to solve the actual problem. 

I later learned that the Vols' poor execution of the plan had nothing to do with my socks, and I quit taking their losses so hard.  I no longer blamed myself for something I really could not control.  I learned that this problem had nothing to do with me, and that gave me freedom to enjoy the games much more fully.

What about you? When have you mistakenly assigned all of the blame for something to either yourself or to someone else?
















Pucci, A. R. (2008). Feel the Way You Want To Feel, No Matter What! New York: iUniverse.

Stop Calling Me (Inaccurate) Names!

Irrational labelling, or assigning an inaccurate name to someone or something, tends to get us in trouble.  Many times we can get overly emotional about a subject or we limit our understanding of that subject just because of the name we choose to apply to it.

For example, lets look at the word catastrophe.  Many people call many events catastrophes, but are they really catastrophic or are they simply unfortunate? A catastrophe is a disaster that occurs suddenly and is widespread. So, if your date didn't go the way you had planned, is that necessarily a catastrophe, or is it merely an unfortunate circumstance?  If your significant other suddenly breaks up with you, is that a catastrophe, or is it something that is unpleasant or undesirable?

What about name-calling? We often call people names to put them in categories or to put them down. Lets use the word nerd as an example. We often label smart people as nerds. Just because someone is smart, does that mean that they possess all the qualities of a nerd?  Can a nerd, or a smart person, also be athletic or talented in another area?
Labelling becomes a problem when we allow the label to limit our view of ourselves or others.  If you say, "I am a failure," you are limiting your view of yourself to only those times that you have failed. You are not considering those times when you have had success. This, in turn, could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, where you start acting the part of a failure, then unintentionally set yourself up to fail more often, which makes your label more and more true to you.

When you assign a label to someone or accept a label that someone has put on you, consider whether this is an accurate label.  One of the most accurate labels that I have ever seen is that of "Fallible Human Being" (or FHB).  FHB describes every person I have ever known, including myself.  When you start to see yourself and other people as FHB's, notice how your demeanor becomes more calm and your world less stressful.

Pucci, A. R. (2006). The Client’s Guide to Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy: How to live a healthy, happy life… no matter what! Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.

Emotional Reasoning is Irrational Reasoning

Emotional Reasoning and Gut Thinking is the mental mistake of allowing your feelings to dictate your thinking, and to reason that your skewed thinking must be accurate because your feelings are validating your thoughts.  For example, if you are feeling anxious about something, you are likely to think anxious thoughts about other things that you might not normally consider fearful. In response to the anxious thinking, you feel more anxious. This results in a cycle of anxious thinking that can lead many into silly fear-based decisions or even to full-blown panic attacks.

It is important to understand that when we feel bad physically, such as when we are fatigued or dealing with an illness, we are prone to look at situations as much bigger or more important than they are in reality, and therefore fall into the trap of emotional reasoning. Below are some examples of how emotional reasoning and gut thinking could get us into trouble, and some solutions to help us overcome this mental mistake.

For Example:
Anxious Annie: I am so stressed out. I have so much to do today, and I'm afraid I can't get it done. If I don't finish my projects, pick up my kids, have dinner on the table by 5:30, run by the cleaners, the bank, the church, bring that meal to that family who was just in the hospital, pay all the bills, clean the house from top to bottom for the open house tomorrow night, smile while doing the jobs of the last two people who got fired plus take care of my responsibilities at work, coach the soccer team to a winning season and make my kids practice piano, karate, band instruments, and do homework, then I'll be a good-for-nothing lazy wife and mom who is a failure. I am so stressed out! If I'm a not good enough, then my husband will leave me and then my kids won't be well adjusted and they'll spend 30 years in therapy! That would be terrible! Oh no! Now I have the hiccups! I can't get a deep breath! I must have something wrong! I must be dying! My kids will definitely not be well-adjusted if I die! Now my heart hurts and my palms are sweaty and I feel nauseated!  What's happening? I don't know! I think I'm going to die!

Grumpy Gus: What a gloomy day. I am so tired. I have to deal with that client today.  He really ticks me off. I just get angry thinking about him!  And you know what? I have to go to that stupid meeting afterward. I can't stand that meeting! And when I go home, I bet my wife won't have dinner ready after I've worked so hard all day. You know, she really doesn't love me. UGH! I'm feel so frustrated and angry! I have nothing good to look forward to! My life is going all wrong! I feel so sad, alone, and abandoned, at that makes me mad!

