Our minds are wired to select and interpret evidence supporting the hypothesis "I'm OK". A variety of mechanisms: conscious, unconscious, and social direct our attention to ignore the bad and highlight the good to reduce our anxiety. Mental schema make it easier for us to perceive information that supports what we already know or believe.

Our thinking is the result of our own perception, judgment, and bias. Our brain distorts reality to increase our self-esteem. People perceive themselves readily as the origins of good effects and reluctantly as the origins of ill effects.

People suffering from depression often invert this bias and interpret evidence to support their fears they are not worthy.

During times of stress, overload, or threat, we often resort to a simplified form of thinking, called primal thinking, that incorporates many of these fallacies. For an accurate appraisal it is important to reassess the situation using effortful, valid, and accurate analysis that properly allows for the complexities we face. Employ critical thinking and work to understand what is.

Styles of Distorted Thinking

Here is a list and short description of several common forms of distorted thinking.

Filtering (selectivity): This is a failure to consider all the evidence in a balanced and objective assessment. It can have two basic forms. The first is considering only the negative details and magnifying them while filtering out all the positive aspects of a situation. The second is taking the positive details and magnifying them while filtering out all the negative aspects of a situation. In any case evidence that supports your bias is selected, favored, or weighted more heavily than evidence contrary to your bias. Find the realistic balance between the optimistic and pessimistic points of view.

Polarized Thinking (dichotomy): This is the fallacy of thinking that things are either black or white, good or bad, all or nothing. This fallacy can lead to rigid and harmful rules based on primal thinking, when it is efficient to compress complex information into simplified categories for rapid decision making during times of stress, conflict, or threat. Polarized thinking can also lead to unhelpful forms of perfectionism. The reality often lies in the sizeable middle ground between these extreme poles.

Overgeneralization: It is incorrect to arrive at a general conclusion based on a single incident or piece of evidence. This is a common example of the more general fallacy of basing a conclusion on unrepresentative evidence. Consider a broad range of representative evidence before drawing a conclusion.

Mind Reading: You conclude, incorrectly and without considering other alternatives or testing your assumptions, that you understand how another person is thinking and what their reasons and motives are for taking a particular action. This is an example of the Fundamental Attribution Error where you incorrectly attribute an action or intent to an agent. One example of this is drawing a negative conclusion in the absence of supporting information. Focusing only on evidence that supports a negative position, while neglecting to consider alternative positive explanations is the fallacy of not considering representative evidence.

Catastrophizing: You anticipate an unreasonable disaster based on a small problem. Every scrap of bad news turns into an inevitable tragedy. This is another example of the more general fallacy of basing a conclusion on unrepresentative evidence. Consider a broader range of representative evidence before drawing a conclusion. Strike a realistic balance between optimistic and pessimistic views. Skip the histrionics.

Personalization (Egocentric bias, self-reference): This is the fallacy of incorrectly thinking that everything people say or do is a reaction to you. It is an egocentric viewpoint where you attribute personal meaning to everything that happens. Face it, you are not really that important nor influential. This point-of-view often causes the predator to view himself as the true victim; their cause is just and is not to be thwarted. It also often results in a set of self-centered rules.

Attribution Errors: It is a fallacy to believe you can correctly know a person's intent for behaving as they do. Their actions may or may not be deliberate. The person may not even be aware of what they are doing. Their actions may or may not be directed at you. Their actions may have unintended consequences or may result from an accident or chance. It is difficult to determine cause when only effect can be observed. This error is so common and so misleading it has been named the Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE).

Pattern Discernment: We may think we see a pattern that isn't there. Or we can think we recognize a pattern that is different what what we actually see.

Intentional Stance: A class of attribution errors is based on the belief that bad things are the result of intentional evil. One example is attributing natural disasters such as drought, floods, and hurricanes to the revenge of supernatural forces. Personal examples, such as attributing the difficulties faced by the Nazis to the "diabolical Jew", quickly provide a basis for distrust and hate.

Control fallacies: It is a fallacy to mistake what you can change for what you cannot change. Do not underestimate the degree of control you have for your own actions. You are not helpless, powerless, nor perpetually a victim. Examine the alternatives you have for taking action and  responsibly for your life. Also do not overestimate your responsibility for the happiness and pain of others. Be realistic in evaluating the power and influence you do and do not have over yourself and others.

