C h a p t e r6

KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS AND THOUGHT PROCESSES

We will start this chapter with a few words on thoughts and then move on to an exploration of thought processes. Specifically, we will take a look at how our thoughts and thought processes can either help us gain mental clarity and emotional stability or interfere with correct thinking and inhibit emotional stability.1

When we speak of thought processes, we are referring to our mental or intellectual practices. These are also known as cognitive processes. Here we are looking not only at what we think, but also the way that we think, i.e., the way we arrive at our thoughts. Our thought processes are the inner mechanisms of our psyches that prepare us to assess and deal with reality. They can be on track or not, so it is imperative that we get to know them. We do not want to lapse into incorrect ways of thinking and make cognitive errors.

Thoughts

A thought is a consideration, reflection, or idea that is the product of mental activity. It is usually associated with intellect, reasoning, imagining, evaluation, judgment, opinion, memory, rationality, and objectivity. It is linear by nature in that one thought generally links to another and forms associations. It is the part of us that we use when making rational decisions.

Thought is very unlike emotion. It is not something that we experience so much as it is an activity that we do. As such, it is not reactive, but initiating. Thought is the part of us that feeds our emotional self the information upon which it reacts. This makes our thoughts very, very important. We are obligated to use them wisely.

When we consult our thoughts in order to temper the irrationality of our emotions, we are looking for a helping hand in the form of calm logic, solid facts, good ideas, new ways to view things, and judicious planning. We are also looking for a helpful evaluation of our behaviors, our perceptions, our beliefs, and our expectations. After our mental input, we can come away feeling more objective about the situation and far less emotive. Passion gives way to level-headedness.

Thought Processes

Sometimes after consulting our thoughts, we do not come away feeling better because our thought processes are not accurate or reliable. When this occurs we most likely are not interpreting our environment correctly. Old memories and/ or unresolved issues may be coloring our ability to see clearly. Moreover, our thoughts and beliefs may be too distorted or limited in scope to give us a reliable reading on reality. If this is the case, our judgments and evaluations will be incorrect and our expectations out of line. These difficulties with our thought processes can be brought to our attention and corrected. They will be discussed in detail below. The first mental process that we will explore is that of perception.

Perceptions

To perceive means to become aware of, to know, or to identify by means of the senses.2 It involves recognition, discernment, interpretation, and understanding of the environment. Because perception is an individualized interpretation of incoming information, it is a highly subjective process. As a result, our perceptions can lead us to either a correct interpretation of the environment or to a distorted or incomplete understanding of the environment and then to faulty conclusions. These faulty conclusions have little to do with reality.

There are three main ways that we can misperceive incoming information. We can distort it, we can limit it, or we can selectively choose what information we want to see. All three of these possibilities are explained below.

Distorted Perceptions/Mental Filters

Distorted perception is all about altering incoming information into something other than what it originally was. One of the main reasons we sometimes end up with distorted perceptions is that perception is a mental process by which the nature of an object is recognized through the association of a memory.3 This means that when we experience a new event in the present, old memories are triggered (because the new event seems similar to the ones in memory), and now the old memories tell us how to interpret the present situation.

In these situations our old memories act as filters that distort the new, incoming information. They promote the assumption that since something happened a certain way in the past, certainly it will happen that same way again. Here we are transferring data about yesteryear to a fresh, new moment, which may or may not have brought the same experience as that of days gone by.

This is similar to a beam of white light shining through a colored filter. As the beam of light approaches the filter, it is still white, but the minute it goes through the filter, it comes out another color on the other side. If the filter is blue, for example, we then give ourselves the information that the new event will yield blue. Then the emotions react accordingly. Unfortunately, the emotional self is reacting based on bad intelligence from a distorted perception.

This sort of thing is very self-destructive, not only keeping us from enjoying new experiences in the present moment, but also causing us to create self-fulfilling prophesies. If, for instance, someone does something nonthreatening in the present moment, but our memory-laden filters inform us that it is threatening, we might react to that situation poorly, perhaps even suspiciously or aggressively. We may engage in behaviors that are negative, blaming others or treating them as if they are going to judge us or hurt us. This will, in turn, bring us an unpleasant response from an innocent party who now feels misunderstood or maligned. We then feel justified in our original interpretation even though we have created that whole incident singlehandedly.

Distorted perception is particularly damaging in our relationships. We all carry forward memories of painful interactions with significant individuals from our adult or early years that we regularly and wrongly attribute to our present-day partners. This causes a world of hurt for our misunderstood, maligned partners who are sullied by our memories, convictions, and accusations. It also brings pain to us as we chafe under our convictions of wrongdoing and/or reap the angry, hurt reactions of our innocent partners.

When dealing with distorted perceptions/mental filters you need to ask yourself:

Limited Perceptions

Distorted perceptions are but one way that we can misperceive our environment. Another way that we misperceive and thus misinterpret our environment is to engage in limited perception. This means that we take in partial information about a new situation and then interpret the present moment based only on that. This can happen when we are overly absorbed in our own wants, needs, anxiety, or depression, thereby effectively shutting out an awareness of what is going on with other people.

