Just a note to the moderators, I will be trying to post about all the cognitive distortions in separate threads and how to address them.

I hope this is allowed.

Thanks.

Just use a single thread for all of them please.

I would imagine that EVERYONE, at one time or another, has engaged in emotional reasoning. How could it be otherwise, given that our emotions are so central to our mental life? How well can or does the reasoning portion of the mind insulate itself from the emotional portion of the mind, and visa versa? I get that person whose reasoning is hitched to his or her mood, rather than being able to observe mood and discount it, are likely to judge the world inaccurately.

I have, for instance, had feelings of free-floating anger and resentment which has led me to blame complete strangers for deliberately annoying me. "It's their behavior that is making me angry." Of course, sometimes other people's behavior is enough to piss off the Virgin Mary. So one has to try and sort out whether other people are guilty by reason of my craziness, or whether they are guilty of objectively obnoxious behavior that is anybody's day spoiler.

See, jamalrob could have flown into a rage at your stupid obstinate insistence on putting each cognitive distortion in a separate thread. He realized that he hadn't eaten all day, was low on blood sugar, and that this was making him feel crabby and peckish. He may have felt like banning you on the spot, but instead just sent a note advising you to put them all in one thread.

Voila! CB Victory!

All of philosophy is based on emotions where you love that which seems logically true and hate that which is illogical. Love and hate are emotions. This foundational basis must not be overlooked.

I agree that there is a line where you must reject emotional appeals. But you cannot reject absolutely all emotions because philosophy is based on them as well.

"I feel therefore it is. "

Moodie De Cartes

"I feel therefore it is. "

Moodie De Cartes — Nils Loc

Haha, but, that's wrong? How do you get out of it then?

In trying to pinpoint a singular cause for our distress — Posty McPostface

What, exactly, is our distress, and why would you be trying to pinpoint a singular cause for it?

What, exactly, is our distress, and why would you be trying to pinpoint a singular cause for it? — Terrapin Station

Just distress in terms of emotional health. When emotions fail us, then things go sour? I think that I'm unhappy, therefore I am?

If thinking can make it so then just think that you're happy.

If thinking can make it so then just think that you're happy. — Terrapin Station

But, that's not how depression or anxiety works. First comes the thought that you feel like crap, and then come to the endless rationalizations as to why.

Ah. I don't have depression and only rarely have anxiety. So I don't have much experience with how they work.

Ah. I don't have depression and only rarely have anxiety. So I don't have much experience with how they work. — Terrapin Station

They are fickle beasts. They nag on emotions to get their work done, or lack thereof.

I think that there is some conflation going on. One doesn't feel like a spouse is being unfaithful. One thinks/believe it. The feeling would be despair, confusion, sadness, etc. Those are the result of thinking/believing.

If it is the case that the spouse is not being unfaithful, then the problem is that the other has drawn conclusions based upon the behaviour(s) of the one who is mistakenly thought/believed to be unfaithful.

The same behaviours can arise from different causes. It does not follow from the fact that one does not want to have sexual intercourse with another that the only reason for that is infidelity... although that could be the case.

Yes, but how do you delineate between the two?

Yes, but how do you delineate between the two? — Posty McPostface

Well, on my view that's not always easy because there is always an emotional element somewhere within thought/belief. Emotion is not always part of the immediate correlation. It is often 'buried' somewhere within one of the things being correlated to one another.

I just offered a simple account which 'separated' the two...

Well, on my view that's not always easy because there is always an emotional element somewhere within thought/belief. Emotion is not always part of the immediate correlation. It is often 'buried' somewhere within one of the things being correlated to one another.

I just offered a simple account which 'separated' the two... — creativesoul

So, can one have a thought without emotion? I feel a certain way; but, this does not correlate with my thought. Therefore what?

So, can one have a thought without emotion? — Posty McPostface

No.

No — creativesoul

But the proposition such as 1+1=2 is an emotionally devoid proposition. No?