How to overcome Emotional Reasonal and Gut Thinking:
1. Call it what it is. Just assigning a name to your thought patterns can pull you out of them enough  to change them.

2. Ask yourself, "Do I usually think this way about this situation, or do I only think this way when I am in a certain mood or upset about something else?" If the answer is that you only think this way about this situation when you are upset, refuse to allow this thinking to continue and apply the three rational questions.

Anxious Annie's new thinking:
I am so stressed out.  I have a lot to do today.  I am afraid I won't be able to get it all done.  I am probably especially prone to emotional reasoning right now, so I need to change my thinking. Instead of thinking that I'm a good-for-nothing lazy wife and mom if I don't get all this done today, I will just call myself a fallible human being just like everyone else. It doesn't necessarily mean that I'm a failure and my kids won't be well-adjusted if I can't get to a few things by today.  I will prioritize my day and work hard to get my responsibilities taken care of.  Hmmm...that's interesting. I just hiccupped.   Just because I have the hiccups doesn't necessarily mean that I will suffocate. I'll concentrate and take a few deep breaths, but I know the hiccups will go away soon.

Grumpy Gus' new thinking:
It's a gloomy day and I'm tired. I choose to meet with that client today. I usually look forward to that client, but I'm not today. I must be reasoning emotionally because I don't feel good. And most of the time I don't mind that meeting. My wife may not have dinner ready, but that doesn't necessarily mean she doesn't love me. Maybe she had a hard day, too. I guess life isn't as bad as it had seemed.

Watch out for emotional reasoning and gut thinking in your life, and your life will be better for it!

Pucci, A. R. (2006). The Client’s Guide to Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy: How to live a healthy, happy life… no matter what! Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.

Get Rid of That Magnifying Glass!

I love teenagers.  They are perhaps the most excited bunch of people in America.  They are also lots of fun.  Part of the reason they are so fun is that they tend to exaggerate things, and they can be terribly funny when they do it.

Magnification, “the mental mistake of exaggerating the importance of a shortcoming or minimizing the importance of a good quality” (Pucci, 2006) is one of those mental mistakes I see my teenagers making most often.  Have you ever heard a teenager say something like, “My life is ruined because I failed that test,” or “Everyone will look at me if I wear that ugly shirt,” or “That zit is so ginormous that I can’t go to school because everyone will look at me and I will be socially ruined!”?  These are examples of exaggerating the importance of a shortcoming.

We also tend to minimize the importance of a good quality.  A brilliant Julliard trained musician could sit at a keyboard, play for hours, and play just about anything by ear. He said that he could not have a career in music because he is a terrible public speaker.  Even though all his professors and peers said that he had great potential, this man limited himself in his belief that all of his talent didn’t count, and instead focused on how terrible he was at public speaking.

How can we avoid magnifying?

1. Ask, “Is this shortcoming really likely to interfere with me meeting my goals?” (Pucci)

2. Ask, “Does my shortcoming really affect me the way I think it does?” (Pucci)

3. Ask, “Might my strengths affect my situation more than my shortcomings?” (Pucci)

Accurately assessing our assets and abilities can be a great aid in avoiding magnification.

Pucci, A. R. (2006). The Client’s Guide to Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy: How to live a healthy, happy life… no matter what! Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.

Do You Have a Crystal Ball?

The second way many of us fallible human beings jump to conclusions is by fortune telling.  "Oh, I don't do that!  I don't have a crystal ball and try to tell people the future!"  That's what I said to myself when I first saw this, but then I got to looking into it.  Fortune Telling is forming an opinion on which you would act by predicting the future.  It is not saying, "This MIGHT happen", but rather, "I KNOW this will happen," and then acting on that "knowledge".


Here's an example of what fortune telling could look like:

Me: So, how is your dating life going?

Client: Not so good.  I'm going to break up with him.

Me: Really? What happened?

Client: Well, I know he's going to break up with me.

Me: How do you know he's going to break up with you?

Client: I just do.

Me: So what you're telling me is that you know he's going to break up with you, so you're going to break up with him first.  Seeing as you and I don't have a crystal ball that tells us what the future holds, what evidence do you have that leads you to believe that he's going to break up with you?

Client: He has never had a girlfriend past 3 months, and we're at 2 months and 25 days.  We had a big fight yesterday.