For example, we may interpret other people’s fearful behavior as being aloof or standoffish, we may interpret their disappointment or sadness as being rude disinterest, or we may interpret their attempts at self-care as being selfish and rejecting. Obviously, we bring ourselves much pain with limited perception when a greater sphere of awareness could bring us peace of mind. We should always look deeper and have at the ready an array of possibilities for why something is or is not happening rather than seize the first, limited possibility.

Some questions you can ask yourself when dealing with limited perceptions are:

Selective Perceptions

Another way that we misperceive our environment is through selective perception. This is based on justifying preexisting beliefs. When we engage in selective perception, we tend to select incoming information that supports what we already think and ignore or quickly forget possibilities that contradict our beliefs. Here we see things only within our frame of reference, our existing value system, and our existing belief structure. This maladaptive practice is a very restrictive and biased way to view the world.

Selective perception in not limited to our perceptions of others. It can also be applied to us. For instance, it can result in only selecting incoming information that supports a self-denigrating view of self no matter how many positives abound. Or it can result in only selecting information that validates us as righteous and blameless people.

Selective perception occurs quite a bit in the political arena where incoming information is selectively chosen to support preexisting beliefs. It is also in play each time we engage in sexist or racist interactions where incoming information is selected to support our preexisting ideas about how others will behave. This does not apply to situations in which everything has been fairly considered and others are objectively exhibiting certain traits or behaviors. Specifically, it is vital that we not get so caught up in trying to be open, inclusive, and cognizant of stereotyping that we miss what is actually happening.

Selective perception can also occur more benignly in situations where we are not attempting to justify our preexisting beliefs, but tend to see only the things we are currently thinking about, focusing on, or interested in. For example, it can occur when somebody buys a new car and now all he or she notices on the road is the same make and model as the newly purchased car. Or it can occur when a woman is pregnant and now all she sees are other pregnant women. It can occur when someone is focused on physical fitness and now tends to see physically fit people or perhaps people in need of physical fitness.

Here you could ask yourself:

Beliefs

Another mental mechanism we employ is that of belief. A belief is an opinion or conviction based on an enduring thought that we embrace and deem to be true. It may be constructive or destructive, valid or invalid, but it is compelling by nature and powerfully affects our emotional state.

Our beliefs usually lead to an evaluation of that which is before us. Some result in a positive evaluation and others do not. When our beliefs are expansive, well informed, benevolent, and mature, our emotional reactions to our environment tend to be benign. When our beliefs are rigid, narrow, malevolent, or immature, they can result in particularly harsh or judgmental evaluations of self and others, which inform our feelings and thereby cause negative emotional reactions to our environment.

We might think of the impact of a belief as a simple A, B, C formula. A is the stimulus/incoming information, B is our belief along with the mental assessment it generates, and C is our emotional and behavioral reaction to that belief and associated mental appraisal. B resides between A and C, exerting influence. Within this context, belief (B) is the strongest power player for it is not so much the stimulus/incoming information (A) that dictates our emotional and behavioral responses (C) so much as it is our intervening beliefs (B). When B changes, C changes.

Consider this example: If a two-year-old child spills a glass of milk (A) and his or her parent holds the belief (B) that two-year-olds are coordinated enough and attentive enough to consistently hold on to a glass of milk, that parent will most likely be upset, critical, and angry (C). If that parent holds the belief that two-year-olds are developmentally uncoordinated and inattentive, that parent will have a more understanding, compassionate reaction. Here the key to emotional balance is in realizing what belief is in play and what valuations ensue. Fortunately, we can become aware of our beliefs, question them, and provide ourselves a better alternative.

The questions you might ask yourself regarding beliefs are similar to those listed under selective perception. However, since here you are not necessarily trying to defend your beliefs, you might expand the questioning to include:

There are a few widely held beliefs in particular that are both erroneous and misleading. These are based on myth or misconception, and if adhered to, can result in tremendous emotional upheaval. Four of these fallacious beliefs are listed below.

Heaven’s Reward Fallacy

In this mode of maladaptive thinking/believing, we expect our self-sacrifice and self-denial to pay off in the end. Then we feel upset, victimized, and bitter when it does not happen. These negative feelings are a direct result of not living in the present, of not including ourselves in life’s equation, and of not staying attuned to ourselves.

Certainly there will be times when self-sacrifice is needed, such as when attending to very young children, assisting with an infirm family member, getting through tough financial times, completing our education, or starting a new business. Yet even in these times of necessity, it is best to keep a close eye on our own physical and emotional state rather than wait for heaven’s reward.

While our sacrifices and ability to delay our gratification will hopefully pay off (and they sometimes do), we should not entertain the assumption that it is okay to sacrifice endlessly. The ability to delay gratification is a good thing, but masochism is not. We cannot barter with the universe, trading self-sacrifice for future rewards, or we may end up with precious little left of ourselves.

Here you can ask yourself:

The Fallacy of Change

The fallacy of change leads us to believe that we can get others to change if we just love, serve, lecture, suggest, explain, cajole, or pressure them enough. Here we do not respect the sovereignty of others. Our happiness is dependent on whether or not others will modify themselves.

