Often the things in the mind are about who we are. I know I’ve mentioned this many times on the website, but a few years ago I underwent a sexual awakening, from near celibacy to promiscuity. It was a huge change in my outlook, … and ‘inlook’ come to think about it. It transformed me. What does that mean, ‘transformed’, and come to think of it, what does ‘me’ mean? What it means is that all the mental thoughts, inner-voice chat, etc. changed. That changed first before my behaviour and then experience followed. This whole awakening wasn’t good luck, it was crafted from within. This isn’t a chicken or egg situation. I changed my mind and then changed my life.
Well after this happened and I started to have regular sexual relations, these new daydreams spontaneously started. Like I say, I rarely do a daily journal exercise nowadays because it was successful in making me permanently mindful and in control of my inner-world, and when something new evolves, then I am aware of it. So in this new, spontaneous daydream, well, it wasn’t one, it was a series of daydreams, variations along a similar theme. In it/them, I was being interviewed on TV, being asked about my new experiences (sexual) and I was explaining it’s sexual, not emotional. I’m not interested in a partner. Not in a negative or hateful way, just the way it is.
Many of these sequences in our minds are self-defining. You could say there are rehearsals of how we would act in the world in various situations. But also, who we are. So, in a life-positive and sex-positive way, I have worked out, hopefully within the laws of logic and reasoned arguments, that when it comes to sex and relationships, everyone is different, and what works for me is promiscuity. I’m OK (nowadays) being celibate, but I like to meet and enjoy a short-term partner now and again, but the rest of the time, I’m happy being alone. Believe me, I have options and this is a happy, balanced choice. I can write down my argument, look for any illogic (insanity) and I think I’m good.
So I can say I’m a loner. It makes me happy. How do I know that? From the way I’ve acted and reacted in the past, and the daydreams in my mind, of repeatedly creating daydreams of declining invitations and the sensation response is ‘contentment’ or ‘peace’.
Do you see what I’m explaining? These inner-content sequences of the mind are defining who we are, how we would/will react. I know I’m a loner from this. It wasn’t a voice that boomed at me from the sky, “JAKE BLACK, YOU ARE A LONER AND HAPPY BY YOURSELF”. I know it from my daydreams, sensations and reactions, plus the life I have created, “alone in a shack, looking at the ocean typing this all morning, (glorious morning)”.
Now say, for the sake of argument, that there was something out of whack. Say in the daydreams, it was only ever women I was turning down and they were all gold-diggers or aggressive and self-centered. Now is that sanity? Can I make the statement:
All women are self-centered gold-diggers
I like to be by myself
I should avoid all women or I won’t be happy
No. There’s a fallacy. The first line is a hasty generalisation. Everyone, men and women, are different. The second line is true but the conclusion is wrong. The conclusion is a false dichotomy, suggesting there are only two options (false dilemma), I could either meet women who don’t fit the generalisation, or be happy with friends. If I really did feel something like this (I don’t, I just made it up), then a better argument might be:
Premise 1: Some individuals may exhibit self-centered behavior, but many people, including women, are kind and genuine.
Premise 2: I enjoy my independence and value my personal space.
Conclusion: Instead of avoiding all women, I will focus on building connections with those who share my values, which may lead to greater happiness and fulfillment in my life.
The point is that there are minor fallacies (the generalisation in the first line) and major fallacies (the structure doesn’t hold). There is a disconnection between the premise (the first statement) and the conclusion (the last sentence). There is no link between them, even if the first were true, it doesn’t lead to the second, you could live alone and still be unhappy
The second premise (liking solitude) doesn’t link to the conclusion, I can ONLY be happy that way, it isn’t true. I have evidence. I have happy memories with women, and being alone.
Premise 1 (Generalisation): All women are self-centred gold-diggers.
[Not true/insanity. Much evidence of women who are not like this is available]
Premise 2 (Personal Preference): I like to be by myself.
This is a personal statement that does not connect to the first premise in a meaningful way.
Conclusion (Faulty Logic): I should avoid all women or I won’t be happy.
This conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. Is it possible to think of a way this isn’t true? Yes. Can I conceive of scenarios where I am not avoiding women and am happy, yes. Are there people comparable to me, happy around women, yes. Do I have past experience of women being generous to me and being happy in their company, yes. [even if this last one was ‘no’, it would still be flawed as by critically thinking, I can also take other peoples’ experience into account and as a possibility for myself.]
My argument
I’m busy writing.
I get more done when I am alone.
I will delay meeting people for now but make some good connections that suit my social style when I get back to the city.
That’s quite a good argument. It avoids the ‘loner’ part, because in a way, this is a label, it’s true in a way, but in another way, it is false. In some ways, ANY label is false, we are not ‘this’ and ‘that’, we are an ever-changing stream of consciousness. Yes, themes come up in our consciousness, daydreams about avoiding social contact for example, but we have choice and volition over our inner-world, and ultimately, we are dynamic, ever-changing and ever-growing.
To go back to the first line, I identified the fallacy, a “hasty generalisation”. So a fallacy is an act of being illogical which is oft-repeated and defined, so there is a list of them to help spot the insanity. A “cognitive distortion” is essentially the same thing. It’s a list of ways your thinking can be illogical, to help you regain sanity. The distortions are a fairly modern construction, and the fallacies go right back to the birth of Western civilization. However, the distortions are definitely based on the fallacies. There are two differences. The logical fallacies are more about external discourse, if you are speaking to someone or listening to an argument, then you can spot the illogical reasoning with them, and there are quite a few.
With the cognitive distortions, there are only ten, and they relate to thinking rather than discourse (talking or writing). The brilliant thing about the ten cognitive distortions (an act of genius really) is that they cover any type of illogical thought. In other words, if you have any type of thought whatsoever which is crazy in any way, it will be covered by one of the distortions, and if you have a sane, logical thought, then it will NOT be covered by one.
So you can learn these, and get to know them very well. Initially, they will be a part of the journaling practice, to help see the flaws and illogic in your thinking, and this will go onto the next stage, which is to see distortions in real time, to be able to spot distortions in thought while you are having them (and correct them). The last stage is most of your thinking being sane and logical because, THAT IS THE WAY YOU HAVE TRAINED YOUR MIND TO BE. At this point, you’re there – welcome to sanity. Ohhh! Coffee!
So, right now, the logical step (see what I did there) is to go over the ten cognitive distortions.