Naturally emotional reasoning is quite logical if the issue at hand is about emotions. Hence the relationship with your spouse is about feelings towards another person. If you don't feel happy yet cannot reason why you feel so based on evidence, in this case I think it is totally logical to follow your emotions. There obviously is a problem in your relationship.

I'm wondering if anyone else falls into this trap of reasoning emotionally? In trying to pinpoint a singular cause for our distress, I attempt to highlight this cognitive distortion as one which stands out from all the others in contributing to distress, depression, and a whole host of other negative affective moods. — Posty McPostface

The problem of emotional reasoning seems to surface in a situation that one ought to look at the facts, ought to reason and not let your feelings be the judge. Let's say that one is making a financial investment and one feels the financial advisor promoting the investment feels nice and honest, yet one doesn't focus on what actually he or she is selling to you. When people have to make a choice and cannot get to the decision by reasoning, then they'll go by emotional reasoning. The famous "gut-feeling" as it's called.

Perhaps when people are depressed and in huge emotional distress, they cannot reason logically their decisions, but go with emotional reasoning as their emotions play such a huge role already. (I'm not a psychologist and I don't know if this is any use to you Posty, but my 2 cents.)

But the proposition such as 1+1=2 is an emotionally devoid proposition. No? — Posty McPostface

No.

As before, the emotional content is not always a part of 'expressed' correlation except that there is - at the very least - fear and/or contentment 'buried' somewhere in all the thought that led up to asserting and/or expressing that proposition. The expression is built upon and/or grounded by some previous thought. Somewhere along the 'line', fear and/or contentment is part of the correlation itself. It is one of the things being connected, as compared/contrasted with being just a smaller part of one of the things being connected.

Hence...

One who is entertaining thoughts that his/her spouse is unfaithful, could be drawing correlations between the fear, all of it's affects, and the idea that the spouse is being unfaithful(whatever that idea includes).

(I'm not a psychologist and I don't know if this is any use to you Posty, but my 2 cents.) — ssu

Not necessary to have psychologists explain the idea. I think you did a good job at explicating the overt and rational mind contrasted with the implicit and ambiguous emotive aspect of reasoning. Which I wonder about, is the reciprocal relationship between the emotive aspect of reasoning with the rational and logical elements to reasoning? How do they influence one another?

What's your take on speculative trading @ssu? I know emotions drive a lot of decision making in the financial markets.

As before, the emotional content is not always a part of 'expressed' correlation except that there is - at the very least - fear and/or contentment 'buried' somewhere in all the thought that led up to asserting and/or expressing that proposition. The expression is built upon and/or grounded by some previous thought. Somewhere along the 'line', fear and/or contentment is part of the correlation itself. It is one of the things being connected, as compared/contrasted with being just a smaller part of one of the things being connected. — creativesoul

But, there really isn't anything emotional about expressing the proposition that 1+1 is 2. Is there?

As before, the emotional content is not always a part of 'expressed' correlation except that there is - at the very least - fear and/or contentment 'buried' somewhere in all the thought that led up to asserting and/or expressing that proposition. The expression is built upon and/or grounded by some previous thought. Somewhere along the 'line', fear and/or contentment is part of the correlation itself. It is one of the things being connected, as compared/contrasted with being just a smaller part of one of the things being connected.
— creativesoul

But, there really isn't anything emotional about expressing the proposition that 1+1 is 2. Is there? — Posty McPostface

Are you uncertain, certain, or neither?

Which of these is not emotional?

Are you uncertain, certain, or neither? — creativesoul

My confidence statement (of how certain I am about ascertaining the truth of the proposition) exists independently of the truth of the proposition that 1+1 is 2. Can there be any other way of understanding such a statement?

Your confidence does not exist independently of your thought/belief.

Your confidence does not exist independently of your thought/belief. — creativesoul

How so?

What sort of question is that Posty? Ask a better question.

What sort of question is that Posty? Ask a better question. — creativesoul

Okay. Then, I shall ask the very basic question as to whether thoughts can exist independently of emotions. Your answer to this question was a "no". Now, I ask why?