This need for change we are talking about is far beyond healthy communication between individuals who are attempting to work and live together harmoniously by discussing things that get in the way. These kinds of discussions are necessary. They help us get along. They are not based on our worth or lack of it. It is our attempt to change others so that we can feel worthwhile that is the problem.

It is particularly enticing to try to get someone to change where others have already tried and failed. We mistakenly think that if this person will change for us, we must be special. We also unconsciously believe that if they change, we will feel vindicated, heard, understood, chosen, worthwhile, valuable, and validated. The problem is that others do not change unless they want to. However, we refuse to believe this, opting to pursue the fallacy of change.

Attempting to change others is a particularly destructive pursuit because we feel so much worse about ourselves when they do not change for us. Moreover, we waste so much of our lives trying to effect change where change is highly improbable or downright impossible.

Here we need to take our focus off changing others and replace it with a focus on making our own choices and establishing our own boundaries. Additionally, we need to ask ourselves what responsibility to ourselves we are avoiding by constantly paying attention to other people’s business. You could ask “What truths do I not want to face about my current situation?” “What truths do I not want to face about myself?”

The Fallacy of Control

When entertaining the fallacy of control, we either believe incorrectly that we are victims who are externally controlled or that we are hugely powerful in our ability to control things. Neither is correct.

In the first scenario we feel constantly victimized as we focus on others doing things to us, when, in fact, there are decisions that we could be making to influence the situation. Here you need to ask yourself:

In the second scenario we assume responsibility for everyone and everything as though we actually control the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of others. This can be a carryover from our earliest days when we felt merged with our mothers and felt a powerful sense of omnipotent control.

Here you can ask yourself:

The Fallacy of Fairness

The fallacy of fairness occurs when we believe that life is fair. Sometimes it is tied to the heaven’s reward fallacy in that we do what we consider to be the right thing thinking that we will eventually be rewarded for our good behavior. Thus, life will have been fair.

The fallacy of fairness is a tricky one. This is the case because whether or not a belief in fairness is considered a fallacy rests on one’s viewpoint. Perhaps the most accurate assessment of the situation might be that life is unfair as viewed from the lower levels and fair as viewed from the upper levels.

If viewed from a cosmic level that takes all actions into account throughout the eons, there may actually be an overall fairness to life. According to this belief system, when times are tough and life seems unfair, we may be working off our karmic debt or helping others balance theirs. Or perhaps if viewed from the perspective of life’s difficulties being opportunities for growth and development, life may be seen as fair. It may even be considered fair if assessed from the perspective that we are creators who do not have a full awareness of our own creative abilities and thus regularly generate negative, “unfair” situations for ourselves without realizing our own part in the matter. Likewise, life may be fair if it is true, as some believe, that we choose our own parents, siblings, significant others, obstacles, life path, and growth opportunities before we incarnate on this planet and are just living out what we have set up for ourselves.

Such an expansive belief system can be very helpful at times, particularly if it used as an adjunct to our real feelings rather than as a form of denial. However, despite the possibility of an overarching, cosmic fairness, we do live on the lower realms, and that reality must be faced. We must acknowledge and accept the fact that on the lower levels, fairness is oftentimes not discernable. Nor does it directly and clearly follow positive action. Rather, it is unpredictable, failing to follow our earthly timetable. It may not exist at all.

If we view our lives from a very limited perspective, as most of us do, we cannot possibly believe that life is fair. Life on this planet is a free-will zone. We can create anything we want. Many times we get caught in the crossfire. People do not even know that they are creators who are creating one thing or another every minute of their lives. On top of that, we are subject to certain laws on this planet that restrict our power. We can only do so much. Some have said in jest that this planet is the reform school of the universe. Sometimes it looks like that. Narcissism is rampant. Awareness is dismal. Everything is a struggle. Stress weighs us down, clouds our vision, robs our energy, and toys with our emotions. The list could go on. So yes, life here is a mess, and if viewed from a myopic perspective, it is definitely unfair. In fact, it is unfairness on steroids.

If we deny this reality and insist on seeing life on planet earth as potentially fair, we are going to be in for some pretty uncomfortable emotions. Trying hard over and over yet failing to receive fair treatment is anger producing. It can leave us feeling consciously or unconsciously resentful, bitter, or enraged. Sometimes it leaves us feeling forsaken and bereft. At the very least it can leave us with a sense of betrayal or hollow disillusionment when unfairness continues to dominate the scene and our reward does not emerge as expected. It is much better to embrace reality and good naturedly adjust our expectations.

As always, the best thing to do under these circumstances is to stop focusing on what we think should be, and focus on what is. Then we must ask ourselves, “What do people with this reality do?” Generally speaking, what is on this planet is that things are slow going, difficult, and unfair. What do people with this reality do? They do the best they can, they try to view things more expansively, they tap into their reservoir of spiritual and creative power, they accept what they cannot control, they create responsibly, they live by their own principles, they are inner directed, they refrain from comparing themselves to others, and they certainly do not lie to themselves about a fairness motif on this particular, dense planet.

