If we’re honest with ourselves, we know if a relationship isn’t working, if it is abusive or hurtful, or if it has run it’s course. We can ask trusted family and friends for their opinion if we’re confused or unsure.

Well, hello and good morning, afternoon, and evening readers. I truly hope you’re swimming in the pleasantries of life rather than keeping your head above water in the unpleasant swamp. HOPE = Hold On Pain Ends. And there’s generally a learning or personal growth that comes after the storm of every painful experience, even if it’s simply greater empathy and compassion for others.

Today’s the day to learn or remember the fallacies of the human mind. I am not as smart as I look, haha. Have you heard of heuristics before? In cognitive psychology, a heuristic is a mental “shortcut” that allows people to solve problems and make judgments quickly and efficiently. They can be very helpful in many situations, but they can also lead to cognitive biases, errors in thinking, and even perhaps without the mental shortcut, our thinking is often filled to the brim with cognitive distortions, assumptions and fallacies (faults). Awareness raising is probably the first step to identify our own cognitive traps and also identify them in others. Cognitive errors are natural – we all have them. Below are some cognitive distortions/errors to be aware of when we reflect on our interactions with people, during personal reflection, and when making meaningful decisions or judgements.

• ALL-OR-NOTHING THINKING (aka. POLARISED THINKING, SPLITTING, and BLACK-AND-WHITE THINKING: is extreme thinking i.e., the error in a person’s thinking to bring together the dichotomy of both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defense mechanism. Before you think “I must have really shitty thinking because I do this ALL the time”, give yourself a break. If you’re thinking in black and white, you probably internalised this from social media, television and movies, your family of origin and the broader society. Be mindful of using extreme, dichotomist terms, such as “failure”, “success”, “best”, “worst”, “freezing”, “boiling”, “everything”, and “nothing”. If you think “I’m a terrible person”, that is bullshit and inaccurate. You may have behaved terribly for a period of time towards yourself, to someone else, or towards some “thing”, but we cannot discount all the NON-terrible qualities about you. We must THINK in DIALECTICS i.e., the ability to view issues from multiple perspectives with reason and wisdom or in other words being able to have two contradictory viewpoints, where a greater truth emerges from their interplay. The truth is, if you think you’re a terrible person, there’s also virtuous person in there too.

• OVERGENERALISTION: The words “always”, “every” and “never” come into play here, and you have an unshakable “rule” or “conviction” about yourself, something, or someone, based on one or two incidences. Overgeneralising is “a cognitive distortion in which an individual views a single event as an invariable RULE, so that, for example, failure at accomplishing one task will predict an endless pattern of defeat in all tasks.” Coming into the present moment and being specific can be helpful if you are someone who overgeneralises. You may also want to ask yourself if what your saying is the really the truth. Is it really accurate or correct. There’s an assumption that because something has happened once or a few times that it’s like going to happen every time. Remember, the words “always”, “every”, and “never” frequently appear in this cognitive “trap”. I encourage you to look at the big picture and ask yourself if what you’re saying or thinking is accurate. Overgeneralisations tend to be vague and board statements e.g., “I always get every red light”. Perhaps this is part of our evolutionary negativity bias. We tend to notice the so-called “bad” and overlook the so-called “good”. If you find yourself using overgeneralisations that suggest a future prediction (e.g., “I’ll never get a partner) … use some humour – you may have big balls but neither one of them are crystal – VEEP. If there is some truth to unusually frequent and specific situations that are making your life unpleasant, validate them, talk to someone, and brainstorm some solutions. We humans have plenty of blind spots that others can see sometimes.

• MENTAL FILTER: is considered to be the opposite to OVERGENERALISATION the mental filter takes one small event and focuses on it exclusively, filtering out anything else that’s relevant. Filtering out the positive and focusing on the negative can have a detrimental impact on your mental well-being. Filtering out the so-called “negative” can also make one a bit hubris (excessive pride or self-confidence), arrogant, vain and conceited – and then you’re just a stone’s throw away from narcissism.

• PERSONALISATION AND BLAME: Personalization and blame is a cognitive distortion whereby you entirely blame yourself, or someone else, for a situation that in reality involved many factors that were out of your control. I think this is a symptom of our wounded ego, or simply just the ego. As human’s we are egocentric, like children, and we often think that circumstances in our environment are solely because of our influence. For example, your friend isn’t behaving like they usually do, so it must be because you have done something.

