healing/recovery through venting?

[_wenglund]

Wade, wikipedia describes cognitive distortions essentially as faulty reasoning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion I'd like you to go to RFM and find a post which illustrates "cognitive distortion" on there.

by the way, I can see how you have cognitive distortion. I'm very serious. You seem to treat the entire board of RFM posters as if they are one poster. And you interpret criticisms of the church as anger. I think it likely you blow out of proportion individual posts, by interpreting them as having the same importance you place on them. But keep in mind that your interpretation of posts there is skewed by the importance and relevancy to your life that you place on them. The post to the poster may be quite insignificant in their daily lives.

Here is a list it gives:

List
Related links are suggested in parentheses.

All-or-nothing thinking - Thinking of things in absolute terms, like "always", "every" or "never". Few aspects of human behavior are so absolute. (See false dilemma.)

Overgeneralization - Taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations. (See hasty generalization.)

Mental filter - Focusing exclusively on certain, usually negative or upsetting, aspects of something while ignoring the rest, like a tiny imperfection in a piece of clothing. (See misleading vividness.)

Disqualifying the positive - Continually "shooting down" positive experiences for arbitrary, ad hoc reasons. (See special pleading.)

Jumping to conclusions - Assuming something negative where there is no evidence to support it. Two specific subtypes are also identified:

Mind reading - Assuming the intentions of others.

Fortune telling - Predicting that things will turn out badly. (See slippery slope.)

Magnification and Minimization - Exaggerating negatives and understating positives. Often the positive characteristics of other people are exaggerated and negatives understated. There is one subtype of magnification:

Catastrophizing - Focusing on the worst possible outcome, however unlikely, or thinking that a situation is unbearable or impossible when it is really just uncomfortable.

Emotional reasoning - Making decisions and arguments based on how you feel rather than objective reality. (See appeal to consequences.)

Making should statements - Concentrating on what you think "should" or ought to be rather than the actual situation you are faced with, or having rigid rules which you think should always apply no matter what the circumstances are. (See wishful thinking.)

Labelling - Related to overgeneralization, explaining by naming. Rather than describing the specific behavior, you assign a label to someone or yourself that puts them in absolute and unalterable terms.

Personalization (or attribution) - Assuming you or others directly caused things when that may not have been the case. (See illusion of control.) When applied to others this is an example of blame.

I am grateful that you posted this, Marg. Aside from your personal commentary, it may be very enlightening and useful to the discussion at hand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_marg]

I am grateful that you posted this, Marg. Aside from your personal commentary, it may be very enlightening and useful to the discussion at hand.

And I hope that means you're going to go to RFM and find a post which supports your diagnosis of cognitive distortions on there.

[_Mister Scratch]

This is bull, Wade, since part of the problem is the Church itself, and its rigidity. The experts juliann cites so often are in full agreement on this. Until you acknowledge this, I hardly see how you can be "trusted."

Sorry, Scratch. I care too much about you to continue arguing with you counterproductively. You either get it, or you don't. If you want to be helped with your dysfunction, then I will be pleased to try. If you want to remain in denial about it, well that is your choice. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sort of like how you continuously ignore the scholarship in counterproductive fashion? As long as you continue to believe that the Church and the men who lead it are are completely and utterly infallible, it will be impossible to trust you or to see you as anything other than an apologetic lackey. I genuinely like you, Wade, but I just don't see how anything remotely resembling reciprocity is possible with you.

[_Mister Scratch]

Runtu---

Wade's "advice" on how to alleviate tension in your marriage should be interesting, considering that he admits he's never been married, and is not a professional counselor, or even in professional training.

Wade---You still have not addressed my question. What is your solution?

Obviously, venting is not the answer. I think you're picking a strawman argument. No one here has stated that venting is the "cure-all" or an ultimate recovery solution. It's only a beginning...a means of identifying the issues.

Healing involves moving forward. If you are honestly willing to address your thoughts on different ways to move forward, I think that people would be willing to listen. I know I would. But so far, all you have done is wagged your finger at people and said that "venting is bad".

Personally, I don't necessarily think that venting is bad if it is used a place to start in the recovery process.

Do you want to argue the negative affects of venting, or do you want to share ideas about how to move from venting, or identifying the problem, to the next level?

Your assuming that calling something "venting" and "grieving" makes it so. Your assuming that there is a need for "recovery". The truth is, while these fine folks may believe they have good cause to "vent" and "grieve" and "recover", they really don't.

It occurs to me that this claim is a direct contradiction of LDS doctrine. You are essentially claiming that the Church and its leadership are totally and completely infallible. Thus, you are guilty of heresy.

On the other hand, if you want to retract, then you are going to have to concede that A) the Church itself it at least responsible for its own screw-ups, and B) that people who've been affected by these screw-ups have good reason to "vent" and/or "grieve."

[Gadianton]

I am grateful that you posted this, Marg. Aside from your personal commentary, it may be very enlightening and useful to the discussion at hand.

And I hope that means you're going to go to RFM and find a post which supports your diagnosis of cognitive distortions on there.

The first non-admin thread on the board was titled: "Puh-leez....Glenn Beck", by an unregistered poster called "flyer". Here is what he or she said:

What a card. The guy is all jovial and laughing and even swearing on camera. Now since when is a Mo supposed to behave this way? I find it amusing that he thinks he's so amusing.

While he does tackle some good topics, he just doesn't have any depth to tackle them intelligently. I guess that explains why he fell for Mo-ism.