Whatever the case, you must ask yourself:

Judgments

As we have seen from the above discussion on beliefs, our beliefs and the evaluations that accompany them often lead to judgments about what someone should be doing, thinking, or feeling. These assessments are sometimes called shoulds (“You should do this. You should not do that”). Shoulds can apply either to others or to oneself. They are important enough to warrant a section of their own.

Shoulding that is applied to others typically involves a focus on something we think they ought to be doing, saying, thinking, or feeling. Here it is all about changing others. As such, it is a focus on something that we cannot control and needs to be replaced with acceptance, the relinquishment of a focus on others, and boundary setting for ourselves instead. We need to concentrate on our own goals, our own choices, and our own actions. Essentially, we need to mind our own business.

Shoulding that is applied to oneself usually involves a focus on something that we think we ought to be changing and/or improving about ourselves. This can be a positive thing to a certain extent, particularly if we have been inner focused, thoughtful, and compassionate with ourselves. It can be particularly helpful when we work to improve ourselves without the pressure of an overly critical inner observer or an excessively strict set of demands and expectations. Conversely, it is not helpful when we harshly evaluate ourselves, attack ourselves, or pressure ourselves.

Unfortunately, shoulding, as applied to oneself, may not reflect thoughtfulness, an inner focus, or a feeling of compassion for self. Instead it is about complying with something other individuals think we ought to be doing, saying, thinking, or feeling. While this can be helpful within the context of a friend, mentor, or loved one who is trying to give us constructive advice or feedback, it is mostly a negative thing. It is negative because no one ultimately knows what is best for us but we ourselves. It is also negative because it tends to be lacking in truth to self and is usually fear based.

Shoulding as applied to oneself can also have to do with internal or external pressure to become more aligned with generalized standards of conduct as set forth by religious, societal, political, or cultural doctrine. Again, barring sage advice or helpful feedback, only we know what is best for us.

Be aware that one’s developmental stage is a factor here. A certainty that one always knows what is best for self does not always apply to the very young, particularly teenagers. Neither does it apply to those with oppositional or defiant patterns of behavior who are attempting to simply oppose authority. It also does not apply to vulnerable individuals caught up and swept away by certain ideologies. Nor does it apply to those who suffer from certain mental disorders or cognitive impairment. There are more exclusions, but these are the most obvious ones.

When it comes to shoulding as applied to oneself, the focus needs to be on self-reflection and self-assessment to determine if something would or would not be a positive thing for us to do. We must always strive toward an internal locus of control rather than an external one if we are to live in peace. This means that we need to focus on our own wants, needs, goals, and decisions rather than getting our direction and approval from external sources. More often than not, any losses that we take in refraining from following the crowd will be restored to us many times over.

In situations that involve shoulds for others, you might ask:

In situations that involve a focus on ourselves, you could ask:

Unrealistic Expectations

Unrealistic expectations are aspirations that have a low probability of being fulfilled. They are related to shoulds, but can spring from a variety of sources. We may have them because of what we have had modeled for us. We may have them due to low self-esteem or an overinflated sense of self-importance. We may have them due to a lack of awareness or a lack of established boundaries between self and others. We may have them because we are developmentally immature and/or naïve. We may have them because we are narcissistic and self-absorbed. We may have them because we have been overindulged. We may have them because we cannot yet stand on our own. We may also have them because we have some sort of mental illness that impedes our ability to test reality and make sound judgments.

Expectations can be unrealistic in that they are either too high or too low. We can ask too much of this world or too little. Most of us associate unrealistic expectations with aspirations that are too high, but it is just as unrealistic to expect that others will respect us if we allow them to walk all over us. For example, it is unrealistic to presume that if we self-lessly serve others, they will know what we want and need for ourselves. They will not. It is also unrealistic to think that our abiding love will change others, particularly without their intention to work on themselves. This will only result in our getting used up.

There is a particular kind of unrealistic expectation, however, that tends to consistently be too high and deserves special attention. These are infantile expectations. They deserve special attention because we all have them and we are usually quite unaware of their presence. They are beautifully outlined in Necessary Losses by Judith Voirst.4

Infantile expectations are unrealistic, self-absorbed expectations that may have been perfectly appropriate when we were infants, but no longer hold validity in the adult world. They do not necessarily come from a place of willful self-centeredness so much as from a lack of maturation. As such, they are benign in origin, but can get in our way emotionally and behaviorally nonetheless.

Some of these infantile expectations are “I have an expectation that the world owes me a living,” or “I expect to be perfectly heard and understood,” or “I expect to always be the center of attention.” Others are “I expect everybody else to consistently attend to me,” and “I expect them to enjoy attending to me.”

A common infantile expectation is that of unlimited power and control as opposed to the reality that we have limited power and control on this planet. Like our erroneous beliefs regarding omnipotent control, this expectation is tied to our experience in the womb where we had a supreme sense of authority that led us to feel very powerful in our ability to achieve need fulfillment. A related infantile expectation is that there will be a place of perfect comfort and safety in this world despite the fact that this ended with our emergence from the womb (our last bastion of perfect safety and comfort).

