Are you uploading facts to annoy yourself?

In this blog, I introduce a fallacy to my list of “fundamental fallacies” in logic-based reasoning to treat. I call this the fallacy The fallacy of downloading facts Because it involves embedding a value judgment (often unintentionally) into the premise of the emotional reasoning that is supposed to convey a truth. This fallacy can mask, exacerbate, legitimize, and maintain self-disturbing influences last Fallacies in people’s emotional thinking.

According to Logic-Based Therapy (LBT), people upset themselves by making self-destructive value judgments based on irrational or misleading premises. Thus, cognitive behavioral therapy helps people replace this fallacious emotional thinking with rational thinking, that is, thinking that does not contain fallacies in its premises.

What is emotional thinking?

Emotional reasoning is the reasoning people do when they are upset by life’s problems. It consists of two buildings. One such premise is a report or description of an intended object. that it experimental hypothesis; Any hypothesis can be confirmed by observation or inference from observation.

The other hypothesis is the rule that tells a person how to evaluate this object. They are usually not spoken explicitly by someone, but instead operate in the background to guide inference. LBT adds them so that clients can learn which rules are active in their emotional (cognitive) processing. For example,

Rule: If I lose my job, rate it as the worst thing in the world.

Report: I lost my job.

Conclusion: It’s the worst thing in the world.

This reasoning is fallacious because its basis clearly commits a fallacy Awful. It exaggerates how bad job loss is by asking you to rate it as worse than earthquakes, tsunamis, and natural disasters. Mass murder!

Illustrations of emotional thinking that commits the fallacy of downloading facts

In contrast, compare emotional reasoning where the report is “I lost.” The best job in the world” so that the client’s logic is:

If you lose the best job in the world, evaluate it as the worst thing in the world.

I lost the best job in the world.

Therefore, the worst thing in the world is that I lost the best job in the world.

The fallacy inherent in this reasoning involves “loading” (embedding) a negative evaluation into a hypothesis masquerading as a factual report. It’s like loading a set of dice to get a certain result. In this case, one loads a hypothesis to lead to a certain negative outcome. This way, you may feel more compelled to feel down about losing your job and overlook the terrible, blatant fallacy in your thinking.

Deconstructing the fallacy of downloading facts It involves challenging yourself to andUpload the hypothesis of your report. For example, you could rephrase it as “I I feel as if “I lost the best job in the world.” This statement is a factual claim that can be confirmed because it is a subjective report of the client’s feelings, which the client can access through introspection. In this way, the client’s revised reasoning becomes:

If I feel like I lost the best job in the world, evaluate the loss as the worst thing in the world.

I feel As if I lost the best job in the world.

Therefore, the worst thing in the world is that I lost my job.

In contrast to overloaded heuristics, this heuristic can easily be exposed due to the faulty heuristics present in it. In fact, we all experience very strong emotions, but only because of you feel Just because you lost the best job in the world, it doesn’t mean that the worst thing in the world is that you lost it.

By exposing the fallacy of uploading facts, you are now in a better position to deal with your awfulness because you now see that it is not about some things. External fact About the job I lost being the best job in the world. It’s about you Subjective feelings About job loss, which was hidden by the fallacy of uploading facts. Now that you’ve uncovered these feelings, you’re in a better position to deal with them—for example, by realizing that there could be other career opportunities to explore that might be equally or more satisfying.

Most importantly, statements such as “I lost the best job in the world” have evaluative force. This means that they perform one or more evaluative speech acts in addition to reporting or describing. This is reporting a job loss. He also seems to report strong feelings about this loss.

However, in addition to that, he speaks highly of the job in question. At the same time, this verb of evaluation is used for Lamentations Her loss. Because it performs one or more evaluative speech acts, in addition to reporting or describing one thing or another, it is a suitable subject for deconstruction. The goal of deconstruction, then, is to unpack evaluative speech acts, leaving declarative or descriptive acts intact, as in “I feel as if I lost the best job in the world.”

A state of self-condemnation

The fallacy of loading facts into the premises of a report can also be included to make inferences using evaluative forces other than the egregious one. A common variant often occurs in inference Damned Himself, his life, others, or the world. Here a Self-curse example:

If I make a huge mistake, they rate me as the biggest loser.

I made a terrible mistake.

So I’m the biggest loser

Here you upload the fact that you made a “terrible” mistake with the modifier. The strong negative force of making terrible The mistake makes it seem even more urgent to call yourself a “biggest loser.” This may lead you to ignore, perpetuate, legitimize, and even amplify the negative power of the fallacy you are committing. However, when andLoad the evaluative content of the report’s introduction by removing the evaluative component (“awful”), and the case is much less convincing:

If I make a mistake, rate me as a big loser.

You made a mistake.

So I’m the biggest loser

Obviously, if making a mistake makes you a “big loser,” then we would all be big losers because we all make mistakes. But this is clearly ridiculous!

How to avoid the fallacy of downloading facts

In brief, the process of addressing the fallacy of misrepresentation involves three steps:

1. Ask yourself if you are uploading your report by including any assessments in it.
2. If so, break down the premise of your report so you can andDownload evaluative speech acts.
3. Reevaluate your reasons using the transcribed report.

This way, you can avoid bothering yourself with misleading emotional thinking by which you tempt yourself into believing that you have a strong reason to feel down. Expose this line of self-disturbing thinking by unpacking it!