Wonder if he on some level is struggling with cog diss? Or is he just a little vacuous as most TBMs come?

Let me ask:

1. Does this appear to be a fair assessment of Glenn Beck, or perhaps a mentally filtered version?
2. Does it disqualify Glenn as amusing (in spite of the fact that his is the third highest ranked talk show in the nation), and his depth in tackling good topics intelligently (as if that is something that can be determined from the format of a 3hr. call-in show)?
3. Does it imply that Glenn, as a Mormon, shouldn't behave the way he does.
4. Does it mind read why Glenn may have joined the Church and whether he is struggling with "cog diss"?
5. Does it overgeneralize about the depth or alleged "vacuousness" of Mormon intellectuality?
6. Is it emotional reasoning or an argument based on objective reality?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

This is bull, Wade, since part of the problem is the Church itself, and its rigidity. The experts juliann cites so often are in full agreement on this. Until you acknowledge this, I hardly see how you can be "trusted."

Sorry, Scratch. I care too much about you to continue arguing with you counterproductively. You either get it, or you don't. If you want to be helped with your dysfunction, then I will be pleased to try. If you want to remain in denial about it, well that is your choice. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sort of like how you continuously ignore the scholarship in counterproductive fashion? As long as you continue to believe that the Church and the men who lead it are are completely and utterly infallible, it will be impossible to trust you or to see you as anything other than an apologetic lackey. I genuinely like you, Wade, but I just don't see how anything remotely resembling reciprocity is possible with you.

I don't believe the Church and the men who lead it are infallable (complete and utterly or otherwise).

But, perhaps you can find some "reciprocity" with that strawman you have constructed of me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

I don't believe the Church and the men who lead it are infallable (complete and utterly or otherwise).

With all due respect, I think you are lying, or at the very least equivocating. Name one way in which the contemporary Church and/or the leadership has fouled up somehow. My guess is that you can't or won't do it, thus rendering your claim that the Church/leadership is fallible virtually meaningless.

[_wenglund]

I don't believe the Church and the men who lead it are infallable (complete and utterly or otherwise).

With all due respect, I think you are lying, or at the very least equivocating. Name one way in which the contemporary Church and/or the leadership has fouled up somehow. My guess is that you can't or won't do it, thus rendering your claim that the Church/leadership is fallible virtually meaningless.

The statement by Scratch above, Marg, provides us with at least two examples of cognitive distortions from your Wiki list: 1) labeling (calling me a liar), 2) jumping to conclusions (assuming that I am lying or equivocating even thought there is no evidence to suppost it, and even evidence against it--i.e. the declaration from the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY of what I think and believe).

There are also two other cognitive distortions in his statement that are not on the Wiki list: 1) arguing from silence (he fallaciously assumes that since I haven't, to his knowledge, mentioned any fallibilities, and if I don't list at least one fallibility, he sees that as evidence that my statement about fallability is virtually meaningless). In truth, I could list some areas of fallibility, but I have informed Scratch that I do not wish to argue with him. So, my not doing what he is now asking me to do, does not support his false judgement of me, but merely evinces what I said before about my choosing not to argue with him. 2) Non sequitur (he fallaciously assumes that "fallability" only means "fouled up", whereas it could refer to a variety of other things, such as an imperfect knowledge of something.)

However, I do appreciate his providing us with this local (here at md.com) object lesson on cognitive distortions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

There are also two other cognitive distortions in his statement that are not on the Wiki list: 1) arguing from silence (he fallaciously assumes that since I haven't, to his knowledge, mentioned any fallibilities, and if I don't list at least one fallibility, he sees that as evidence that my statement about fallability is virtually meaningless). In truth, I could list some areas of fallibility, but I have informed Scratch that I do not wish to argue with him.

Ah. I see. Thank you for proving my point for me.

So, my not doing what he is now asking me to do, does not support his false judgement of me, but merely evinces what I said before about my choosing not to argue with him.

I don't know, Wade. I don't think it's so much a matter of you "choosing not to argue." I think the simple fact is that you are constitutionally incapable of arguing with me on this point. You can't do it, just as I predicted. Big surprise.

[_wenglund]

There are also two other cognitive distortions in his statement that are not on the Wiki list: 1) arguing from silence (he fallaciously assumes that since I haven't, to his knowledge, mentioned any fallibilities, and if I don't list at least one fallibility, he sees that as evidence that my statement about fallability is virtually meaningless). In truth, I could list some areas of fallibility, but I have informed Scratch that I do not wish to argue with him.

Ah. I see. Thank you for proving my point for me.

So, my not doing what he is now asking me to do, does not support his false judgement of me, but merely evinces what I said before about my choosing not to argue with him.

I don't know, Wade. I don't think it's so much a matter of you "choosing not to argue." I think the simple fact is that you are constitutionally incapable of arguing with me on this point. You can't do it, just as I predicted. Big surprise.

On second thought, and not by way of arguing, this could turn out to be a better object lesson than I thought.

Scratch, if I provide you with at least one example where I think the Church and/or its leaders have been, or are fallible, will you then rightly admit to being WRONG and having had COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS regarding each and every one of the following:

1. about me lying/equivocating
2. about there being evidence upon which to base your claim that I was lying/equivocating
3. about trusting your unauthoritative opinon over my authoritative word
4. about your argument from silence
5. about your non sequitur
6. about me proving your point
7. about me not wanting to argue with you.
8. about me not being "consitutionally able to argue this point"
9. and about about your prediction being right

Thanks, -Wade Englund-