Me: Okay, so if we were gambling, we could probably make a lot of money betting that he will break up with you based on the evidence you've presented, right?

Client: Right.

Me: But since neither of us has a crystal ball that tells us for certain what the future holds, what prevents you from having an honest discussion with him about your thoughts and fears with the relationship?  What do you have to lose?

Client: I'm afraid he'll break up with me if I'm that vulnerable, and that would be terrible because it would mean that he has rejected me.

Me: Well, certainly no one enjoys being rejected. How important is this relationship to you?

Client: Very.

Me: Okay. Have you ever been rejected before?

Client: Yes.

Me: Did you survive it?

Client: Well, I'm still alive aren't I? Of course I survived!

Me: So do you think it might be worth risking rejection and vulnerability to save this very important relationship?

Client: Yeah, I think it would.

It is good to recognize when we are jumping to conclusions by fortune telling, because it can prevent us from creating self-fulfilling prophecies (SFPs). An SFP is the unintentional creation of the predicted outcome because the person predicted it.  In the example above, the client predicted that the relationship would not last past three months.  This led to the client being unwilling to be vulnerable and share her true thoughts and feelings with her boyfriend.  After closing herself off from the relationship and preemptively breaking up with him (creation of the predicted outcome), she likely would say, "See, I told you the relationship wouldn't last past three months!" An outsider can clearly see, however, that had she been open and honest with her thoughts and feelings even though she believed this to be true, the relationship might have lasted more than three months.  There might have been a different outcome.

There is nothing irrational about making an educated guess or prediction for personal guidance. It is when we become CERTAIN that our prediction WILL happen, instead of it merely being LIKELY to happen, that our thinking becomes irrational. Because we cannot accurately predict that we will even take our next breath, the only prediction that we can be CERTAIN of is that we will all one day die.


In order to avoid Fortune Telling and SFPs, make sure you are looking at your situation with all the facts, and you understand what your underlying assumptions are.  Take your time formulating your opinions and your actions.

For more on this topic, read Feel the Way You Want to Feel, No Matter What! by Aldo Pucci.

Discounting the Positive

Discounting the positive is a mental mistake that is very similar to the mental filter (Pucci, 2006). When people discount the positive, they are often believing some sort of negative thought, and any evidence that comes up to the contrary somehow "doesn't count".

For example, let's say a woman believes that she is bad.  After defining the word "bad" to mean that she is innately evil, is worthless, and has nothing good to bring to society, I bring up some points to counter her thinking.  Bringing up the fact that the woman has a stable job where she is in charge of several departments yields a response such as, "Yeah, but that doesn't count because they felt sorry for me and kept promoting me even though I'm bad." Bringing up the point that the woman has never harmed anyone, much less murdered them, she replies, "I haven't yet, but I could." Confronting her with the fact that she has a family who loves, supports, and needs her, she replies, "I will probably end up hurting them one day too."  This woman is discounting the positive evidence against her negative belief.  When she does this, she depresses herself and makes herself quite anxious.

How can we make sure we are not making this mental mistake?
1. To think rationally, we must base our thinking on fact. This means all the facts, not just the ones that we like or that fit with our current beliefs (Pucci, 2006). 

2. Ask questions that might disconfirm the already held belief (Roberto, 2009).

3. Decide to entertain competing beliefs (Roberto, 2009).

4. Probe the opinion of experts.  If an expert agrees with the already believed thought, ask him or her why they agree with you and what evidence they have that supports or refutes your belief (Roberto, 2009).


Sources:
Pucci, A. R. (2006). The Client's Guide to Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy: How to live a  healthy, happy life...no matter what! New York: iUniverse, Inc.

Roberto, M. A. (2009). The Art of Critical Decision Making Parts I & II. Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company.

Are You “In Love”? You May be Making a Mental Mistake!

According to Aldo Pucci (2006), MA, DCBT, and author of The Client’s Guide to Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy, Mental Mistake #3 is the mental filter, or, as professor Michael A. Roberto (2009) of Bryant University calls it, the confirmation bias.  The mental filter is described as acknowledging only information that is consistent with already believed thoughts.  In plain English, it’s like going through life with blinders on. 

Have you ever heard the expression “Love is blind”?  Well, that concept actually has some merit to it.  When we are in love, we often believe that the person we are in love with is perfect for us.  We will often overlook, downplay, or even change evidence to the contrary until it fits with what we already have our minds set to think.  Later on, after we’ve been married for a while, the blinders come down and we begin to tell each other, “You’ve changed!” While it’s possible that we’ve changed, it could also be that the blinders we had while we were dating have started to come down, and we’re finally seeing the other person as they actually are.

