Filtering Reality - Distortion Deletion and Generalisation

[SWM]

The beliefs and values that we have about the world influence the way that we process information from the world around us. The mind filters information in various ways that fit with our beliefs and values. This filtering can be divided into three modes of operation they are: Distortion Deletion and Generalisation.



Generalization
Generalization is where the speaker takes a particular experience applies it generically to a multitude of other situations (generalizes.) Molden and Hutchinson provide examples, words to look for and questions to ask:

Examples:

    * You can’t run a family and work full-time.
    * Children need discipline
    * Nobody loves me.

Words to listen for:

    * Can’t, unable, not possible
    * Need, must, have to, go to, necessary, requirement.
    * Everybody, nobody, anyone, every, always, never.

Questions to ask to challenge Generalisation:

    * What can you do? What stops you? What tells you that? Who can’t? Do you know anyone who does? How many hours and days are you thinking of? What if you could?
    * Need? Which children? Discipline in what way? What else do they need? who says?
    * Nobody? Is there one person who doesn’t? What tells you that? How are you measuring love? How do you love anyone?

Deletion
Deletion is where details are deleted as the speaker chooses what to focus on. Molden and Hutchinson provide examples, words to look for and questions to ask:

Examples

    * He’s a failure.
    * Her children are not very bright.
    * She rejected me.
    * They were left to fend for themselves.

Words to listen for:

    * Instances where a verb has been turned into a noun such as ‘failing at’ becomes ‘failure’ or ‘he is performing’ becomes ‘his performance’ or ‘he is succeeding’ becomes ‘his success.’
    * Those which require an opposite such as good, bad, cold, hot, bright, dull, insincere, happy, sad, rich, poor.
    * Verbs which require clarification.
    * Non-specific references to people/things such as they, people, computers, children.

Questions to ask to challenge deletion:

    * How did he fail exactly? What did he fail at? Who says so? Has he failed at everything he’s done? Is there nothing he has succeeded at? Has he not succeeded at drawing your attention? What else is he succeeding with?
    * Compared to whom? What standard/who are you measuring them against? Bright in what way?
    * What did she do that you are calling rejection?
    * Who are they? What do you mean by ....?

Distortion
Distortion is when the speaker distorts something to mean something it was not intended to mean. words to look for and questions to ask:

Examples:

    * He never buys me flowers so he doesn’t love me.
    * My children are driving me crazy.
    * I know you don’t want to support my initiative.
    * Families should stick together through all life’s challenges.

Words to listen for:

    * Statements that don’t ‘add up,’ where a conclusion stated in the second part is based on the meaning attached in the first part.
    * Statements in which one thing causes another.
    * Statements which include conjecture and suggest mind-reading.
    * Statements lacking reference to the author.

Questions to ask to challenge distortion:

    * In what way does him not buying you flowers mean that he doesn’t love you? So what ways does he show that he loves you?
    * What specifically are you doing that causes you to feel crazy? What are your children doing when you choose to go crazy?
    * How do you know? What tells you that? You can read my mind?
    * Who said that? Who are you quoting?

[sakoz]

SWM: interesting. I'm sure it works well. There sure are a lot of questions. I'm interested in a shorter approach. I won't quote each of your examples, only one from each group. Each of your examples are 'assumptions'.
"You can't run a family and work at the same time."
"He's a failure."
"He never buys me flowers so he doesn't love me." All 'typical', everyday assumptions, people react to/from. You list a good sampling.
When we "believe" our assumptions, what occurs? Our involuntary  nervous system reacts according to the content, etc.
I tried to convey an analogy, unsuccessfully I might add, in many of my posts. Basically my message was , we often believe some of our images are real.
 I will attempt, one more time to convey that. I have two 'models", 'placebo effect' and 'boogyman' experience from childhood. There's a 'parallel' between your examples and my 'models'.
Imagine if you will, the fake pills used in placebo effect and anyone of your assumption examples.  The example assumption replaces the fake pill, the assumptions are not proven facts. The fake pill is BELIEVED real and the unproven assumption is also BELIEVED real or true. In both cases , it's the BELIEVING that is the DETERMINANT factor.
The same 'parallel' fits with the 'boogyman'. As children we BELIEVED  the "myth/assumption" of 'boogyman/monster' as common of children. We continue  into adulthood to BELIEVE unproven/false assumptions of our own making.
Look at all your examples, how well they fit my "protocol" of 'placebo effect' and 'boogyman experience'. All your example assumptions are virtually 'algorithms' for my two models. No one seems to recognize that. Puzzling.

[Zepher08]

"No one seems to recognize that. Puzzling." ~Sakoz

I'll tell ya what is puzzling is that I did agree. Obviously that got filtered out of that huge time consuming thread.