Again, personalisation is an egocentric error in cognition. “Of course it has to do with me”, we think. It makes sense that we personalise things. We are the star of our own show, our own narrative. If you personalise something, it means we’ve directly influenced it – we are the primary cause. This may elicit internal pain, shame or guilt, so what’s the pay-off? Personalisation is a cognitive error that offers us the illusion of control e.g., “If we caused it then we will learn how to not cause it again, and maybe even undo what we have caused”. If you think about it, personalising something is something children do. Remember, there are infinite variables in any situation to take full credit of the outcome. That being said, it is responsible and mature to reflect objectively on the influence of our behaviour and what we can learn about our shortcomings.

Blame deserves it’s own blog post but in short, it can be defined as a defence mechanism to protect the self from feeling some unwanted emotion or thinking something unacceptable in relation to the “self”. Blaming provides a way of devaluing others, an the pay-off or reinforcement the blamer receives is a sense of superiority. It protects our ego from feeling responsible for something, and protects us from feeling guilt or shame. Perfectionists are very good at blaming others, and themselves. Even if you genuinely think faulting someone or something is valid, remember that no one is perfect. Recognise that you are human and others are fallible humans. As they say in recovery, “there is a bit of bad in the best of us and a bit of good in the worst of us“. We may have internalised from society and culture that we couldn’t make mistakes (because we receive “punishment” for making mistakes) but we must move beyond that now. As adults, we need to get real. Validate your experience because it may be very disappointing when we don’t meet others or our own expectations. We must nurture and care for the wounded child. Lets attend and befriend to our shortcomings and accept we are not superhuman. Learn to expect you will make mistakes. Failure is kind of an illusion, isn’t it? Or maybe a social construct? “Failure” is really learning – replace ‘failure’ with the word ‘feedback’. Would a cat or dog blame them self for a “mistake”? In the minds of animals, there’s no such concept as failure or a mistake.

Here’s a link to website “simplypsychology” that discusses a theory called Attribution Theory, an idea about how people explain the causes of behaviour and events: Attribution Theory – Situational vs Dispositional | Simply Psychology

Historical Context

Historically, mental illness and addiction have been misunderstood and stigmatized. For much of history, these conditions were seen as moral failings or character flaws rather than medical issues. This has led to a persistent stigma that continues to influence societal attitudes.

Lack of Awareness and Education

There is still a significant lack of awareness and education about mental health and addiction. Many people do not understand that these conditions are medical issues that require treatment, just like physical illnesses. This lack of understanding contributes to negative attitudes and discrimination.

Media Representation

Media often portrays mental illness and addiction in a negative light, reinforcing stereotypes and misconceptions. These portrayals can shape public perception and contribute to the stigma surrounding these conditions.

Criminalization

Addiction, in particular, has been heavily criminalised. This has led to a perception of addiction as a criminal issue rather than a health issue, further entrenching stigma and discrimination.

Internalised Stigma

Individuals with mental illness or addiction often internalise the stigma they experience, leading to feelings of shame and low self-worth. This can prevent them from seeking help and support, perpetuating the cycle of stigma and discrimination.

Healthcare System

Even within the healthcare system, biases and stigma can affect the quality of care provided to individuals with mental illness or addiction. This can lead to inadequate treatment and support, further exacerbating the issue.

Social and Cultural Factors

Social and cultural factors also play a role in how mental illness and addiction are perceived. Different cultures have varying attitudes towards these conditions, which can influence how they are treated and supported.

The differential treatment of treatment-resistant substance use disorder (SUD) and treatment-resistant cancer by society can be attributed to several factors:

1. Perception of Control

Substance use disorders are often perceived as a result of personal choices or moral failings, whereas cancer is seen as an uncontrollable disease. This perception leads to stigma and blame towards individuals with SUD, while those with cancer are more likely to receive sympathy and support.

2. Historical Stigma

Historically, substance use has been stigmatised and criminalised, leading to a societal view that addiction is a choice rather than a medical condition. In contrast, cancer has been recognized as a medical condition requiring treatment and compassion.

3. Media Representation

Media often portrays substance use in a negative light, emphasising criminality and moral failure. Cancer, on the other hand, is often depicted with empathy and urgency, highlighting the need for medical intervention and support.

