Mister Scratch wrote:What a weird rhetorical track you've been on the last couple of days, Wade. Now all you seem to be doing is playing this semantic game whereby you insist that all you were ever claiming is that "cognitive distortions" may have been responsible for the pain. Essentially, you have totally gutted your own argument. Pretty unbelievable, in my opinion.
Fair enough. However, I believe that this anecdote does yet another bit of serious damage to your thesis concerning Mr. D. Once again, I ask you: Do you have any evidence as to the existence of "Mr. Ds"?
I specifically brought up this friend because he of all people should be a prime candidate for the kind of cognitive distortion that Wade believes we exmos suffer from. He figured out that the church was what it is, and then his wife divorced him on the advice of his church leader. If anyone should be predisposed to anger, it should be him. But he's not.
He is genuinely baffled by his bishop. He seems to feel more pity than anything for his wife. He has told me again and again how he feels badly that she will find out soon enough that being a single mother is not easy. He's not bitter toward the church; he just says that he knows what it is and has moved on.
My impression of Wade's posts is that he believes that the mere belief that the church is not a good-faith actor in representing itself is a priori a cognitive distortion. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm sure Wade can correct me if I am.
You know, I can't help but chuckle a little about the fact that the thing that apparently sent Wade packing was my challenge to him to produce evidence on the "Mr. Ds" of the world. TBMs like Wade and juliann depend so heavily on "Mr. Ds", and yet I suspect that they have no evidence whatsoever.
Runtu wrote:Speaking of jumping to conclusions, it's interesting that you assume that he's focusing on the behavior of individuals.
Ironically, you jumped to the false conclusion that I had supposedly jumped to the conclusion that he had focused on the behaviors of individuals. I hadn't. My comments didn't even have him in mind, and were intentionally not specific to anyone in particular, but spoke to some generalized patterns I have anecdotally observed both within the Church and with certain people who have lost faith and/or left the Church.
Runtu wrote:Speaking of jumping to conclusions, it's interesting that you assume that he's focusing on the behavior of individuals.
Ironically, you jumped to the false conclusion that I had supposedly jumped to the conclusion that he had focused on the behaviors of individuals. I hadn't. My comments didn't even have him in mind, and were intentionally not specific to anyone in particular, but spoke to some generalized patterns I have anecdotally observed both within the Church and with certain people who have lost faith and/or left the Church.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Then it was odd to bring it up in a discussion of a specific person, particularly when the focus of your post was a suggestion that it was unfair to make any judgments about the wife and bishop in the absence of evidence.
So, if I jumped to the wrong conclusion it was a result of your unclear comments.
Mister Scratch wrote:What a weird rhetorical track you've been on the last couple of days, Wade. Now all you seem to be doing is playing this semantic game whereby you insist that all you were ever claiming is that "cognitive distortions" may have been responsible for the pain. Essentially, you have totally gutted your own argument. Pretty unbelievable, in my opinion.
Fair enough. However, I believe that this anecdote does yet another bit of serious damage to your thesis concerning Mr. D. Once again, I ask you: Do you have any evidence as to the existence of "Mr. Ds"?
I specifically brought up this friend because he of all people should be a prime candidate for the kind of cognitive distortion that Wade believes we exmos suffer from. He figured out that the church was what it is, and then his wife divorced him on the advice of his church leader. If anyone should be predisposed to anger, it should be him. But he's not.
He is genuinely baffled by his bishop. He seems to feel more pity than anything for his wife. He has told me again and again how he feels badly that she will find out soon enough that being a single mother is not easy. He's not bitter toward the church; he just says that he knows what it is and has moved on.
My impression of Wade's posts is that he believes that the mere belief that the church is not a good-faith actor in representing itself is a priori a cognitive distortion. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm sure Wade can correct me if I am.
To me, not all cognitive distortions are problematic. Nor, as previously explained, are all cognitive distortions a "prime candidate" of concern to me--even including certain cognitive distortions regarding the good-faith of the Church in what it claims to be. In other words, it is not so much the cognitive distortion that draws my attention, but the manner in which the cognitive distortions may manifests themselves in relation to me and my faith. Once my attention and concern has been drawn on that basis, I view correcting the cognitive distortion (where possible) as a means of alieviating my concern and helping those unnecessarily suffering from the cognitive distortion.
