This book explains CBT in a very simple an easy to read fashion.It was the first Burns book (he has several), and so doesn’t contain all the exercises that he developed later.I own all the books and use them in my own therapy and also when dealing with clients.These techniques work.When incorporated correctly and dilligently followed, I believe anyone can benefit from these concepts.CBT is quite simple really. Your moods are created by your thoughts and how you view your world.Change the thoughts and your are on your way to managing your moods.

One important note:Burns makes it time and time again in this book and the other books he has written.YOU MUST DO THE WRITTEN EXERCISES!!Otherwise you probably won’t get it.Intellectual internalization by reading is not enough.You may learn a little but probably not enough to change your behavior or your moods. CBT is the leading technique in treating depression today.

Product Description
FEELING GOOD FEELS WONDERFUL
The good news is that anxiety, guilt, pessimism, procrastination, low self-esteem, and other “black holes” of depression can be cured without drugs.In FEELING GOOD, eminent psychiatrist, David D. Burns, M.D., outlines the remarkable, scientifically proven techniques that will immediately lift your spirits and help you develop a positive outlook on life.Now, in this updated edition, Dr. Burns adds an ALL-NEW CONSUMER’S GUIDE TO ANTIDEPRESSANT DRUGS as well as a new introduction to help answer your questions about the many options available for treating depression.

- Recognize what causes your mood swings
- Nip negative feelings in the bud
- Deal with guilt
- Handle hostility and criticism
- Overcome addiction to love and approval
- Build self-esteem
- Feel good everyday

BEGIN NOW, TO EXPERIENCE THE JOY OF FEELING GOOD

Click Here to see more reviews about: Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy Revised and Updated (Mass Market Paperback)

I love assignments. Not necessarily doing them, but I love having someone else decide for me what makes sense to learn next. I definitely love knowing exactly how I’m procrastinating. After sixteen years of school, it was scary as all hell to walk out into the world and have to decide what’s next – all by myself. No one expects anything. (Or worse, they expect some kind of general directionless Personal Awesome.) No one is giving assignments. Is reading this book procrastinating about my real projects, or is it part of them? Where’s the damn syllabus?

This is apparently a problem enough for people that David D. Burns gives the resulting feeling a name in his book Feeling Good. Burns calls it “Do-Nothingism.” He discusses normal, competent people, happy and driven all week long but who then find themselves empty on weekends.

No one is expecting anything out of them, and they’ve been trained most of their lives to do as they are asked. (I would point out here that even the rebels need something they object to.) It’s all peachy as long as they have something to turn in and people who need their help. But then, when they finally have the free time they’ve been hoping for and anything is possible, they freeze up.

David Burns’s solution for you, if you’re feeling any of this, is to just make yourself a schedule. Assignments! He’s not even too concerned that you do everything on the schedule, just that you make one.

“Why is this simple activity schedule likely to be helpful? First, it will undercut your tendency to obsess endlessly about the value of various activities and to debate counter-productively about whether or not to do something. Accomplishing even a part of your scheduled activities will in all probability give you some satisfaction and will combat your depression.” (Feeling Good, p. 96)

The schedule and its assignments work because at the moment you need it, they limit your choices.  Barry Schwartz argues:

“Freedom of choice eventually becomes a tyranny of choice. Routine decisions take so much time and attention that it becomes difficult to get through the day. In circumstances like this, we should learn to view limits on the possibilities we face as liberating not constraining…. By deciding to follow a rule, (for example, always wear a seat belt; never drink more than two glasses of wine in one evening) we avoid having to make a deliberate decision again and again.” (The Paradox of Choice, chapter 11)

Assignments grant us the chance to have a decision already made for us. It’s so much easier to go from “What should I do?” to “Do I want to do this one thing?” My idea about self-help books is that part of the reason they are often such best-sellers is because they have assignments. Someone, at least for the duration of the book, will tell you what to do. In the most useful of them, they even explain why they want you to do it.