Fallacy of Fairness: Your sense of justice may not be shared widely and is certainly not shared universally. The world may not be fair, or at least it may not always work according to what you feel is fair. Examine your own sense of justice and continue to reconcile it with what happens in the world.  The principle of empathy is a good basis for justice. Anger is the emotion that urges us to act on our sense of justice. Choose your battles carefully to make the most constructive use of your limited time, energy, and other resources. Don't harbor resentment at every injustice you perceive, and examine your feelings of self righteousness. Gather evidence to make an informed decision.

Blaming: Do not be quick to hold others responsible for your pain. Do not blame yourself unjustifiably for the failures of others. Consider a broad range of representative evidence, including the likelihood that there are many causes contributing to each outcome, before drawing a conclusion. See disproportionate responsibility, below.

Disproportionate Responsibility: (Single causes) Generally many causes contribute to each result, outcome, event, or incident. For example, the causes contributing to an automobile accident can include: design of the automobile, manufacture of the automobile, maintenance of the automobile, design of the road system, weather conditions, driver training, driver preparation, driver attention, choice of vehicle, choice of route, choice of time and schedule, passenger behavior, pedestrians, obstacles, traffic signals, other cars and drivers on the road, and other factors. Be objective when assessing blame or taking credit. Divide the responsibility for the good or the bad result proportionality among each of the contributors, based on how their actions or inactions affected the result. Perhaps you deserve some of the credit or must take some of the blame, but it is unlikely you or they are solely responsible. Don't make the mistake of polarized thinking when assessing responsibility. Don't attribute undue blame to a scapegoat.

Should (counterfactual thinking, imperatives): Don't get angry every time someone does not act according to your ideal. The word "should" is a plea to behave according to a particular (often implicit) set of values and beliefs. Examine those beliefs, and decide if they really do apply to the person or situation that is irritating you. What is the evidence? What can you change and what can't you change? It is unreasonable to expect that others will act according to your ideal vision of their behavior or role, especially when your preferences are unstated. See the fallacy of change, below.

Emotional Reasoning: We decide with both our heart and our head. Continue to improve your emotional competency and ensure a healthy and constructive balance of both passion and reason. Exercise impulse control while enjoying the constructive passions of life.

Fallacy of Change: It is unrealistic to believe you can change other peoples' nature, personality, deeply ingrained habits, or strongly held beliefs. Be realistic about what you can change and what you cannot. Do not depend unrealistically on others for your own well being.

Being Right (denial): Dogmatically holding onto an opinion, belief, or defending an action can be a destructive result of stubborn pride. Even if you believe you are right, decide if you would rather be right or be happy. Don't waste time pursuing the fallacy of change described above. Examine your sense of justice and the assumptions you are making. Gather evidence to make an informed decision, but even if you are right, it may not be a battle worth fighting. How is this working for you now?

Heaven's Reward Fallacy: Don't expect every sacrifice you make to be rewarded. You are responsible for your own life, well being, and happiness. Exercise your autonomy and take action because you want to, not because you believe you will mysteriously be rewarded.

Asch Effect: People often change their opinions to agree with the majority, despite the presence of clear contrary evidence. Experiments conducted by Solomon Asch demonstrated the effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgment. Experimental subjects often modified their judgment or estimate of an observation to conform with the majority opinion of a group.

Bias: The tendency to attribute positive motives to in-group members (especially yourself) and negative motives to out-group members (especially those regarded as "the enemy").

Global Labeling: This is the fallacy of overgeneralization, combined with an unrepresentative stereotype. Withhold judgment until you have an opportunity to meet and understand a person as an individual. Do not generalize one or or two qualities into a negative judgment about a person or group.

Stereotypes:  Human memory is organized into schema which are clusters of knowledge or a general conceptual framework that provides expectations about events, objects, people, and situations in life. For example, if you are asked to describe a bird, you are likely to recall some description 9prototype) based on a blend of common specific bird species. This attribute of memory leads us to rely on stereotypes. These are simplified and standardized conceptions or images held in common by members of a group. While stereotypes are an essential feature of human memory, they can cause problems when the attributes attributed to the group are incorrectly extended to an individual. For example, a common stereotype of a bird includes the ability to fly, however extending that stereotype to a penguin leads to an incorrect conclusion.

