How Coconut Oil Helps
In the January 4, 2012 issue of Neurobiology of Aging, a research study of a ketone ester in an Alzheimer's mouse model by Yoshira Kashiwaya, M.D. and others in the laboratory of Dr. Richard L. Veech at the NIH in Rockville, Maryland found that "compared to animals fed a normal control diet, the Alzheimer's model mice who were fed the ketone ester (D-beta-hydroxybutyrate-(R)-1,3-butanediol) had significantly less amyloid and tau protein that form the plaques and tangles in the Alzheimer's brain, and the animals showed reduced anxiety, and improved learning and memory compared to the mice fed the control diet."
According to the website, Coconut Oil, Ketones and Alzheimer's, "ketones mimic some of the effects of insulin and are also anti-inflammatory. Inflammation is another key feature affecting the Alzheimer's brain."
Coconut oil is a source of ketones. Its use may help reduce anxiety and improve learning and memory.
Commentary:
In my opinion, Alzheimer's Disorder may be affected by Varicella Zoster Virus which hides in the neurons. This may explain mental and behavioral issues people with AD face daily.
It may also explain mental illness i.e. because the brain cannot feel pain, other somatic changes may manifest itself as cognitive distortions, which are consist of mental and behavioral negativities such as confusion, delusions, etc.
Therefore chicken pox and shingles caused by reactivated VZV is a causal factor in depression and bipolar disorder. VZV causes depression due to pain and the suffering resulting from that pain.
Also, herpes may be a causal factor affecting persons with the schizophrenic mental condition.
Original post: June 2, 2010 0327H
Update posted: March 9, 2013 2004H
References:
Coconut oil and ketones: http://coconutketones.blogspot.com/
Cognitive distortions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion#List_of_distortions
US National Shingles Foundation: http://www.vzvfoundation.org/
Herpes complicates schizophrenia: http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/Schizophrenia/20451
Showing posts with label cognitive distortions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cognitive distortions. Show all posts
20110703
Applying CBT to a personal issue
Today I applied what I learned from The Feeling Good Handbook to successfully resolve a personal issue (jumping to conclusions, applying a mental filter based on this false conclusion, realizing that this is only creates frustration, and giving myself time to resolve the issue).
My mind confused by frustration and anger over my computer being accidentally shut off:
That is because several cognitive distortions affected me.
My mind after reflecting on it over the past 2 hours:
The real situation:
The roommate was not responsible for my computer being shut off.
After realizing that the truth (resetting the electric breaker accidentally turned off my computer), the situation is out of my control.
It's an accident, which absolves everyone of blame.
Finally, I'm over it now because I have processed what has happened.
My mind confused by frustration and anger over my computer being accidentally shut off:
- The ongoing issue I have with my roommate is when she has done an act accidentally that personally affects me and not know it, I have to not press the matter further.
- E.g., after vacuuming near my computer, she accidentally turned it off.
- When I politely confronted her about it, she denied that she shut it off. When I told her that the computer shut itself off, she told me that she didn't want to argue about it. In response I affirmed that:
- I am not arguing with her.
- It was an accident.
- I am not arguing with her.
- Yet I still felt angry and frustrated.
- When I politely confronted her about it, she denied that she shut it off. When I told her that the computer shut itself off, she told me that she didn't want to argue about it. In response I affirmed that:
My mind after reflecting on it over the past 2 hours:
- The accidental turning off of power is a neutral event.
- The vacuum cleaner caused the breaker to go off on the other side of the room. My computer was still on.
- The electric breaker was reset.
- Then 10 minutes after my roommate finished cleaning the room, I noticed my computer was off.
- The false conclusion I made was, "My roommate vacuuming by my computer led to my computer accidentally being turned off."
- In fact, resetting the electric breaker accidentally turned my computer.
- Rather than accepting the situation, I reacted due to:
- Jumping to conclusions: "Since the computer was off, it had to be due to my roommate vacuuming by my computer".
- Mental filtering: Because it had to be my roommate vacuuming by my computer, I confronted her.
- Personalization and blame: I blamed my roommate because I wanted to control the situation and blame her.
- Jumping to conclusions: "Since the computer was off, it had to be due to my roommate vacuuming by my computer".
The real situation:
Finally, I'm over it now because I have processed what has happened.
20110529
Living an Authentic Life
My either/or does not in the first instance denote the choice between good and evil; it denotes the choice whereby one chooses good and evil or excludes them — Soren Kierkegaard
This quote has to do with living an authentic self.
It has to do with the choice of adding spirituality to one's life, of maintaining the balance between the secular life and the spiritual life.
For me, this consists of being open-minded about my spiritual life.
In Buddhism, no one is born in sin. That concept of good and evil does not exist for Buddhists. At heart, all people are born intrinsically good.
Living life just leads to behavioral and mental negativities (cognitive distortions) beclouding the mind to its original nature.