A couple of years ago, I found myself in a big chain bookstore, looking for a book – any book – that would give me some assignments already. I ended up walking out with Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain. I didn’t realize at that moment that it was a classic. I just knew it was filled with something I could learn and that it would tell me exactly what to do next in order to figure it out.

In the next month, I did almost all of the exercises, definitely cheating my way through a couple of them. I love that once someone has asked you to try something and you understand the reasoning behind it, you’re still free to rebel and learn something anyway. So I rebelled sometimes and tried something slightly different. If not for the specific limits of the assignment, though, it was pretty likely I’d just being reloading Metafilter. Instead, I was drawing credible self-portraits and landscapes through a half-assed picture plane. (I was too cool to put a grid on it. Things mostly worked out anyway.)

Flylady.net is another good example. Flylady’s tactics for keeping a house clean work because of her assignments. The really remarkable part is that her daily tasks can sometimes be completely irrelevant to one’s own world (“But I do not HAVE a laundry room”), but once the task is there, it’s ready to be modified (“I do instead have a pile of clothing under my bed”) and pulled off.

Now, keep in mind that I think Flylady’s style is excruciating. I don’t feel like dusting a room needs to have anything to do with “blessings.” The abbreviation “DH” for “Dear Husband” has always made me gag, and her maudlin metaphor for tears of joy is “Purple Puddles.” Even so, the message underneath the surface is gentle and insistent. Having an assignment and an email arriving every day works some kind of crazy wonders.

Dave Ramsey works in a similar way. He gives straightforward assignments, and tells you why they’re important: big steps that plot a journey toward being out of debt and little steps that are only parts of the big ones. People love Julia Cameron’s “An Artist’s Way” and “Head First: HTML” and workbooks of all sorts. Coolrunning.com’s “Couch to 5K” running program has totally taken off.

Dude, it’s the assignments! Assignments are the limits we need to accomplish anything worthwhile. Assignments are the beautiful limiters of choice that point a direction. Assignments provide us the guidelines that we can then MacGyver as much as we’d like.

It’s the feeling of being able to do anything that is ultimately so debilitating. Man, if anything’s possible for me in a day, I’m not going to do anything. It seems like maybe I’m a huge sucker if that’s the case, ja? It seems like if I can’t figure out what the very next step is, there’s something wrong and undeserving about me. Maybe I’m weak and shouldn’t really attempt much of anything at all.

I’m gonna throw the bullshit flag on this. That stuff is all human nature. We just gotta learn how to work out the assignments.

And okay, I know that there are those shiny people out there who can decide to learn something and then just plow ahead until they’ve made it all the way there. My buddy Sarah can come up with a crazy idea and within about a week, she has a new blog with sixteen entries and a crack design she made herself. She makes my ears leak jealousy. But she’s got it down, you know? If you’re around Sarah when you have a good idea, she’ll hold you to it. “Okay, how’s next Thursday at four? We’ll meet on Roosevelt Island.” The lady groks assignments.

I’m terrible at giving myself assignments, unless other people are paying me for it. Or watching me and waiting for me to fail. Even so, this is the direction I think I want to take on this project. I want to hand out assignments for myself and watch myself try to pull them off. Maybe for you, too, if you’re interested.

A recovering alcoholic in AA has to be vigilant or risk relapse (That makes me wonder why they use the term “recovering” at all, as “recovery” is the logical conclusion of the process, but, in AA, the word has no logical conclusion; perhaps “remission” might be more honest?), and the first sign that one is headed “out” is Stinkin’ Thinkin’ or Stinkin’ Drinkin’ Thinkin’. Nip that in the bud.