Magical Thinking: Believing that the laws of physics, or the laws of cause and effect, don't apply to you. Believing in miracles or believing that wishful thinking or sheer will alone can cause the outcome you are hoping for are examples of magical thinking, as are appeals to paranormal or supernatural phenomena. Don't let optimism exceed the bounds of reality. Hope is not a strategy.

Suggestive Context (perception set): Sometimes the context in which information is presented is so familiar, or so compelling, that we quickly perceive evidence or draw conclusions without sufficient checking. We then hold firmly to these incorrect conclusions. Here are some examples to try yourself: A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? Write down your answer. Double check your answer. Now read the correct answer here. For a second example: Look at the following text

FINISHED FILES ARE THE
RESULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC
STUDY COMBINED WITH THE
EXPERIENCE OF YEARS
 

How many times do you see the letter F in the sentence above? Count them only once. Write down your answer. Now read the correct answer here.

The "Seven Sins" Of Memory: Although we tend to think of our memories as retaining a perfect record of our experiences, human memory distorts in these seven ways, documented by Daniel Schacter:

1. Transience: Memories fade over time.
2. Absent-mindedness: Lapses of attention cause us to forget temporarily.
3. Blocking: When conflicting demands are placed on our memory, they may interfere with each other and block recall. The word may make to the tip of your tongue but no further.
4. Misattribution: Memories are retrieved, but they are associated with the wrong time, place, or person.
5. Suggestibility: Memory is distorted to agree with a suggested result. See "suggestive context" above.
6. Bias: Memory is distorted by our own attitudes, beliefs, emotions, point-of-view, or experiences.
7. Persistence: Sometimes unwanted memories cannot be put out of mind.

The Ego Defense Mechanisms: These distortions help us avoid accepting evidence that challenges our self-image as a good and worthy person or that challenge our strongly held stereotypes. Perhaps they act to reduce anxiety, but because they are distortions, they are not helpful in the longer term.

1. Denial: arguing against an anxiety-provoking stimuli by stating it doesn't exist. Refusing to perceive the more unpleasant aspects of external reality.
2. Displacement: taking out impulses on a less threatening target. The mind redirects emotion from a ‘dangerous’ object to a ‘safe’ object.
3. Intellectualization: avoiding unacceptable emotions by focusing on their intellectual aspects. Concentrating on the intellectual components of the situation to distance yourself from the anxiety provoking emotions associated with these situations.
4. Projection: placing unacceptable impulses in yourself onto someone else. Attributing to others your own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or emotions.
5. Rationalization: supplying a logical or rational reason as opposed to the real reason. Constructing a logical justification for a decision that was originally arrived at through a different mental process.
6. Reaction formation: taking the opposite belief because the true belief causes anxiety.
7. Regression: returning to a previous stage of development. Reverting to an earlier stage of development in the face of unacceptable impulses.
8. Repression: pulling thoughts into the unconscious and preventing painful or dangerous thoughts from entering consciousness.
9. Sublimation: acting out unacceptable impulses in a socially acceptable way.
10. Humor: Refocusing attention on the somewhat comical side of the situation to relieve negative tension; similar to comic relief.

Quotations

• "The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with itself." ~ Francis Bacon, 1620
• "You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts" ~ Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan

References:

A Mind of its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives, by Cordelia Fine

Vital Lies Simple Truths: The Psychology of Self Deception, by Daniel Goleman

Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger, Hostility, and Violence, by Aaron T. Beck

Decision making and behavioral biases, Wikipedia entry.

Asch conformity experiments, Wikipedia entry.

Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, by Robert B. Cialdini

Greenwald, A. G. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history. American Psychologist, 35, 603-618.

An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural, by The James Randi Educational Foundation

Psychology of Intelligence Analysis: Biases in Perception of Cause and Effect, Chapter 11, Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, 1999

Maps of Bounded Rationality: A Perspective on Intuitive Judgment and Choice, Nobel Prize Lecture, December 8, 2002 by Daniel Kahneman

One Red Shoe, a movie farce, staring a young Tom hanks, based on distorted thinking.