[SWM]

@sakoz the examples above are the expressions that a person would make which indicates that a certain filter has been used. the examples are not the filters themselves they the expression that would indicate something has been filtered.

t has been noted that these are assumptions. the literature on cognitive therapy refers to assumptions that cause us problems as dysfunctional assumptions.

I provided you a link at some point to some work on schema and core beliefs. dysfunctional assumptions are thoughts that we assume to be true that have a basis in negative core beliefs.

[SWM]

oh and yes, it is the belief that is the determining factor. how much we believe a thought to be true.

how well does a thought fit with the schema. a schema being the organised system of belief and values.

[sakoz]

SWM; Yes, your noting the filters, good job. I'm 'shifting' to the assumptions themselves, and saying there are alternative ways of 'dealing' with them.
We agree that (false/unproven) assumptions cause us 'problems'. Wish we could add 20 more assumptions so readers could relate to their's.
My premise is: False/unproven assumptions are analogous to the fake pills used in placebo/nocebo effects. (We do it to ourselves by our believing.)
The questions/comments used in your model are used to DISSUADE  the person from believing by revealing/proving  the FALSITY of some assumptions.
Our 'involuntary' is "believed-thought-image" REACTIVE,  analogous to pupillary reflex; knee-jerk reaction. Is 'believing' hard-wired or HABITUATED?
Not all thoughts are believed, therefore SELECTIVITY implied. What's the criterion for 'believing'? All the example assumptions are false, but when believed, have EXPERIENTIAL CONSEQUENCES ANYWAY.
But  NOT IF NOT BELIEVED. How to REFRAIN from believing 'false/erroneous' assumptions.? "Believing" puts assumptions on 'auto-pilot', beyond control, virtually like instincts.
When 'believing' is habit/auto pilot, we have a compounded conundrum.

http://thisisnotthat.com/learn/sd-ovr.html        How can I paste the diagram of STRUCTURAL DIFFERENTIAL  under my name like you guys have your icons?(I'm not savvy with computers)

[SWM]

SWM; Yes, your noting the filters, good job. I'm 'shifting' to the assumptions themselves, and saying there are alternative ways of 'dealing' with them.
We agree that (false/unproven) assumptions cause us 'problems'. Wish we could add 20 more assumptions so readers could relate to their's.
My premise is: False/unproven assumptions are analogous to the fake pills used in placebo/nocebo effects. (We do it to ourselves by our believing.)

yes this is true, this is why i keep refering you to cognitive therapy work on core beliefs and schema.

The questions/comments used in your model are used to DISSUADE  the person from believing by revealing/proving  the FALSITY of some assumptions.
Our 'involuntary' is "believed-thought-image" REACTIVE,  analogous to pupillary reflex; knee-jerk reaction. Is 'believing' hard-wired or HABITUATED?
Not all thoughts are believed, therefore SELECTIVITY implied. What's the criterion for 'believing'? All the example assumptions are false, but when believed, have EXPERIENTIAL CONSEQUENCES ANYWAY.

this why schema are improtant. if we have a functioning schema with which an event or thought/image can be integrated then we believe that thought image and organise it within the schema. if we do not have a schema which the thought/image or event can integrate we disregard it.

But  NOT IF NOT BELIEVED. How to REFRAIN from believing 'false/erroneous' assumptions.? "Believing" puts assumptions on 'auto-pilot', beyond control, virtually like instincts.

When 'believing' is habit/auto pilot, we have a compounded conundrum.

i am not entirely sure what you are asking.

http://thisisnotthat.com/learn/sd-ovr.html        How can I paste the diagram of STRUCTURAL DIFFERENTIAL  under my name like you guys have your icons?(I'm not savvy with computers)

if you go to your profile page there are some links one of the links has another option to add a signature. you can enter what you like in the signature and it will display under every post you make. dont add too much or it will look messy.

[sakoz]

Thanks for info on profile.
I very much 'liked' the early work of Albert Ellis, Maxie Maultsby, Arron Beck; I have not kept up with the 'new guys'.
"If you don't have a schema which the thought/image or event can intergate we disregard it." In other words we reinforce what we already know.
How does some totally new idea get in if it don't fit preexisting schema? It's bent to fit or disregarded? Yet "insights" do 'visit us' and we accept them.
Thought systems do maintain their 'internal consistency', even to the point of attaching what does not fit. ( We see that in some other threads, without mentioning names.)
"I'm not sure what you are asking".
(me) "Not all thoughts are believed." If you look at your 11 examples; why were those believed,when alternative assumptions are possible/available? They are constructed on the basis of existing schemas. Your right, I'm not disagreeing with you. I see other possiblities. Looking for faster but as effective 'means'. Preferably those that can be used on the spot, on demand as needed. That would be creative, spontaneous, rather than prelearned strategies. Instincts and habits already serve us that way. I guess what I'm implying is just as there's "insights' there can be 'mutant' behavior not in our repertoire.