In 1985, Gayle Rosellini published a 24-page tract through Hazelden called Stinking Thinking, in which she says, “Attitudes are either a path to healthy and happy recovery or the road to relapse. It’s that simple.” And she goes on to say,

Unfortunately, those of us who are recovering from chemical dependency too often suffer from what A.A. members call stinking thinking. Stinking thinking is a bad attitude. It’s being negative, blaming, and chronically dissatisfied. And it’s sneaky. […] Stinking thinking is a major symptom of chemical dependency. We all suffer from it at one time or another and it doesn’t go away with thirty days of treatment. It can dog our heels even when we’re sober – wrecking our recovery.

Since Rosellini published her tract, the telltale signs of Stinking Thinking have evolved beyond the four types she proposed, and the definition has become both more broad and more specific and detailed. Broadly, stinking thinking is explained well in this 12-Step Workshop handout:

Without the meetings and the fellowship, I’ll begin to think that the problem is anything other than Powerless. And, I’ll forget what the solution is… the 12 Steps… and come up with all sorts of solutions of my own. In A.A., we call that “stinking thinking” and as alcoholics, we cannot afford the luxury of “stinking thinking” because stinking thinking produces “stinking results.”

This highlights the kernel of stinking thinking, which is, essentially, any deviation from the program – and, while deviation might be the result of one’s own dumdum justifications for going back to drinking, it could also generate from one’s utter dissatisfaction with the program for any number of logical and sound reasons.

And, to get more specific and detailed: “The Top Ten Types of Stinking Thinking” adapted from David D. Burns’ book, The Feeling Good Handbook, seems to have become the go-to list on many AA websites and blogs. This is a definitive list of distortions in thinking, which make a lot of sense. Because they make sense, it seems a very odd choice for the 12-Steppers – especially since their slogans and truisms and bumperstickers all fall within one type of stinking thinking or another – or a few at the same time. The primary type of stinking thinking, elaborated on by Rosellini, is “Lip Service,” which has been sort of absorbed into Burns’ list, but is still very relevant. It’s something I hear quite often, and many of the slogans address it, and exemplify it. For instance, there are a bunch of slogans for dismissing someone who expresses that they feel “fine.” I guess “fine” is dangerous, because if you’re “fine,” then you’re not a hot mess, and if you’re not a hot mess, then you might start living your “life on life’s terms,” which is not possible. “Life on life’s terms” is like the word “recovering” – you pay lip service to it, but to claim you have achieved it will earn you a knowing, indulgent, condescending snort, and perhaps a “Oh yeah, we’re all F.I.N.E.: fucked-up, insecure, neurotic, and emotional.”

I have a new theory that might help the 12-Steppers get their recovery rate up beyond the infamous 5%. It might be time to ditch the bumperstickers, the “truisms,” the thought-stopping slogans that, I believe, foster and encourage stinking thinking.  Now, you AAs, don’t get all defensive and in denial, because I’m just going to (tough) lovingly demonstrate how some of the cherished sayings you have adopted contribute to stinking thinking. There are several hundreds of slogans (400?), to meet every eventuality, so I would go blind trying to categorize all of them according to their correct distortion. But, hopefully, this will give you the idea, and you can carry on with this in your free mind. You’ll find yourself frustrated by the enormous overlap among the categories, but that will be good exercise for living life on life’s terms.

I have to say that I am tempted to add a few categories to this list, like Superstitious Thinking, which I would define as: You see your life as dictated by an arbitrary force that will favor you if you perform the correct rituals meant to coerce benevolent consideration. And if things don’t go your way, you blame your inept, dishonest supplications, and try harder next time. Focusing on a power outside yourself will leave you distracted from, and thus dishonoring, the creativity and free will that is your gift as a child of God, or as an autonomous being, on this planet. Also, many of these slogans easily fall into the category of “Lip Service.” Finally, I would have included “Tough Love,” because I agree with Bufe’s definition: “An excuse domineering people use to rationalize abusing others.” But, I’m going to work with what I have here, from Burns’ Stinking Thinking list:

1. All-or-nothing thinking:

You either are or you aren’t.

Around A.A. or in A.A.?

Half measures availed us nothing.

There are 12 steps in the ladder of complete sobriety.