I’ve heard this mistake used in several ways.  Some people will believe that they are stupid (despite evidence that they are of at least average intelligence), others that they are worthless (despite evidence of their value), others that they are bad (despite evidence that they are no worse than any other fallible human being), others that their lives are no longer worth living (despite evidence that their unpleasant circumstances are merely temporary), others that their boyfriend/girlfriend is so wonderful and perfect (despite others warning of their criminal, murderous history), others that the Japanese would never bomb Pearl Harbor (Wohlstetter, 1962) (despite evidence that they were on their way), and others that they are the greatest thing that ever happened to the world (despite evidence that they are no better than the above average fallible human being).  When they present their evidence for these beliefs, I often chuckle to myself, because I see the mental filter in action!

What can we do about the mental filter?
1. Look at and acknowledge ALL information about a specific belief or situation, not just that information that confirms your belief.  Intentionally look for evidence that supports alternative views.  Identify a thought or belief that passes the Three Rational Questions but that you may have difficulty believing. Pretend that you are an attorney, and in one week you must present evidence that will convince a jury that the new thought is true.  Refuse to make up evidence and provide examples from your life that actually happen.  Write down all your evidence.

2. Acknowledge that you can be incorrect in your thinking. List the things you think about the world, yourself, and others that you HOPE are incorrect. Now, look for evidence to support the possibility that you are, in fact, incorrect in thinking these thoughts.
Being aware of the mental filter will help you in many areas of your life, including your love life.  Now, go out there and prove yourself wrong!

Sources:
Pucci, A. R. (2006). The Client’s Guide to Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy: How to Live a Healthy, Happy Life…No Matter What! New York: iUniverse, Inc.

Roberto, M. A. (2009). The Art of Critical Decision Making Parts I & II. Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company.

Wohlstetter, R. (1962). Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Mental Mistake #2 – Overgeneralization

Continuing the discussion on the 26 Common Mental Mistakes, number two on the list is overgeneralization.  According to Dr. Aldo Pucci in his book Feel the Way You Want to Feel, No Matter What, overgeneralization is the unintentional exaggeration of the frequency of something (saying something ALWAYS or NEVER happens), or an inaccurate extrapolation (saying that because one part of a group is a certain way, all parts of that group must be that way).

1. Unintentional Exaggerations
This mental mistake is particularly used in marriages and in families with teenagers.  You may have heard your loved ones say something like, “You NEVER let me do anything!” or “You ALWAYS get upset when I tell you how I feel, so I’ve learned not to tell you.”  If these are not statements of fact, then these loved ones are overgeneralizing.  They are not intentionally exaggerating; they are merely using the English language style they were taught.  Is it accurate to say that someone ALWAYS gets upset when feelings are expressed by someone else?  If it is, then this is not an overgeneralization, but a fact.  However, if there has been one time where the person did not get upset, then this statement is no longer fact.  It now implies that the person has the inability to feel something other than upset when the other person expresses his or her feelings.  The same is true for the NEVER statement.  If it is true that the person has not one time in the past let the other person do anything, then this is a statement of fact. If it is untrue that the person has never let the other person do anything, it is implied that the person in authority is a spiteful, tyrannical killjoy, and the statement is inaccurate.

2. Inaccurate Extrapolations
Inaccurate extrapolations can lead to many misconceptions.  For example, a person was driving down the road and noticed a crew of Latino workers quickly and beautifully landscaping a property.  The person told his wife, “You know, Latinos are hard workers.”   They continued driving and passed a road construction crew where everyone, including Latinos and other races, was taking a break.  The wife said to her husband, “You know, Latinos are lazy.”  Who was right?  Neither!  Just because the Latinos in one situation were working hard does not mean that all of them do, and just because they were not working hard in the second example does not mean that they all do not work hard.  Other examples of inaccurate extrapolations can include:
Asians are intelligent.

White people are money hungry and have no rhythm.

Black people are good at basketball and can dance.

Christians are stupid.

Muslims are terrorists.

Men are evil.

Women are crazy.

All hot dogs make me vomit. (The person who said this had vomited only after eating hot dogs from a certain
restaurant one time, and had never before vomited after eating hot dogs there)

Athletes are idiots.