[Zepher08]

Sakoz ... What you state here "But  NOT IF NOT BELIEVED. How to REFRAIN from believing 'false/erroneous' assumptions.? "Believing" puts assumptions on 'auto-pilot', beyond control, virtually like instincts.

When 'believing' is habit/auto pilot, we have a compounded conundrum."

UNDERSTANDABLE.

Here is a silly story that tells about how my own beliefs got me no where.

I believed that by purchasing a burrito at a local Mexican restaurant would nourish and bring enjoyment considering eating in general brings pleasure and satisfaction.

I have been going to this burrito shop for at least 8 years. About 80% if not more I have a stomach ache from eating the burrito But I continue to go regularly as in once a month.

Every time I headed towards the burrito shop I would be all excited about the experience. This was gonna be great.

When I would be done I would say to myself... man I am feeling pretty lousy. I am not doing this again.

After years of this finally I wondered why I was still going to the shop when nearly every time it would make me sick.

So, the last time I visited was around 3 months ago. I decided to go with the stomach ache information instead of the other belief that my dining dream was going to come true.

What I figured out is that I did not want to believe the truth. I wanted to hang on to the dream that this activity was going to be rewarding. Apparently at one point in time it must have been. I can no longer remember that consciously but some how it is in my head some where that this burrito is a great reward.

I finally gave up that belief after 8 years of bimonthly stomach aches. It has been real work to do so because the underlying belief which is obviously very strong want to have its way. It doesn't like the fact that I am saying NO. It takes it as a punishment or doesn't want to face the disappointment. The end of the dream burrito.

I had to grieve the part of myself that had that dream. I had to allow her to basically die a timely death. She was not making good choices based on the dream and 15-20 min of so called pleasure was adding up to another day of illness.

It took creating a new reward system. I am looking for rewards here. I want the treat. I want the happiness that I had that was previously associated with the burrito. So, for that I had to get creative and change behavior.

While I change the behavior I create a new habit based on a belief that is more accurate. I let go of the old belief which was hard to do. Some where along the line it had served me but when that discontinued I was still stuck on the track even though I had enough experienced enough new information  to blow the burrito stand up! HA

See cognitive dissonance

http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/cognitive_dissonance.htm

[sakoz]

Zepher08; Thanks.  The old truism; "Too soon we get old; too late we get smart".
Anyone care to do an experiment? Please don't try this in your head, you won't get it. You muct actually perceive the items.
Get a M&M candy, or a Jelly-Bean, or a Vitamin C tablet.  While looking at one, say that you are going to believe your item is a rasin. You will not, cannot sincerely believe that because your perception preempts any different thought.
Now do it 'mentally,' any item easily "morphs". See how easy it is to make false/erroneous thoughts, and sincerely believe them as the 11 examples above?

When your schemata substitutes for perception, and the schemata is incorrect;- like when you look at a piece of rope and you see (your schemata of) snake;- you react inappropriately to the environment but the reaction IS appropriate for your schemata. You hallucinate your schemata(snake) maybe you prefer to call it 'projection', that is less insane than 'hallucination'.

[SWM]

How does some totally new idea get in if it don't fit preexisting schema? It's bent to fit or disregarded? Yet "insights" do 'visit us' and we accept them.

I wrote in the other thread.
if new information is percieved which does not fit with existing schema. the options are
1 the schema expands to include new information.
2 the information is distorted/ deleted /generalised.
3 the individual has some sort of break with reality. (psychological distress/dissonance, psychosis, nerosis )

"I'm not sure what you are asking".
(me) "Not all thoughts are believed." If you look at your 11 examples; why were those believed,when alternative assumptions are possible/available? They are constructed on the basis of existing schemas. Your right, I'm not disagreeing with you. I see other possiblities. Looking for faster but as effective 'means'. Preferably those that can be used on the spot, on demand as needed. That would be creative, spontaneous, rather than prelearned strategies. Instincts and habits already serve us that way. I guess what I'm implying is just as there's "insights' there can be 'mutant' behavior not in our repertoire.

those examples are  just examples for illustration they are not something that is prelearned. this is quite simple to facilitate. if you are aware of someone filtering and you would like them to not filter. you note what filter they are using and then ask for the rest of the information. (i am not always that concerned with stopping people filtering, i have no interest in changing people just because they live in a different verison of reality to me).

so if someone is deleting you ask them a quesiton that highlights the deletion in such a way that they have to go back and find the info they deleted. same with the other filters ask a question refelct on their statement or paraphrase the content in such a way that they have to look at what is being filtered.