Are you walking towards a drink or away from one?

Without A.A., it’s Amen.

Remember that alcoholism is incurable, progressive, and fatal.

2. Overgeneralization

Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic.

Death, insanity, or recovery.

Why recovery never ends: The disease is alcoholism, not alcoholWASm.

3. Mental Filter

Anger is but one letter away from danger.

Analysis is paralysis.

The person with the most sobriety at a meeting is the one who got up earliest that morning.

Don’t drink, don’t think and go to meetings.

4. Discounting the positive

I am unique, just like everybody else.

The farther I get from my last drink, the closer I get to my next drunk.

Alcoholism is the only disease that tells you you’re all right.

5. Jumping to conclusions

Try it for 90 days, and if you don’t like it, we’ll gladly refund your misery.

We are without defense against the first drink, our defense must come from a power greater than ourselves.

Death, insanity, or recovery. (Alternately: The bottle, big house, or the box.)

6. Magnification

My best thinking got me here.

Don’t go in your head alone. It’s a dangerous neighborhood.

Why recovery never ends: the disease is alcoholism, not alcoholWASm.

I want what I want when I want it.

We are only as sick as our secrets.

7. Emotional Reasoning

If you wonder if you’re an alcoholic, you probably are.

Fear alone won’t keep me sober, but for a newcomer, it’s not a bad place to start.

I came; I came to; I came to believe.

8. “Should” statements (There are too many of these.)

Take the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth.

You have to go to these meetings until you want to. It’s easy to talk the talk, but you have to walk the walk.

Don’t work my program, or your program, work THE program.

Don’t drink, don’t think and go to meetings.

You are not required to like it; you’re only required to DO it.

9. Labeling (and too many of these.)

K.I.S.S.—Keep It Simple Stupid

When you sober up a horse thief, all you have is a sober horse thief.

F.I.N.E.=Fucked-up, insecure, neurotic, and emotional.

The definition of an alcoholic: an egomaniac with an inferiority complex.

A.A. works for people who believe in God. A.A. works for people who don’t believe in God. A.A. NEVER works for people who believe they ARE God.

There are none too dumb for the A.A. program but many are too smart.

Some of us are sicker than others.

10. Personalization and Blame [This is a tricky one, because what Burns means is that one will either take responsibility for something negative that was out of his or her control, or, alternately blame others for negative events that he or she is responsible for. In the instance of AA, we have the group taking credit for positive results where the individual is responsible, and attributing blame to the individual where the group has failed. God also factors in here, and it might fall under the “superstitious thinking” category that I invented.]

If it works, don’t fix it.

Keep coming back. It works if you work it.

If you want to drink, that is your business…if you want to quit and can’t, that is A.A.’s business.

Stick with the winners.

Willingness is the key.

A.A. is not something you join; it’s a way of life.

… …………… Gentle Readers, Gentils Lecteurs … ……………

.
How are you today? Don’t answer! For your personnal  information, aswering to this may get you in a BIG trouble. Let me explain you the one novelty in the mentality of our new, enhanced and exiting brave new world…

Subject & Themes / Sujet & Thèmes

When I was young and learning english, since as remarked by the most discerning of you, english is not my native language { hence my texts full of gallicisms, frenglishisms (a.k.a. froglish) and my conjugation & grammar somewhat strange }, the way to politely approach a person was by asking:  “How do you do? ” which sounds weird to most of the North American english speakers. A teacher freshly arrived from Zbagerny introduce our bunch of scalawags to an higher level of knowledge & a more fashionable way to ask the question: “How are you? “

That teacher was very clever and we learned also how to politely anwser to this “How are You?” by a “Very well, Thank you. And you? “. Owning this new and funny knowledge our group of rascals begin to chase after an english speaker to experiment their new skills as well as showing how much they are wise… I have to speak you frankly and admit that famous chase was a total failure: english speaking person in the Pnkgbavna’s townships was as much as frequent than an elephant. {than… an … E… ant… sounds weird? That’s poetry you yokel!}

Years later I was in a situation to (finally) shows how good is my knowledge of the William Shakespeare language but my expectations failed & my disillusion total BUT the process of learning human behaviour was commenced and, as far as I know, will never finished.