Another infantile expectation is that we must achieve grandiose standards of beauty and perfection rather than make do with a human-proportioned self. One more is the expectation that it is possible to achieve perfect communication when certainly it is not. Yet another is that it is not only possible but necessary to always garner approval. Lastly, we expect that it is both possible and acceptable to be exempt from recognizing and abiding by others’ boundaries; we simply do not do well with the word no. This is usually related to the deluded idea that we are so amazingly special. All of these expectations turn into demands and evoke distressed emotional responses and behaviors from us when they are not met.

As with beliefs, we can note and alter our infantile expectations. Here are a few of the things we can do besides hanging on to our infantile expectations and then getting upset when others do not honor them:

When we notice that we are engaged in unrealistic expectations, we might ask ourselves:

Memory

Another of our mental processes is memory. Memory is the ability, process, or act of remembering or recalling that which has been learned or experienced. The information or events that we remember are called memories. Memory is a multifaceted mental function that involves awareness, recognition, understanding, retention, retrieval (bringing stored material into consciousness), and interpretation or readout (subjectively decoding retrieved material). It is usually broken down into categories of immediate, recent, and remote memory.5

Our memories can be affected by many things such as previously learned responses, mental set (readiness to respond selectively to certain stimuli), fatigue, amnesia, organic lesions, physical trauma (concussion), drug use, aging, and psychological disorders such as depression, anxiety, dementia, and psychosis. They are prone to secondary elaboration by our other memories, needs, and wishes. Some memories may be partially or entirely blocked while others can be successfully retrieved. There are memories based on emotions experienced rather than on language, as in young babies. There are screen memories that act as barriers against other associated memories considered taboo. There are biological memories, which are inherited memories of how to react to certain stimuli. These memories lead us to follow certain lines of development. All in all, memory is a rather complex matter.

The thing for us to keep in mind is that our memories are influenced by many factors. As mentioned above, they are prone to secondary elaboration, and so can be amplified or embellished, understated, or simplified. There is probably no way to know how accurate a memory really is, so the best we can do is observe our memories, realize that there may be more to them than meets the eye, and note the impact they are having on our lives. We can also process our memories by allowing them to come forward and respectfully acknowledge the emotion that is attached. This will decrease the emotional intensity of the memory.

Our interpretation of current reality is affected by our stored memories and the emotional charge that they carry. Even if it is years removed from a precipitating event, the feelings tied to a particular memory can remain very much alive. New experiences can trigger these old memories and emotions, and they can come rushing to the fore, causing us to associate them with our present-day experience. This is tremendously unfair to people in our current environment. In fact, our memories can color reality to such an extent that a rational evaluation of our situation can become very difficult.

However, once the memory has been observed from a detached viewpoint, the emotional charge has been given an opportunity for constructive release, and we determine how it is coloring our present moment, it becomes just another element of self to be worked with and understood.

For better or worse, memories are a powerful, influencing factor in the way we perceive our world. They are important in our evaluation of the self and they need to be worked with in a constructive manner.

When working with memories, we might ask ourselves:

Transference

Transference is the term given when we attribute the qualities or characteristics of a significant person from our past to a person in our present. Then we react to the new person as though he or she is that someone from our past. It is directly related to memories which distort our perceptions. For example, if someone in our past was controlling, we would have a tendency to see a new person in our life as being controlling whether that person was or was not. Unobserved, this can be poisonous to our relationships. Who wants to be misperceived and mislabeled when that is not who he or she is at all? Nobody.

It is best to familiarize ourselves with the top two or three issues that were a problem for us with significant people in our past. Perhaps they were problems with control, neglect, emotional unavailability, paranoia, blame, lack of support, self-absorption, abusiveness, disrespect, disengagement, abandonment, untruthfulness, defensiveness, yelling, intimidation, invasiveness, narcissistic usage, passivity, smothering, disempowerment, rejection, etc. Whatever they were, we must get to know them as soon as possible and cease unconsciously attributing them to the wrong people. Once we have familiarized ourselves with these trigger points, there is much less chance that we could blindly attribute these characteristics to innocent people in our present day. There is also a greatly reduced chance of our reacting inappropriately.

Transference does not only happen when we transfer our thoughts and feelings onto persons in our present, but it also happens when we redirect our wishes onto them. This means that not only are we failing to see them for who they are, but we are now expecting them to fulfill our unmet needs and wishes as well. We expect them to do what the persons from our past did not do because, in our minds, the new persons represent the old ones.

Of course, this puts a lot of strain on any relationship, for new persons cannot and should not be responsible for filling all of our unmet needs. They are not wish-fulfillment machines. They are people in their own right with their own unfulfilled wishes, needs, and dreams. They are not here to be improved versions of our mothers, fathers, brothers, or sisters. Nor are they here to compensate for deficient relationships from our past.

