Talk:Cognitive distortion

Psychology Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

intro not very good

"supposedly perpetuate certain psychological disorders" has the weasel word "supposedly" and misses the point that "distortion" is primarily a "defense mechanism" - albeit a dysfunctional one--Penbat (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1989 is off by a few years

Before the "Feeling Good Handbook", there was a book called "Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy", published in 1980. It also introduced the theory of cognitive distortions. -- WillWare (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive distortion / fallacy / defense mechanism

All cognitive distortions listed should be delineated in terms of fallacies and defense mechanisms described elsewhere. Incidentally Disqualifying or Downplaying the positive ties in with negative and positive reinforcement.--Penbat (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal edit

Removed line: "It would be more correct to credit Aaron Beck, not David Burns, as the founder of the cognitive theory of emotions. David Burns, a student of Dr. Beck, was a successful synthesizer and disseminator of cognitive therapy. particularly through "The Feeling Good Handbook"" This line is irrelevant because cognitive therapy is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, so this does not concern Aaron Beck. It however, does properly credit Burns with the proposal of "cognitive distortions" Delandeth (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive distortion by sex offenders

I removed most of the text from this section, since it was not written clearly and lacked citations. It was added by one individual on March 11. The section was almost immediately tagged, and no improvements have been made, so I deleted most of it. Oanjao (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entire section should be deleted. Not relevant in the grand scheme of things. A "See also" at the most. --1000Faces (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If we are going to talk about this, we also ought to include logical fallacies employed to the detriment of sex offenders: hasty generalization and other biases that are more socially common. ~DJac75

It is a useful example of cognitive distortion in practice and how it is employed by abusers.--Penbat (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That material would probably be more pertinent in an article about abusers/offenders. If we need an example in this article, the section could just as well be about how abuse victims' cognition is distorted, but I don't think we need such examples here. (Cognitive distortion is not "employed" by anyone. Cognitive distortion is not conscious/intentional manipulation of others or self.) Jojalozzo 15:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is "narcissistic rage" doing in there?

I mean, I understand how it applies in that the narcissistic person may be doing any or all of the things in the list. But unless there's some documentation linking treatment of narcissistic people with the cognitive behavioral list, I don't understand why it's in this article. --Bluejay Young (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had the very same thought after reading the article. People with narcissistic tendencies certainly use cognitive distortions, but so do the rest of you! CBT is indeed used to treat people with narcissistic issues, but CBT is used to treat a variety of issues. I'm not sure why this one is singled out for inclusion. The main article is about an aspect of CBT, not about CBT per se. As such, this section is a clumsy thumb sticking out of the article and shouldn't be included. Vandemark (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is off-topic and clearly does **not** belong here. It should be removed. It was probably added to link the the book on HarperCollins. 117.212.72.214 (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeping changes, BRD

See this diff. Eknash4 made a bold change, which was reverted by Dandv. The next step ought to be discussion here on this talk page, not undoing the reversion. In addition, the anonymous editor behind IP 71.194.136.75 will do well to consider Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks before accusing another editor of hypocrisy.

Comparing the page versions before and after Dandv's reversion, the chief differences I see are in the section on main cognitive distortions. For one thing, the item on all-or-nothing thinking is once again a blue link (with a valid target.) There are other differences of format and content. Here is the place to discuss them. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Citation

This jumped out at me and I went to look up the source to learn more about it: "Always being right - Prioritizing truth or ethics over the feelings of another person.[6]"

Problem is, the source doesn't quite say that or (at least in my case) was misunderstood. What the article actually explains is pursuing an action that is harmful to yourself and others because you can't admit that you're wrong. As the sentence is written now, I honestly thought that it was implying we should do things we think are wrong, both morally and scientifically, to spare the feelings of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.117.156 (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]