When I asked the famous approach question the answer was a total surprise for me: “How are you.”

:O !!! What’s going on? He don’t care, absolutly don’t care about. I was totally asthonished. In french, for instance, it’s very unpolite to answer to a question by the same question. (With an other question it is irony not unpoliteness except with morons which take it personnaly and especially the st00pid girls of the Upper-Evpuryvrh, a spot in Eastern & French Canada, where irony shows some lights of intelligence therefore an insult to them, to their “everybodies must be identical” attitude…)

The way to answer this approach question in french give the illusion that poeple care about how you are whereas american english is more brutal but frank: nobodies really care. Nobodies except if you are in bad mood and naive enough to give the true answer. In this case, about 90% of poeple don’t care and the rest rejoice with…

For sure, as you expect, if this question is asked you by your physician, you have enough insight to understand that, this time, you have to tell the truth and, as you normally expected, your Doctor will care about. Keep this in mind for later…

Modern medical knowledge is based on the biology researches & discoveries. The physician practice is based on biological theories accepted as true by the scientific communauty. This is an applied science of the biology as well as engeneering is the application of the physic science if you want a comparison.

One of the most important characteristic of the science, pure and applied, is the importance given to the observations of the facts on which I would insist in this 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin. The other important characteristic is, as we learned from Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton: the theories must not be forged by imagination but based on verified observations and hypothesis are expressed in the language of the science: mathematics.

The science in is true meaning is an combination of  research of all the facts and the accuracy of the mathematics. The possibility of that kind of knowledge was discorered by Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei in the Renaissance period. {Science, stricto sensu, is a kind of knowledge not THE knowledge}.

When a theory can’t explain all the facts in the field of a scientific research this drive to the development of a new theory to explain in a better way what the previous theory was unable to handle and it is, most often, a reform instead of a revolution. Most of the time a new and accepted theory explain in a better way more facts that the previous accepted theory and, also, why the previous one was uncorrect. This new theory is often more simpler and therefore more elegant…

Here the third important characteristic of the science: the theories and the facts have to be verified by the other scientifics of the same field of knowledge and must be widely verified and accepted by a scientfic consensus of this specific “community” not by everybodies and not by anybodies else. The Science is, to speak in terms of  Politic a “Federation of Republics”. To participate and express your advice in a specific science you must have the “Citizenship” of this “Republic”. Want to talk scientifically of physic? You have to be a physician which is the “Citizenship” of the “Republic of Physicians”. But nobodies may have a “Citizenship” of the Federation because the generic word “science” don’t mean there is somethings like THE science.

As we learned from William of Ockham, from the linguistic existence of a word it is unlogic to make a deduction of the existence of a corresponding entity. The word “Unicorn” exist as a word but not unicorns (as animal like a moose) and the word “moose” exist as word and mean that animal founded in northen forests of the septentrional hemisphere but mooses will exist even the word “moose” is unexistent as a word… Signs are used as a way to mean and must have no meaning by themselves. They related to somethings else not to themselves. A true sign is, to use a poetic way to express it, not selfish at all and full of generosity, like the ONE of Plotinus, giving what he don’t have.

It let you make your own research on these issues and suggest you to start with the works of Bertrand Russell. But let me give you this last remark: observations are better than any word even a very “scientific” one. Hypothesis help to orientation to the facts but never replace or creating facts. If you believed in a word as a replacement for a clever observation you leave the way of science, pure or applied, and behave, to make a comparison, like a computer program unabled to get information from outside and relying on his own list of data. In the knowledge field it is called a BIAS.  Very bad for observations & therefore for a scientific approach of the problem as you see. Keep this in mind for the rest of this story…

But now it’s the recreation period and,  just for you ,  this funny video. The conclusion of this story will come after…

Funny Video / Vidéo Rigolo

.