There are probably people in our lives who love us, are familiar with our past, and do not mind going the extra mile to give us what we need, but we should view them as exceptionally compassionate, loving individuals who go out of their way to respond to us correctly. We should see them as blessings and not take advantage of their loving hearts. Never should we fault them for what they do not do, because what they have already given was a gift, not our just due.

Fortunately, transference is not always a negative occurrence. There can be positive transferences as well in which we attribute the positive qualities of people from our past to individuals in our present. This redirection of our positive thoughts and feelings can be nice for the recipients, but it does put a bit of undue pressure on them to live up to our expectations. It is always better to allow others to just be who they are, which gives them leeway to occasionally not be all peaches and cream.

Having a positive transference to someone can set us up for disillusionment when it becomes apparent who he or she actually is. This can be an unhappy circumstance for both parties as we may need to view the other person in an idealized manner and the other person may need to be loved for who he or she is.

After we have transferred certain positive qualities from persons in our past to persons in our present, we sometimes identify with them. We want to be like those persons and try our best to do so. This is fine as long as the persons we are identifying with are truly good role models and as long as we do not overdo it. However, it is not okay if they are persons other than who we think they are.

Regrettably, there are situations in which the persons we are identifying with do not actually have such positive qualities. We just think they do. Perhaps they are too aggressive, too self-sacrificial, too self-absorbed, too competitive, or too driven. They just look good to us because transference has been in play and, therefore, we are seeing them as we think they are rather than as who they really are. Here we need to look out and pay attention to reality. We can develop better qualities in ourselves without identifying with dubious people from our past or present.

There is also a form of projection that mimics positive transference in which we attribute our own positive qualities to others. Here we assign all kinds of virtues to individuals who do not necessarily possess such qualities. We are merely seeing ourselves in them. While this does not involve reassigning a quality from someone in our past to someone in our present, it is being included here because it transfers a specific quality from one individual to another. It also involves the possibility of viewing him or her in an idealized, unrealistic manner.

The questions we might ask ourselves about transference are:

When it comes to transferring our wishes onto others, we can ask:

Regarding identification as an extension of transference, we can ask:

Black-and-White Thinking /All-or-Nothing Thinking

Black-and-white thinking occurs when we think in absolute terms such as always, every, ever, or never. In reality, very few events in human experience are absolute. When we find ourselves speaking in absolute terms, it is helpful to ask ourselves if there was ever a time when this was not the case. We might ask “Does this really always happen?” or “Does this really never happen?”

Black-and-white thinking is a bit infantile in nature, harkening back to our earliest days when we had no capacity to see both the good and bad in people or situations. Instead we split them up into all good or all bad. Normal human beings have both good and bad traits; they are not all black or all white. Life situations may sometimes be all bad or all good, but most of the time this is not the case.

Overgeneralization

Overgeneralization is related to black-and-white thinking and occurs when we apply sweeping generalizations to specific, individualized cases. Here again, we must ask ourselves if there was ever a time or a situation when it was not the way we are saying it will surely be. We can remind ourselves that just because a certain event occurred, this does not mean that X, Y, or Z will necessarily happen.

Disqualifying the Positive

Disqualifying the positive occurs when we continually refuse to acknowledge anything good. We insist on entertaining and cherishing negative thoughts and expectations regardless of more positive life experiences. Disqualifying the positive is sometimes done to guard ourselves from increased levels of anxiety and depression if we should take a chance on happiness and then things do not work out. It is a ploy to stay safely depressed at a manageable level rather than suffer a new disappointment and have to feel more pain.

Here we must ask ourselves:

We could also make lists of personal accomplishments.

Jumping to Conclusions

Jumping to conclusions happens when we quickly decide that something has occurred or will occur even if there is no evidence to support this assumption. We make up our minds without checking anything out. We attempt to read minds and tell fortunes. Most of the time we jump to the conclusion that whatever we believe has occurred or will occur will surely be negative.

Here we need to ask ourselves:

If we persist in jumping to conclusions, we need to ask ourselves what other issues may be in play.

Personalization

Personalization comes into play when we behave as though we have omnipotent control, assuming personal responsibility for things that are fully or partially out of our realm of control. It is based on a cognitive error, for certainly all events in life do not lead back to us.

Personalization is common in those of us who are overly enmeshed with others and therefore are not yet fully defined as separate individuals. This lack of self-knowledge and self-definition can result in boundary confusion, which means that we do not know where our boundaries end and where someone else’s start. Another way to say this is that we are confused about whose likes, dislikes, desires, feelings, thoughts, moods, character flaws, goals, motivations, limits, perceptions, perversions, beliefs, and values are our own versus some else’s.

Due to this boundary confusion, we are unsure what originates from within us and what originates from within others. We are unclear about whose fault things are. Given this boundary confusion, we personalize and end up taking responsibility for things that never originated from within us to begin with. It can be helpful to get very clear on who we are as individuals versus who someone else is. This clarity can be particularly effective in dispelling the guilt or sense of culpability that we experience when someone treats us poorly, does us damage, or invades our boundaries. Barring masochistic tendencies, rarely does the wish to be treated poorly or invaded or damaged originate from within us.

