Talk:Cognitive distortion

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 April 2020 and 20 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TiffanyShiffler.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marilake1998.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 May 2020 and 3 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Qingmei95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Thinking errors" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Thinking errors. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 3#Thinking errors until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

intro not very good

"supposedly perpetuate certain psychological disorders" has the weasel word "supposedly" and misses the point that "distortion" is primarily a "defense mechanism" - albeit a dysfunctional one--Penbat (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1989 is off by a few years

Before the "Feeling Good Handbook", there was a book called "Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy", published in 1980. It also introduced the theory of cognitive distortions. -- WillWare (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive distortion / fallacy / defense mechanism

All cognitive distortions listed should be delineated in terms of fallacies and defense mechanisms described elsewhere. Incidentally Disqualifying or Downplaying the positive ties in with negative and positive reinforcement.--Penbat (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal edit

Removed line: "It would be more correct to credit Aaron Beck, not David Burns, as the founder of the cognitive theory of emotions. David Burns, a student of Dr. Beck, was a successful synthesizer and disseminator of cognitive therapy. particularly through "The Feeling Good Handbook"" This line is irrelevant because cognitive therapy is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, so this does not concern Aaron Beck. It however, does properly credit Burns with the proposal of "cognitive distortions" Delandeth (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive distortion by sex offenders

I removed most of the text from this section, since it was not written clearly and lacked citations. It was added by one individual on March 11. The section was almost immediately tagged, and no improvements have been made, so I deleted most of it. Oanjao (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entire section should be deleted. Not relevant in the grand scheme of things. A "See also" at the most. --1000Faces (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If we are going to talk about this, we also ought to include logical fallacies employed to the detriment of sex offenders: hasty generalization and other biases that are more socially common. ~DJac75

It is a useful example of cognitive distortion in practice and how it is employed by abusers.--Penbat (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That material would probably be more pertinent in an article about abusers/offenders. If we need an example in this article, the section could just as well be about how abuse victims' cognition is distorted, but I don't think we need such examples here. (Cognitive distortion is not "employed" by anyone. Cognitive distortion is not conscious/intentional manipulation of others or self.) Joja lozzo 15:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is "narcissistic rage" doing in there?

I mean, I understand how it applies in that the narcissistic person may be doing any or all of the things in the list. But unless there's some documentation linking treatment of narcissistic people with the cognitive behavioral list, I don't understand why it's in this article. --Bluejay Young (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had the very same thought after reading the article. People with narcissistic tendencies certainly use cognitive distortions, but so do the rest of you! CBT is indeed used to treat people with narcissistic issues, but CBT is used to treat a variety of issues. I'm not sure why this one is singled out for inclusion. The main article is about an aspect of CBT, not about CBT per se. As such, this section is a clumsy thumb sticking out of the article and shouldn't be included. Vandemark (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is off-topic and clearly does **not** belong here. It should be removed. It was probably added to link the the book on HarperCollins. 117.212.72.214 (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeping changes, BRD

See this diff. Eknash4 made a bold change, which was reverted by Dandv. The next step ought to be discussion here on this talk page, not undoing the reversion. In addition, the anonymous editor behind IP 71.194.136.75 will do well to consider Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks before accusing another editor of hypocrisy.

Comparing the page versions before and after Dandv's reversion, the chief differences I see are in the section on main cognitive distortions. For one thing, the item on all-or-nothing thinking is once again a blue link (with a valid target.) There are other differences of format and content. Here is the place to discuss them. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Citation

This jumped out at me and I went to look up the source to learn more about it: "Always being right - Prioritizing truth or ethics over the feelings of another person.[6]"

Problem is, the source doesn't quite say that or (at least in my case) was misunderstood. What the article actually explains is pursuing an action that is harmful to yourself and others because you can't admit that you're wrong. As the sentence is written now, I honestly thought that it was implying we should do things we think are wrong, both morally and scientifically, to spare the feelings of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.117.156 (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

emphasis on cognitive distortion and depression is wrong.

Cognitive distortion is the psychological basis for spin, distortions can be positive or negative and are associated with people with personality disorders. It is not just to do with anxiety and depression. In narcissistic defences, cognitive distortion is identified as a narcissistic defence.--Penbat (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bias of Optimism.

As an article dealing with fallacy and distortions in judgment, I disagree with the prevalent presupposition of "negative=wrong/positive=correct" in the descriptions.

i.e. The "Fortune Telling" section outlines fortune telling as the prediction of negative future events, and gives for an example a student foreseeing failure even though the student has prepared well.

The student's worldview distorts in the same way having not prepared at all yet foreseeing success. I insist we keep in mind that while logically sound thought doesn't support irrational negativity, it also doesn't support mania.

P.s. The article reads well, and I believe whomever wrote this did a wonderful job. I do not aim to undermine the article, only to point out that irrational positivity is just as delusional as irrational negativity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.64.141 (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacy of Change and Always Being Right

The last two sections, "Fallacy of Change" and "Always Being Right" may have validity in another context, but the descriptions betray the classification.

"Fallacy of Change-Relying on social control to obtain cooperative actions from another person." Distorted judgment of many types may lead someone to rely on social control to obtain cooperation from others, but relying on social control does not prove distorted judgment. I.e. "Most X's rely on Z" does not imply "If it relies on Z it must be X"

"Always being right - Prioritizing self-interest over the feelings of another person." While a distorted worldview could cause one to prioritize self-interest over the feelings of another, so could sound logic; thus it cannot be classified as a distortion or fallacy in the current context. I.e. Distortion: Regardless of X's feelings, Z reasons that it is correct because X is inferior. This is much like a mother's "because I'm your mother and I said so" fallacy, which assumes that the child cannot be right due to it's inherent inferiority to it's mother.

Sound-Logic: X disagrees strongly with Z's choice, but Z goes forward with the choice anyway because the benefit of the decision outweighs the benefit of X's agreement. X may wish to stay with Z, but Z may break up with X after carefully considering the situation and finding it more beneficial to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.64.141 (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

#Disputed

Just checking to see the factual accuracy concern. I don't see anything here. What's the factual accuracy concern? Johnathlon (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any. I have removed the template. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]