4. Healthcare System

The healthcare system has historically been more equipped to handle cancer treatment, with extensive research, funding, and specialized care. SUD treatment has lagged behind, with fewer resources and less comprehensive care options.

5. Complexity of Treatment

Treatment-resistant SUD involves complex psychological, social, and biological factors, making it challenging to treat effectively. Cancer treatment resistance, while also complex, has seen significant advancements in research and technology, leading to more effective treatments.

6. Social and Cultural Factors

Cultural attitudes towards substance use and addiction vary widely, with some societies viewing it as a personal failing. Cancer is generally viewed more universally as a disease that requires medical intervention.

REFERENCES

Substance Use Disorder and Stigma

Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care. (2024). Initiatives and programs. Retrieved from https://www.health.gov.au/about-us/what-we-do/initiatives-and-programs

Morrison, A. P., Birchwood, M., Pyle, M., Flach, C., Stewart, S. L. K., Byrne, R., Patterson, P., Jones, P. B., Fowler, D., & Gumley, A. I. (2013). Impact of cognitive therapy on internalised stigma in people with at-risk mental states. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 203(2), 140-145. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.112.112110

Wood, L., Byrne, R., Burke, E., Enache, G., & Morrison, A. P. (2017). The impact of stigma on emotional distress and recovery from psychosis: The mediatory role of internalised shame and self-esteem. Retrieved from https://repository.essex.ac.uk/21927/1/woodpr2017.pdf

Cancer Treatment and Stigma

American Cancer Society. (2023). Cancer treatment and survivorship. Retrieved from https://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects.html

National Cancer Institute. (2022). Cancer treatment (PDQ)–Patient version. Retrieved from https://www.cancer.gov/types/treatment-pdq/patient/cancer-treatment-pdq

World Health Organization. (2021). Cancer treatment and palliative care. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/cancer/prevention/diagnosis-screening/cancer-treatment-palliative-care/en/

Stephen Porges, psychiatry professor and researcher, on the polyvagal theory he developed to understand our reactions to trauma:

[Paraphrased] Polyvagal theory articulates three branches of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) that evolved from primitive vertebrates to mammals. First, there is a system known as ‘freeze’, which involves death feigning or immobilisation. Second, the ANS has a ‘fight or flight’ system, which is a mobilisation system. And third, with mammals, there is what Porges calls, a social engagement system (SES), which can detect features of safety, and actually communicate them to another. The SES may also be referred to by some as ‘rest and digest’, which Porges theory suggests is a function of the Vagus Nerve – the tenth cranial nerve, a very long and wandering nerve that begins at the medulla oblongata. When an individual experiences feelings of safety (within an SES state), the autonomic nervous system can support health restoration. In terms of dealing with a life threat, an ordinary person will most likely go into a feigning death, dissociative state of ‘freeze’.

Polyvagal theory in psychotherapy offers emotional co-regulation as an interactive process between therapist and client which engages the social engagement system of both therapist and client. Social engagement provides experiences of safety, trust, mutuality and reciprocity in which we are open to receiving another person, just as they are.

The following extract has been retrived from https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/02/stephen-porges-interview-survivors-are-blamed-polyvagal-theory-fight-flight-psychiatry-ace

Polyvagal theory has made inroads into medical and psycho-therapeutic treatment, but how should it inform how people treat each other?

“When we become a polyvagal-informed society, we’re functionally capable of listening to and witnessing other people’s experiences, we don’t evaluate them. Listening is part of co-regulation: we become connected to others and this is what I call our biological imperative. So when you become polyvagal-informed you have a better understanding of your evolutionary heritage as a mammal. We become aware of how our physiological state is manifested, in people’s voices and in their facial expression, posture and basic muscle tone. If there’s exuberance coming from the upper part of a person’s face, and their voice has intonation modulation or what’s called prosody, we become attracted to the person. We like to talk to them – it’s part of our co-regulation.

So when we become polyvagal-informed, we start understanding not only the other person’s response but also our responsibility to smile and have inflection in our voice, to help the person we’re talking to help their body feel safe.”

Clink on the link below to hear Dr. Bessel van der Kolk, one of the world’s leading experts on developmental trauma, explain how our long-term health and happiness can be compromised by prior exposure to violence, emotional abuse, and other forms of traumatic stress.

https://youtu.be/53RX2ESIqsM