Sometimes we personalize to protect significant others because we rely on them. This is more likely to happen when we are young, underdeveloped, needy, dependent, and/or generally unable to take care of ourselves. Here our very existence depends on convincing ourselves that our caretakers are reliable, kind, capable, sober, and sane. If not, we tell ourselves that their behaviors surely must be our fault. In cases where our caretakers do not display these qualities, we may personalize to avoid acknowledging exactly what others in our environment are capable of being or doing. Sometimes we personalize in the hope that if we take others’ responsibility for them, they will not harm us more than they already have. In such cases we must work to strengthen ourselves and our ability to thrive on our own so we no longer have to take on another’s responsibility in order to survive.

When personalization is occurring, we must ask ourselves:

When dealing with personalization, we need to inquire of ourselves realistically how much of the responsibility for the problem is ours. We need to admit to ourselves that we do not have omnipotent power but instead face the fear, sadness, anger, and helplessness that come with that realization. We also need to get busy developing our own self so that reliance on toxic others is no longer a necessity. Also, we can enjoy the relief that comes with that.

Blame

Blame is pretty much the opposite of personalization. Whereas with personalization we take on all the responsibility ourselves, with blame we take none of it. Instead we assign all responsibility to someone else.

Impugning others in the form of blame is a way of shifting focus away from oneself. It is being listed as an error in thinking as it can result in an evaluation of the wrong person. Here we blame others rather than acknowledge that we may have played a part in a given matter. Or we blame them in order to find relief from our own painful feelings of fear, anger, sadness, and helplessness. This is very different from objectively assessing a situation, determining where something went wrong, and deciding how to remedy it or not let it happen again. Blame is different from honest assessment because it involves avoiding an unbiased appraisal of a situation rather than impartially looking at it. It also involves judgment and excoriation rather than compassionate acceptance of one’s foibles.

Instead of blaming, we could look at our own behaviors as possible contributing factors. We could also be honest about what feelings we are trying to escape by changing the focus to another person through blame. The big question with blame is “What would I have to face within myself if my focus were on myself rather than diverted to another person?” This is not to suggest that we should always take responsibility for what goes on in our environment, but we do need to take an honest look at our possible contribution to a given situation, and certainly we must be responsible for facing and working through our own feelings.

Oftentimes our responsibility in a particular matter is somewhat ambiguous, passive, and/or inadvertent. This can be harder to own up to than a more obvious transgression. For example, we may have trusted where we should not have allowed another to take advantage of us. We may have given too much, stayed too long, focused too much on changing uncooperative persons or made bad choices out of loneliness, neediness, or depression. Perhaps we have continually chosen the wrong kind of partner, gone to a well that has been consistently dry, failed to truly see and understand someone, or have simply given up too soon. None of these are sadistic, unconscionable, or unforgiveable errors, yet we do have to take responsibility for them.

This is easier to do when we understand that taking responsibility for oneself and taking blame are not the same thing. We can be responsible for our own feelings about a given matter and have had absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for its occurrence (e.g., child abuse, a crazy boss, a sociopathic relative). Or, as mentioned above, we may have had a part in the matter but our part may have arisen from lack of awareness, passivity, weakness, or fear. Even if we do objectively think that we may have had a substantial hand in whatever happened, taking responsibility can be done with calm acknowledgment of the facts rather than by punishing, berating, and castigating ourselves. Taking on responsibility should not be synonymous with taking on guilt.

Sometimes we cannot take responsibility for our part in a given matter because others involved seem to have so much unacknowledged culpability for the situation. They have contributed mightily to our pain, and we believe our feelings about their part in the matter to be valid. We want these culpable persons to take responsibility for their part in the matter, but usually they will not. This makes it all the more difficult to look at ourselves because our hurt and outrage impede introspection. Instead, we may deny the offending parties satisfaction by refusing to assume a lick of responsibility.

Yet even with the knowledge that others have had a big hand in the situation, we still have to get ourselves a plan. We still have to get back up, figure out a viable pathway, and get going. This is taking responsibility in the sense that we are assuming responsibility for the trajectory of our own lives.

It can also be helpful to understand that the word responsibility means “ability to respond.” We cannot respond to a situation if we have assigned responsibility for it to someone else. We think that once we have offloaded it to someone else, we are free to move on as though nothing ever needed to be examined or changed. But in reality our problem still remains. We still do not have a plan for change. This is because we are not able to respond if we have not first assumed responsibility for our problem.

When dealing with others who are clearly at fault in a given situation, we might ask ourselves, “Can I acknowledge the faults and limitations in others without being sadistic, cruel, critical, and insensitive?” Most people already feel bad about mistakes they have made. However, if a person is truly a threat to self, others, or society at large, then we should not worry about his or her feelings and take the necessary action to secure our safety and well-being. There are times when things need to be called out for what they are, and in these instances placing responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the perpetrator is indicated; there need not be concern for whether or not we are blaming.

Labeling or Mislabeling

Labeling or mislabeling occurs when we explain a situation by categorizing it rather than by describing the events of the situation. We label either ourselves or others in a negative, permanent way, and in doing so we change a behavior to an identity.