I would have thought that obvious and commonsensical. So, why you and liz and Scratch may think your friend would be a "prime candidate" for me, is as mysterious to me as the impressions and conclusions you keep falsely jumping to about what I say.
There is a cognitive reasons why your friend was not angered and you were--and this in spite of certain possible cognitive distortions you may have in common. But, given the mutually admitted lack of collaboration and trust between us, there would be little or no value in pursuing or arguing it with you.
wenglund wrote:To me, not all cognitive distortions are problematic. Nor, as previously explained, are all cognitive distortions a "prime candidate" of concern to me--even including certain cognitive distortions regarding the good-faith of the Church in what it claims to be. In other words, it is not so much the cognitive distortion that draws my attention, but the manner in which the cognitive distortions may manifests themselves in relation to me and my faith. Once my attention and concern has been drawn on that basis, I view correcting the cognitive distortion (where possible) as a means of alieviating my concern and helping those unnecessarily suffering from the cognitive distortion.
I would have thought that obvious and commonsensical. So, why you and liz and Scratch may think your friend would be a "prime candidate" for me, is as mysterious to me as the impressions and conclusions you keep falsely jumping to about what I say.
There is a cognitive reasons why your friend was not angered and you were--and this in spite of certain possible cognitive distortions you may have in common. But, given the mutually admitted lack of collaboration and trust between us, there would be little or no value in pursuing or arguing it with you.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
For the record, Wade, I'm not trying to argue with you. I genuinely don't understand what it is you're trying to do (and I gather I'm not the only one). You veer between saying that anger and grief over losing faith in Mormonism are a result of cognitive distortion to saying that they "may" be the result of distortion to saying that it's the manifestation of the cognitive distortion that attracts your attention. How do you determine where a cognitive distortion has taken place? I've asked you before what an unhealthy expression of anger or grief looks like, and so far you haven't really explained that. I've asked you to explain to me why believing the church isn't a good-faith actor is a cognitive distortion, and you've responded by saying I was rigid and unwilling to reconsider my beliefs.
For the life of me, I don't understand where you're trying to go with this.
Runtu wrote:Speaking of jumping to conclusions, it's interesting that you assume that he's focusing on the behavior of individuals.
Ironically, you jumped to the false conclusion that I had supposedly jumped to the conclusion that he had focused on the behaviors of individuals. I hadn't. My comments didn't even have him in mind, and were intentionally not specific to anyone in particular, but spoke to some generalized patterns I have anecdotally observed both within the Church and with certain people who have lost faith and/or left the Church.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Then it was odd to bring it up in a discussion of a specific person, particularly when the focus of your post was a suggestion that it was unfair to make any judgments about the wife and bishop in the absence of evidence.
So, if I jumped to the wrong conclusion it was a result of your unclear comments.
Feeling the need to blame, when blaming is not necessary or useful, may be a function of cognitive distortions.
Shifting the blame to others for our own mistakes, may also be a function of cognitive distortions.
Runtu wrote:Speaking of jumping to conclusions, it's interesting that you assume that he's focusing on the behavior of individuals.
Ironically, you jumped to the false conclusion that I had supposedly jumped to the conclusion that he had focused on the behaviors of individuals. I hadn't. My comments didn't even have him in mind, and were intentionally not specific to anyone in particular, but spoke to some generalized patterns I have anecdotally observed both within the Church and with certain people who have lost faith and/or left the Church.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Then it was odd to bring it up in a discussion of a specific person, particularly when the focus of your post was a suggestion that it was unfair to make any judgments about the wife and bishop in the absence of evidence.
So, if I jumped to the wrong conclusion it was a result of your unclear comments.
Feeling the need to blame, when blaming is not necessary or useful, may be a function of cognitive distortions.
Shifting the blame to others for our own mistakes, may also be a function of cognitive distortions.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Criminy, Wade. I'm not blaming you. I'm saying we misunderstood each other. Your post wasn't clear, and I misread it.