To keep my long digression short, the scientific way even in applied sciences like medecine may be understood by three criterias which are: Reason, Observations and… Trust.

Trust in the Reason, trust in the other poeples reason, trust in the value of observations, trust in the value of the other poeple observations but not a blind trust for any of them. If this trust is lost, for any of these criterias or about their relations, what we call “science” is lost.

If Trust is lost for observations, you’re going  into what Francis Bacon call the Way of the Spider, if you lost the Trust for the Reason in the Way of the Ant. Lord Verulam prefer the Way of the Bee but where talking about human and I strongly prefer the Way of Human in science even I like the bees and other animals useful for us or not. (I like for instance bacterias making beer or yogurt as well as other bacterias doing nothing good for us AND nothings bad.) I let you find out what’s happen when both Reason and Observations becomes untrustable…

Reason in the meaning used here mean not only what a person think but also what a person communicate to the other and with the others. In the Federation of the Republics of Sciences this communication must be free, universal and open. This is again a question of Trust.

By the way, one of the most interesting field of research today is in the Theory of Communication like the School of Palo Alto and works from people like Gregory Bateson, Paul Watzlawick, Don D. Jackson et al. as well as the Cognitive Theory used in the treatment of mood disorder by poeple like Dr. David D. Burns. I let you make your own investigations on these subjects…

And now let me finished with the authentic story of a patient and his physician and how bias, bad observations and a lack of communication drive this patient in a situation not far from a (bad) remake of a Kafkaian novel.

The patient had a long story of repetitive depression, a mood disorder supposed to be well known today as well as correctly treated by modern medecine. After a year of (successful) treatment the time arrived to renew the prescription of the antidepressor and, in the mind of the patient, to go further and begin to control his very high blood pressure as well as his level of bad cholesterol.

This story happen last year, just before the period of Xmas and New Year festivities and the patient was happy to meet again members of his family at this occasion. The patient arrived at his appointment with the Doctor and was happy to meet her again, because she’s a sympathic young women and because he was also happy to tell her how much the treatment was successful…

- How are you? ask the Doctor.

- Very well thank you and you Doctor? reply politely the patient.

Believe it or not, this answer act as a trigger for this resident Doctor and she conclude that this patient suffer of a beginning of a severe maniac episode, in other word, this patient is not a successfully treated depressed patient but a case of bipolar disorder. She change the diagnosis and the prescription: droping by half the antidepressor dose and add a dose Lithium carbonate.

To be more accurate, this patient was asked many times before about possible maniac episodes and always tell the truth: he never suffer any kind of these symptoms. No observation of any kind to drive to a bipolar disorder diagnosis except one thing: bias from the physician.

Trusting his Doctor the patient start the new treatment and pass a very bad period of Xmas and New Years festivities. His bad mood comes back, he becomes more irritated, more sad and a month later renew with the experience of suicidal ideas… See the picture?

He was a very experienced patient and instead of closing his mouth and let the things goes in this very bad way, the patient return to see the Doctor and meet a nurse, another Doctor and finally (in the same day) the supervisor of his Doctor. Nobodies there was understanding why this patient was so upset. (After all this is only his health and life.) How this patient may  put in question the skills of a Doctor of Medecine… ?

They send him to the Psychiatric Department of the nearest hospital to have second diagnostic this time by a psychiatrist. The exam was performed and confirm the patient was right and the Doctor wrong. The correct diagnosis was depression not bipolar disorder. Period.

To give you more insight in this case you have to know that the Dr of Psychiatry who makes the second diagnosis who was actively listening the patient but also avoid to make the diagnosis based on other things than the facts: observations and communications with &  from this patient.