Here we should refrain from immediately branding someone as a jerk or an ass, and look at the possibility that there is something more to his or her behavior than meets the eye. We can ask ourselves if there could be a more positive or understandable meaning for what just happened. Or we could ask ourselves, “Is there another way of looking at this that could empower me or empower the other person?”

If we are the one being labeled, we could ask ourselves how exactly we are jerks, asses, etc. This way we can take things back to a focus on behavior and not on a global assessment of our self-worth. Even if we did engage in a negative behavior, we should remind ourselves that no one is perfect and that this is not an indictment of our overall personal worth. We all fail to succeed from time to time.

Magnification and Minimization

When engaging in magnification and minimization, we magnify the negative and minimize the positive. Instead, we might ask ourselves exactly how the situation is so bad or specifically how it is not good enough. If we are speaking of a person, we could ask ourselves how this person is not good enough, or how he/she is too much. Then we need to ask ourselves the question “Compared to whom or compared to what?” We could also ask ourselves the question “Is it all right for a person or situation to have good and bad elements?” “Does a negative quality have to destroy all other good ones?”

Catastrophizing

Catastrophizing is related to magnification and occurs when we focus on the worst possible outcome that will most likely be horrendous, intolerable, and/or insurmountable. We tell ourselves that it could well result in injury, death, financial ruin, or personal defeat. We believe that, at the very least, it would entail tremendous emotional suffering.

Realistically, in many of these cases discomfort may be involved, but certainly not catastrophic losses. Even if catastrophic losses were involved, this way of thinking keeps us from acknowledging our ability to effectively deal with and recover from loss.

Here we might ask ourselves what it is that could happen if we did have to tolerate a catastrophic situation. As with magnification/minimization, we could ask:

Emotional Reasoning

Sometimes we confuse mental reasoning with emotional reasoning. In this process we incorrectly conclude that if something feels right, it must equate to a correct, logical assessment of the situation. For instance, we may think that if we feel unloved, we actually are unloved.

When engaging in emotional reasoning, we rely on our unexamined feelings to arrive at our assessments and/or decisions rather than on objective reality. While our feelings are important to consider in our assessments and decisions, by themselves they often do not have anything to do with objective reality. It is important to realize that just because something feels true does not necessarily mean that it is true.

Here we might consider interrupting our emotional pattern by asking ourselves:

We must remind ourselves that it is okay to feel as we do; it is just not okay to ignore other aspects of reality. We must also remind ourselves that if we still feel this way when we have had time to think things through, we do not have to do anything we do not want to do.

At this point in our discussion of emotional reasoning, it is important to add a caveat. It is in regard to intuitive/gut feelings that can masquerade as emotional reasoning, but certainly are not.

Sometimes we have a gut feeling or intuition regarding a particular situation in which we can understand it immediately on an emotional level without the need for conscious reasoning. In such instances if our intuitive impression of the matter feels true, it probably is true. Here we are most likely drawing our conclusions from unconscious information stored in our memory banks or receiving helpful instinctual nudges from the reptilian part of our brains. No matter what their origin, our gut feelings are usually correct and should be heeded because we are probably recognizing valuable learned patterns or responding to our primal survival system.

It is vital that we learn how to distinguish between intuitive knowing and emotional reasoning as one is on target and the other potentially off-base. The ability to correctly rely on our gut feeling is quite different from being overtaken by an intense emotional state which we unquestioningly believe conveys the truth. The first feels more like a crystal-clear certainty, a knowing, an Aha! (whether about something good or something bad), which we realize without thought or excessive emotional agitation. This intuitive feeling can be very strong and definitive and can present as an emotional jolt once the truth of a matter is revealed. This may be a jolt of fear, disappointment, or horror on the negative end of the spectrum or joy, calmness, or relief on the positive end, but it carries certainty and does not produce the same feeling as a shaky conclusion arising from an agitated morass of unexamined feeling.

An intuitive feeling is an emotionally conveyed recognition of truth. It does not originate in our emotions. The emotion involved is simply a carrier of the intuitive information, with the intuitive feeling not carrying an element of judgment or self-recrimination. It simply brings straightforward information.

Emotional reasoning feels more like a conclusion born of emotional churning. It often has an element of blaming others or blaming self. With emotional reasoning the emotion produces a conclusion rather than acting as a carrier of information that has originated elsewhere. The uncertain phrase that usually accompanies emotional reasoning is “Well, it feels like the truth.” This is infinitely different from the definitive statement “I know this is true.” Here absolute clarity is one’s indicator of truth.

Always Being Right

When attempting to always be right, we believe that no matter what, we must prove that our thoughts, feelings, and actions are correct. Being wrong is not an option, and we will argue interminably in order to demonstrate our rightness. The thoughts and feelings of those around us are ignored.

This may be related to our self-esteem, to our fears of powerlessness, to trepidation over being hurt, to a dread of belittlement, shame, or punishment, or to a conviction that the one who is right is the one who gets to live. The list could go on, but suffice it to say that there are many understandable reasons that we feel the need to fight in order to always be right.

Here we must ask the questions: