In this third and last essay in a series on automatic thoughts, I will expand on the topic of disputing negative self-talk. In Seligman’s book, Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life, which I cited in the previous essay, he suggests four basic aspects of disputing pessimistic thinking…or what Ellis called Irrational Beliefs: (1) Evidence, (2) Alternatives, (3) Implications, and (4) Usefulness.
Checking for evidence connotes seeking out legitimate facts or proof that what I am telling myself is true. Such evidence can either support my self-talk or it can disprove it. This approach to challenging automatic thoughts is effective because thoughts are not facts…because I tell myself something does not necessarily make it so. Until and unless there is evidence supporting my belief, it is suspect. That said, it may just be that the facts support what I am telling myself but not necessarily how I am telling myself about it. This is where one or more of the remaining three strategies for disputing a pessimistic explanatory style becomes important.
Considering alternative explanations for a negative event or experience supported by facts lowers the temperature on negative self-talk and permits a more external and less personal consideration of the event. Rarely is there a single explanation as to why anything happens. Considering possible explanations other than just the one fueled by pessimism becomes important. Even if I did err, mitigating circumstances may have contributed to an outcome approaching the “perfect storm” I have built up in my mind. NOTE: It is important to check the evidence for any alternatives, as manufacturing excuses and shifting blame is not the objective of this strategy.
Reflecting on the implications of the event or experience helps to decatastrophize the situation. Even if I did err or “fail,” considering the implications of my failure allows looking at the event as specific and temporary rather than as something that lasts forever and brands me for life “as a loser.” In other words, asking myself how likely is it that this one event or experience will chart the course of the rest of my life in all areas of my existence?
The fourth of Seligman’s categories for disputing a pessimistic explanatory style is usefulness. This is essentially where I ask myself, what good will dwelling on this belief, especially if it is untrue, do? Even if I “screwed up” and create what many today refer to as “a hot mess,” what is the percentage in dwelling on the mistake, incessantly? Yes, I may have to “clean up the mess” because yes, I may be responsible…assuming there were no mitigating circumstances that proffer an alternative explanation or evidence to support it…but what is the point of ruminating about my mistake?
There is a phenomenon in social psych, confirmation bias, that likely serves to amplify the catastrophizing
done by those with a pessimistic explanatory style. This form of cognitive bias speaks to the preference individuals have to seek out information that supports a strongly held belief while discounting if not ignoring information that might well challenge that belief. Consequently, confirmation bias is a particularly challenging cognitive bias to elude when attempting to invite consideration of a new or different point of view. To the extent that someone with a longstanding pessimistic explanatory style reads this trilogy on challenging pessimism, confirmation bias may well result in discounting my argument if even permitting reading past part I.
That said, many pessimists recognize their pessimism and that it presents what economists call a very high opportunity cost. Because a pessimistic explanatory style results in spending inordinate amounts of time ruminating about negative events, mistakes made, and “OMG…what ifs” more positive thinking, planning, or acting, never takes place. But like having an expensive pair of shoes that cause blisters, regardless of how much you paid or how long you have had them, you are going to want a new pair of shoes you can comfortably wear. Perhaps challenging a pessimistic explanatory style and replacing it with optimism might just make for a comfortable fit.
What do you think?