The most funny things in this story was a remark from the psychiatrist about the wrong bipolar disorder diagnosis: giving a bipolar diagnosis to almost every depressed patient is nowadays a fashionable diagnostic of the medical services or in a less diplomatic way: a preconceived diagnosis. A kind of catch-22 situation where the patient is “bipolar” if he have OR if he don’t have the symptoms revealed by the anamnesis and the clinical signs . This preconcieved diagnosis drive these average physicians (Dr. Knock emulators) to interpret all recovery signs  from depression as proofs of bipolar disorder or in other word: If you feel good you’re sick.

References / Références

Video founded via Nicolas Roberge on Twitter

Original page of the video: The Onion

My  post about related subjects / Mes articles sur des sujet reliés

L’exil Transcendantal ou la Vie

Do you suffer from political apathy?

Your Comment… / Votre Commentaire…

Publishing tools / Outils de publication

.

[{p ٧ ¬p}W{p ۸ ¬p}] ٧ significare aut crepare ٧ σημασία ἤ θόρυβος …

Tradicionalmente se ha considerado que la depresión es un trastorno emocional, sin embargo, puede que solo sea un trastorno del pensamiento. Los pensamientos negativos, erróneos, pueden ser la verdadera causa de las emociones dolorosas, de los episodios depresivos. Analicemos esta afirmación.

De forma simplificada los elementos que intervienen en el proceso depresivo son: a) el mundo real, b) los pensamientos y c) los sentimientos. Lógicamente antes de que algo que sucede en el mundo real pueda afectar a nuestros sentimientos, ese hecho debe ser procesado por nuestros pensamientos. Los pensamientos son la causa, los sentimientos el síntoma.

Normalmente la persona que tiene sentimientos dolorosos no es consciente de haber realizado ese pensamiento erróneo, solo es consciente de sentirse mal. Y cuando se siente mal su forma de ver las cosas se transforma, los pensamientos son a partir de ese momento inevitablemente negativos y pesimistas, parece que nada tiene valor, que los periodos de felicidad fueron pura ilusión, que su forma de ser es horrible, que la visión que la gente tiene de él/ella es pésima. Se cierra un círculo vicioso en que pensamientos y sentimientos negativos se realimentan unos a otros. Y le parece que los pensamientos negativos son consecuencia de un bajón en el estado de ánimo. Pero no es así: hay un origen, una causa previa que ha pasado desapercibida: un pensamiento deficiente y “automático”, es decir “interiorizado”. Los pensamientos automáticos pueden ser prácticamente invisibles para la persona deprimida.

Una persona que identifique los “pensamientos automáticos”, y actúe para corregirlos, puede lograr con ello cambiar los sentimientos que estos generan. Es decir, superar su estado depresivo.

¿Cuáles son los pensamientos erróneos (distorsiones cognitivas) más comunes?