Meditation helps to uncloud the mind, making it as clear as a pool of water.
Once the mind is clear, it is possible to recover the original nature of the mind, which is Buddha Nature.
How does Buddha Nature help with living an authentic life for me? By keeping me open-minded.
Reference:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/traversing-the-inner-terrain/201105/authenticity-good-or-evil
This quote has to do with living an authentic self.
It has to do with the choice of adding spirituality to one's life, of maintaining the balance between the secular life and the spiritual life.
For me, this consists of being open-minded about my spiritual life.
In Buddhism, no one is born in sin. That concept of good and evil does not exist for Buddhists. At heart, all people are born intrinsically good.
Living life just leads to behavioral and mental negativities (cognitive distortions) beclouding the mind to its original nature.
Meditation helps to uncloud the mind, making it as clear as a pool of water.
Once the mind is clear, it is possible to recover the original nature of the mind, which is Buddha Nature.
How does Buddha Nature help with living an authentic life for me? By keeping me open-minded.
Reference:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/traversing-the-inner-terrain/201105/authenticity-good-or-evil
20110518
Proof that Situational Ethics Promotes Harmony
Recently, a person talking loudly on her cellphone for 16 hours led to her removal from an Amtrak train. Why? Because she was talking on the quiet car, which is reserved for people wishing to travel in peace and quiet.
The rules enforced in the quiet car are: keep conversation to a minimum out of respect for other people's wish to have peace and quiet.
When other people on the car objected to her loud talking, she didn't stop talking on her cellphone. She instead chose to get belligerent, which led to conflict between her and other passengers and eventually the conductor getting involved.
To avoid conflict with other people in the quiet car, the rule of thumb is simply to assume that the person talking loudly is ignorant of the rules governing the quiet train.
"Of course, like in any conflict, much depends not only on the type of person you confronts, but also on the way in which you communicates your message. As evidenced in the example above, by the time the annoyed passenger speaks up, he/she has already decided on a storyline. Often, people’s default assumption is that the passenger in question is arrogant as opposed to ignorant. Psychologists call this the fundamental attribution error, which refers to our tendency to explain other people’s perceived negative behaviour as derived from their personalities rather than the situation." — http://roiword.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/conflict-and-the-quiet-car/
The key point is that a person's perceived view of other people's negative behavior is dependent on the situation i.e. talking loudly on the cell phone in the quiet car.
Thus, situational ethics applies in most situations to eliminate the fundamental attribution error, which often may lead to cognitive distortions.
Attributing other people's perceived negative behaviour to the situation helps to reduce the risk of such cognitive distortions.
'My approach, ever mindful of the fundamental attribution error, is to get up and say, “Excuse me, I am not sure if you know, but this is the quiet car.” By giving people the benefit of ignorance, I find less defensiveness and greater willingness to cooperate.' - ibid.
20101108
The Social Fabrication of the Ego
In Buddhism, human suffering is explained by the Buddhist concept of dependent arising, which consists of twelve parts which work together in an orderly manner. First and foremost, ignorance is the first of those twelve parts. Next comes fabrications.
Indeed, Buddhist thought confirms that the ego is a social fabrication. Likewise does social psychology.
According to Greenwald, Ego, or self-will, is an organization of knowledge, characterized by cognitive biases strikingly analogous to totalitarian information-control strategies.
These totalitarian-ego biases function to preserve organization in cognitive structures.
Ego's cognitive biases are egocentricity (self as the focus of knowledge), "benevolence" (perception of responsibility for desired, but not undesired, outcomes), and cognitive conservatism (resistance to cognitive change).
In addition to being pervasively evident in recent studies of normal human cognition, these three biases are found in actively functioning, higher level organizations of knowledge, perhaps best exemplified by theoretical paradigms in science.
The thesis that egocentricity, benevolence, and conservatism act to preserve knowledge organizations leads to the proposal of an intra-psychic analog of genetic evolution, which in turn provides an alternative to prevalent motivational and informational interpretations of cognitive biases.
See Anthony G. Greenwald's article "The Totalitarian Ego Fabrication and Revision of Personal History" (1980).
Commentary:
"Benevolence" is my interpretation of Greenwald's term "beneffectance" (beneficence and effectance), which is a term he coined to describe the perception of oneself as responsible for desired outcomes but not responsible for undesired ones. This involves forgetting failures more easily than successes, and remembering one's contribution to a group effort to have been better than average due to superiority bias.
Beneficence is defined as doing good and feeling beneficent, and specifically describes the quality of being kind, helpful or generous.
"Effectance" itself is not defined in any dictionary, but is probably related to effectiveness and its synonyms, power and especially powerfulness, which means possession of controlling influence.
Cognitive conservatism, being defined as resistance to cognitive change — changing what one knows based on current experience — suggests an unwillingness to adapt to present circumstances.