Nerds are not cool.

Band members are geeks.

Teenagers are lazy.

Fords (or Hondas or Chevys or Pontiacs) are unreliable and will break down on you.

Inaccurate extrapolations like these can lead to prejudice, hate crimes, and other unhealthy fears.  They can also lead to mistaken underlying assumptions such as these groups of people or things being unable to be anything else than how they have been judged.

How to avoid Overgeneralizing:
1. Speak the facts, not what appears to be the facts or what is just easier to say.
2. Make judgments on a case-by-case basis rather than judging all things to be a certain way simply because one thing was that way.

For more information, read Feel the Way You Want to Feel, No Matter What by Aldo Pucci.

Look Out for Mental Mistakes!

Are you a procrastinator? A perfectionist? Prone to depressed thinking? Just a little “OCD”? Prone to panic, worry, or any other type of anxiety? Your problem may be that you are making some mental mistakes!

Dr. Aldo Pucci, the developer of Rational-Living Therapy, has identified 26 Common Mental Mistakes that most people make.  These mental mistakes are easily identified, and once they are understood, they are easily rectified.  Throughout the next few months I will be describing these Mental Mistakes, giving examples, and showing you what to do about them.

1. All or None Thinking:  All or none thinking is defined as “seeing no middle ground.”  This is often referred to as “Black or White thinking.”  People who think in terms of All or None often have difficulty with:

Procrastination -  “If I can’t get it all done in one sitting, I won’t do any of it.”

Perfectionism - “It’s not worth doing if I can’t do it perfectly.” “It’s not worth turning in if it’s not perfect.” “I’d rather take an F than turn in imperfect work.” “You either do the work completely or you don’t do it at all.”

Trying new things or staying with something they enjoy - “There is no use of me playing soccer if I can’t be on the USA’s World Cup soccer team.”

Marriage Issues - “You either love me or you don’t.” “The way I fold towels is the only way to do it correctly.”

Idealizing others - “He/she is perfect.”

Devaluing others - “He/she is absolutely terrible.”

Depression - “This situation is absolutely hopeless. There is no solution.” “Life is not worth living without _____.”

Dieting or Sobriety - “I indulged one time so I blew it.”


What to do:
1. REFUSE to think this way any longer.

2. Ask yourself if your statement is absolutely true all the time, or if there is some sort of gray area or continuum. Dr. Pucci states that most things in life are on a dimmer switch rather than a light switch.  What he is saying is that there are degrees in most things.

3. Replace your old thought with a new, rational thought.

4. Practice your new rational thought until it becomes your new habit.

For example:

Instead of thinking:	Think this:
“If I can’t get it all done in one sitting, I won’t do any of it.”	“If I can’t get all this done in one sitting, that’s okay. I will have less to do when I return to this project later.”
“It’s not worth doing if I can’t do it perfectly”	“There is value in learning from my mistakes. If I can’t do it perfectly, there is still value in doing it.”
“It’s not worth turning in if it’s not perfect. I’d rather take an F than turn in imperfect work.”	“I am a fallible human being. I can’t expect everything I do to be perfect. I would rather turn in imperfect work and pass this class than have to take this class over again because I failed to turn in an assignment”
“There is no use of me playing soccer if I can’t be on the USA’s World Cup soccer team.”	“Even if I don’t have the skills or talent for the USA national team, I can still learn a lot and enjoy myself by playing in my recreational league. If I enjoy soccer, I can play as long as possible.”
“You either love me or you don’t.”	“Some days your love for me will be stronger than other days.”
“The way I fold towels is the only way to do it correctly.”	“There are several ways to do many chores, and even if it’s not my way, it still gets done.”
“He/she is perfect.”	“He/she is a fallible human being with positive, negative, neutral qualities.”
“He/she is absolutely terrible.”	“He/she is a fallible human being with positive, negative, neutral qualities.”
“This situation is absolutely hopeless. There is no solution.”	“Just because I don’t see a solution doesn’t mean one does not exist.”
“Life is not worth living without _____.”	“My happiness does not depend on ____. I can have happy days and a satisfying life without ___.”
“I indulged one time so I blew it. I quit.”	“I indulged one time. I can learn from this so that I don’t do it again, and I can finish out the rest of today working on my goal of developing new and healthy habits.”

Removing All or None thinking can help to alleviate many problems.  How have you exhibited All or None thinking? What did you do about it?