1. Pensamiento todo-o-nada. Un estudiante acostumbrado a aprobar todas las materias, ante un suspenso reacciona pensando “Soy un fracaso total“. ¿Hay realmente solo dos tipos de estudiantes, los exitosos, que siempre aprueban, y los fracasados, los que no son capaces de aprobar siempre?
2. Generalización excesiva. Un peatón camina por la calle y recibe la visita de una caquita de paloma. El peatón piensa: “Joder, es que siempre me tiene que caer a mí la cagadita de la paloma“. En realidad nunca antes le había caído una cagadita de ningún tipo de pájaro.
3. Filtro mental. Recibes una crítica injustificada de otro bloguero y piensas “Desde luego los humanos somos lo peor, unos egoístas a los que no les importa el impacto de sus actos sobre los demás“. Y en realidad se trata de un caso aislado, procedente de una única persona, mientras que el resto de blogueros te han demostrado continuamente su aprecio. Te has puesto unas gafas que solo te han dejado ver lo negativo.
4. Transformar lo positivo en negativo. Un bloguero está triste porque no tiene demasiados amigos. Cuando alguien le dice: “Pero si tienes muchos amigos en estos blogs” él responde convirtiendo ese hecho positivo en negativo “ellos no cuentan porque no están en el mundo real“. Cuando su amigo replica, “¿qué importancia tiene eso? Además, a algunos los conoces en persona y te aprecian de verdad”, él contesta “Eso es porque no conocen cómo soy de verdad“.
5. Conclusiones sin fundamento. Un profesor está dando una clase y un par de alumnos se duermen en el pupitre. El profesor concluye que “no sé dar clase, los alumnos se aburren conmigo“, cuando la realidad es que esos dos alumnos estuvieron de juerga la noche anterior y no han podido mantener los ojos abiertos por más tiempo. Tu jefe te atiende sin apenas mirarte mientras teclea en el ordenador, y eso te hace pensar “cree que no soy competente para este puesto y me va a trasladar a mi antigua sección“. ¿Es que lees el pensamiento? Otro ejemplo: una persona piensa “estaré deprimido el resto de mi vida“, y ese pensamiento le hace profundamente infeliz. En realidad, lee este post, entiende lo que le pasa, va a terapia con un profesional y no vuelve a tener depresión. ¿En qué basaba la predicción que le hacía infeliz? ¿Era adivino?
6. Magnificación y minimización. “¡Dios mío he puesto un post con una falta de ortografía! Es terrible. Ahora todo el mundo pensará que soy un completo analfabeto“. ¿De verdad una falta de ortografía es el fin del mundo? ¿Como para sentirse tan mal? Sin embargo, hoy has tenido un detalle que te honra con un amigo, y piensas que “No es para tanto, todo el mundo hubiese hecho lo mismo“. Tu lupa aumenta lo negativo y reduce lo positivo.
7. Razonamiento emocional. “Me siento culpable, seguro que he hecho algo mal“. “Me siento abrumado, supongo que es porque mi problema no tiene solución“. Las cosas parecen negativas, y en lugar de pensar si realmente lo son tanto, nuestro estado anímico nos hace creer que realmente son así de negativas. Como lo sentimos así, así debe ser.
8. Sentencias “Debería”. “Debería ser más puntual“. Los “debería” crean una autoexigencia, unas expectativas, que cuando no son alcanzadas nos hacen sentir vergüenza, culpa y autoaversión. Y este pensamiento es más frustrante cuando se refiere a los demás: “Los conductores deberían parar cuando ven a un peatón que va a cruzar en el paso de peatones“. No hay que dejar que las conductas impropias de otros nos afecten, hay que aceptar la realidad y no sufrir porque algo no es como “debería”.
9. Etiquetación. “Soy un cobarde“. ¿De verdad un ser tan complejo, con pensamientos, emociones y acciones cambiantes puede ser definido con una única e inmutable palabra? Las etiquetas son estáticas, y las personas somos dinámicas. Si pensamos que un conocido es un “trepa“, esa etiqueta solo generará rencor y malas acciones hacia ese conocido.
10. Autoculpabilización infundada. Tu hija trae una nota a casa en la que la maestra dice que no está obteniendo buenos resultados en el colegio y piensas: “Debo ser una mala madre. De haberle prestado un poco más de caso no habría pasado esto. He fracasado como madre.” ¿Te vas a responsabilizar tú de todo lo que hagan tus hijos en su vida? Lo que hacen otras personas es, en última instancia, responsabilidad de ellas, no tuya.

Si en algún momento empiezas a sentirte deprimido o atormentado, trata de buscar rápidamente cuál ha sido el pensamiento que te ha llevado a ese estado, e identifica en él cuál o cuáles de los 10 errores de pensamiento has cometido. A mí el método me ha funcionado, pues desde que lo pongo en práctica no he tenido ninguna depresión. Antes tampoco.:)

Si crees que mi experiencia no demuestra nada, deberías tener cuidado con tu forma de pensar, pues estás cometiendo un error de “filtro mental” que te hace ver solo lo negativo

(Referencia: Libro “Sentirse Bien”, de David D. Burns. Editorial Paidós Autoayuda)