Are you reading facts that upset you?

This blog introduces fallacies for the logic-based “Cardinal Fallacies” list. treatment. I call this a fallacy Fallacy of reading facts This is because it involves (often unintentionally) embedding value judgments in the premises of affective reasoning that are supposed to report facts. This false belief can conceal, enhance, justify, and maintain self-disturbing influences. other Errors in people’s emotional reasoning.

According to logic-based therapy (LBT), people upset themselves by making self-destructive value judgments based on irrational or false assumptions. Therefore, LBT helps people replace such faulty emotional reasoning with rational reasoning, i.e., reasoning that is premise-free.

What is emotional reasoning?

Emotional reasoning is the reasoning people make when they are angry about problems in life. It consists of two sites. One of these assumptions is the report or description of intentional objects. it is empirical a premise; that is, a premise that can be confirmed by observation or inference from observation.

Another assumption is the rules that tell people how to evaluate this object. It is usually not explicitly spoken by a person, but works in the background to direct reasoning. LBT adds this so that clients can see what rules are in effect when processing their (cognitive) emotions. for example,

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

Report: I lost my job.

Bottom line: It’s the worst thing in the world.

This reasoning is wrong. This is because the rule clearly makes the following mistake: terrible. We are exaggerating how serious the job losses are, making them even worse than earthquakes, tsunamis, and disasters. mass murder!

An example of emotional reasoning that commits the fact-reading fallacy

In contrast, compare the emotional reasoning when the report is “I lost.” the best work in the world” The client’s reasoning goes like this:

If I lost the best job in the world, rate it as the worst thing in the world.

I lost the best job in the world.

So it’s the worst thing in the world that I lost the best job in the world.

The fallacies inherent in this reasoning include “loading” (embedding) negative evaluations into premises disguised as factual reporting. It’s like loading a set of dice to get a certain result. In this case, we load the premises to draw a certain negative conclusion. In this way, you may feel even more depressed about losing your job and be tempted to overlook blatantly egregious errors in your reasoning.

Deconstructing the fact-loading fallacy includes challenging yourself andLoad report prerequisites. For example, “I feel like I lost the best job in the world. ” This statement is a verifiable factual assertion because it is a subjective report of the client’s feelings and can be known through introspection. In this way, the client’s modified reasoning looks like this:

If you feel as if you lost the best job in the world, rate the loss as the worst thing in the world.

I feel It’s like losing the best job in the world.

Therefore, losing my job is the worst thing in the world.

In contrast to expensive inferences, this inference can be more easily exposed as a false inference. Sure, we all experience very strong emotions, but it may simply be that you feel Just because you lost the best job in the world doesn’t mean losing it is the worst thing in the world.

By exposing the fact-loading fallacy, you’ll know that this isn’t anyone else’s problem, and you’ll be in a better position to move past your own awfulness. external facts About the job you lost being the best job in the world. Rather, it’s about you subjective feelings About unemployment hidden by the fact-loading fallacy. By exposing these emotions, you will be better able to process them. For example, you start thinking that there might be other jobs out there that are just as satisfying or even more satisfying.

The point is, words like “I lost the best job in the world” have evaluative power. This means performing one or more evaluative speech acts in addition to reporting or explaining. This person is reporting unemployment. It also seems to convey strong feelings about this loss.

But in addition to that, it is the highest praise for the work in question. At the same time, using this evaluation behavior, lament That loss. It is a suitable subject for deconstruction because, in addition to reporting or explaining something, it performs one or more evaluative speech acts. The goal of deconstruction is to take down that evaluative speech act and leave only the reporting or descriptive act intact, such as “I feel like I lost the best job in the world.”

Examples of remorse

The fact-loading fallacy can also be embedded in the premise of reporting inferences using evaluative powers other than terrible evaluations. Common variations often occur in reasoning like this: terrible yourself, your life, others, or the world. here it is masochistic example:

If I make a terrible mistake, please mark me as a big loser.

I made worst error.

So I’m a big loser

Here I am loading the fact that I made a mistake by using the modifier “terrible”. A strong negative force that creates worst When you make a mistake, it seems more convincing to call yourself a “big loser.” This can lead you to tend to ignore, maintain, justify, and even amplify the negative power of the self-deprecating fallacies you are committing. However, if you andThis case becomes much less convincing if you remove the rating component (“terrible”) and load the rating content in the report premise.

If I make a mistake, please mark me as a big loser.

I made a mistake.

So I’m a big loser

If you’re a “big loser” for making a mistake, then obviously you’re a big loser because we all make mistakes. But this is clearly unreasonable.

How to avoid the fact-loading fallacy

In summary, the process of addressing the fact-loading fallacy involves three steps.

1. Ask yourself if you’re loading a report with an embedded rating.
2. If so, break down the report’s assumptions and andLoad that evaluation speech act.
3. Reevaluate your inferences using the unloaded report.

This will help you avoid confusing yourself with faulty emotional reasoning that leads you to believe that you are likely to be depressed. Unload and expose this self-disturbing thought process.