Runtu wrote:Speaking of jumping to conclusions, it's interesting that you assume that he's focusing on the behavior of individuals.
Ironically, you jumped to the false conclusion that I had supposedly jumped to the conclusion that he had focused on the behaviors of individuals. I hadn't. My comments didn't even have him in mind, and were intentionally not specific to anyone in particular, but spoke to some generalized patterns I have anecdotally observed both within the Church and with certain people who have lost faith and/or left the Church.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Then it was odd to bring it up in a discussion of a specific person, particularly when the focus of your post was a suggestion that it was unfair to make any judgments about the wife and bishop in the absence of evidence.
So, if I jumped to the wrong conclusion it was a result of your unclear comments.
Feeling the need to blame, when blaming is not necessary or useful, may be a function of cognitive distortions.
Shifting the blame to others for our own mistakes, may also be a function of cognitive distortions.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Flip-flopping back and forth, claiming you're "trying to help," and then that it's all about "generalities," and all this after saying you're "holding up a mirror," may be a function of cognitive distortions.
Failing to produce any evidence of "Mr. D" may also be a function of cog. distortions.
wenglund wrote:To me, not all cognitive distortions are problematic. Nor, as previously explained, are all cognitive distortions a "prime candidate" of concern to me--even including certain cognitive distortions regarding the good-faith of the Church in what it claims to be. In other words, it is not so much the cognitive distortion that draws my attention, but the manner in which the cognitive distortions may manifests themselves in relation to me and my faith. Once my attention and concern has been drawn on that basis, I view correcting the cognitive distortion (where possible) as a means of alieviating my concern and helping those unnecessarily suffering from the cognitive distortion.
I would have thought that obvious and commonsensical. So, why you and liz and Scratch may think your friend would be a "prime candidate" for me, is as mysterious to me as the impressions and conclusions you keep falsely jumping to about what I say.
There is a cognitive reasons why your friend was not angered and you were--and this in spite of certain possible cognitive distortions you may have in common. But, given the mutually admitted lack of collaboration and trust between us, there would be little or no value in pursuing or arguing it with you.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
For the record, Wade, I'm not trying to argue with you. I genuinely don't understand what it is you're trying to do (and I gather I'm not the only one). You veer between saying that anger and grief over losing faith in Mormonism are a result of cognitive distortion to saying that they "may" be the result of distortion to saying that it's the manifestation of the cognitive distortion that attracts your attention. How do you determine where a cognitive distortion has taken place? I've asked you before what an unhealthy expression of anger or grief looks like, and so far you haven't really explained that. I've asked you to explain to me why believing the church isn't a good-faith actor is a cognitive distortion, and you've responded by saying I was rigid and unwilling to reconsider my beliefs.
For the life of me, I don't understand where you're trying to go with this.
Actually, I am not trying to go anywhere with you on this. I have already conceeded that I lack the capacity to productively engage you and others here on this issue. Consequently, I have stopped trying to collaborate and dialogue with you and others about your presumed cognitive distortions, and have chosen instead to simply and periodically post my relatied opinions where I deem appropriate, and leave it at that. What little collaborating and dialoging I intend to do here regarding CBT, will be with those few with whom there is a chance of productively collaborating and dialoging.
wenglund wrote:Actually, I am not trying to go anywhere with you on this. I have already conceeded that I lack the capacity to productively engage you and others here on this issue. Consequently, I have stopped trying to collaborate and dialogue with you and others about your presumed cognitive distortions, and have chosen instead to simply and periodically post my relatied opinions where I deem appropriate, and leave it at that. What little collaborating and dialoging I intend to do here regarding CBT, will be with those few with whom there is a chance of productively collaborating and dialoging.
I hope that helps.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Maybe you're right, Wade. We've long since stopped talking about this and resorted to the "I know you are, but what am I" school of socratic education. I guess if I could figure out what the issue was and how to apply it to exiting Mormonism, we might do better. But I'll take you at your word that you're no longer interested in discussing this further with me.