Adaptability is a useful psycho-social trait in which the individual adapts readily to the current environment, especially during times of political change and upheaval. It is also useful within the context of social rehabilitation related to addiction, mental health and associated issues.
Thus cognitive conservatism as defined by Greenwald does not imply adaptability at all.
Overall, egocentricity, beneffectance, and cognitive conservatism are not effective means of dealing with human suffering. The reason that they are not is that the ego tends to blame others for human suffering, so as to reduce its ultimate role in one's own suffering.
Indeed, the ego will come up with seemingly good excuses to avoid or deny responsibility. Yet a healthy view of personal responsibility allows for each of us to share responsibility for relief of the suffering of others.
Therefore, Greenwald's article suggests that totalitarianism might be the externalization of egocentricity taken to political extremes.
Egocentricity taken to extreme on the individual might also explain addiction and other dysfunctional behavior, especially within the context of beneffectance and cognitive conservatism.
Indeed, beneffectance in itself could be used to deny and excuse responsibility for undesirable outcome, while cognitive conservatism, the inability to change.
Overall, Greenwald's analogy that the cognitive biases of the ego are similar to totalitarian information-control strategies confirms the ego only exists as a social fabrication.
References:
Social psychology notes on Greenwald's article: http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/soc_psych/greenwald_tot_ego.html
Totalitarian ego: http://biasandbelief.pbworks.com/w/page/6537228/Totalitarian-Ego
Greenwald's references on beneffectance: http://biasandbelief.pbworks.com/Beneffectance
Mistakes were made but not by me: http://biasandbelief.pbworks.com/w/page/6537204/Mistakes-Were-Made-but-not-by-me
Indeed, Buddhist thought confirms that the ego is a social fabrication. Likewise does social psychology.
According to Greenwald, Ego, or self-will, is an organization of knowledge, characterized by cognitive biases strikingly analogous to totalitarian information-control strategies.
These totalitarian-ego biases function to preserve organization in cognitive structures.
Ego's cognitive biases are egocentricity (self as the focus of knowledge), "benevolence" (perception of responsibility for desired, but not undesired, outcomes), and cognitive conservatism (resistance to cognitive change).
In addition to being pervasively evident in recent studies of normal human cognition, these three biases are found in actively functioning, higher level organizations of knowledge, perhaps best exemplified by theoretical paradigms in science.
The thesis that egocentricity, benevolence, and conservatism act to preserve knowledge organizations leads to the proposal of an intra-psychic analog of genetic evolution, which in turn provides an alternative to prevalent motivational and informational interpretations of cognitive biases.
See Anthony G. Greenwald's article "The Totalitarian Ego Fabrication and Revision of Personal History" (1980).
Commentary:
"Benevolence" is my interpretation of Greenwald's term "beneffectance" (beneficence and effectance), which is a term he coined to describe the perception of oneself as responsible for desired outcomes but not responsible for undesired ones. This involves forgetting failures more easily than successes, and remembering one's contribution to a group effort to have been better than average due to superiority bias.
Beneficence is defined as doing good and feeling beneficent, and specifically describes the quality of being kind, helpful or generous.
"Effectance" itself is not defined in any dictionary, but is probably related to effectiveness and its synonyms, power and especially powerfulness, which means possession of controlling influence.
Cognitive conservatism, being defined as resistance to cognitive change — changing what one knows based on current experience — suggests an unwillingness to adapt to present circumstances.
Adaptability is a useful psycho-social trait in which the individual adapts readily to the current environment, especially during times of political change and upheaval. It is also useful within the context of social rehabilitation related to addiction, mental health and associated issues.
Thus cognitive conservatism as defined by Greenwald does not imply adaptability at all.
Overall, egocentricity, beneffectance, and cognitive conservatism are not effective means of dealing with human suffering. The reason that they are not is that the ego tends to blame others for human suffering, so as to reduce its ultimate role in one's own suffering.
Indeed, the ego will come up with seemingly good excuses to avoid or deny responsibility. Yet a healthy view of personal responsibility allows for each of us to share responsibility for relief of the suffering of others.
Therefore, Greenwald's article suggests that totalitarianism might be the externalization of egocentricity taken to political extremes.
Egocentricity taken to extreme on the individual might also explain addiction and other dysfunctional behavior, especially within the context of beneffectance and cognitive conservatism.
Indeed, beneffectance in itself could be used to deny and excuse responsibility for undesirable outcome, while cognitive conservatism, the inability to change.
Overall, Greenwald's analogy that the cognitive biases of the ego are similar to totalitarian information-control strategies confirms the ego only exists as a social fabrication.
References:
Social psychology notes on Greenwald's article: http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/soc_psych/greenwald_tot_ego.html
Totalitarian ego: http://biasandbelief.pbworks.com/w/page/6537228/Totalitarian-Ego
Greenwald's references on beneffectance: http://biasandbelief.pbworks.com/Beneffectance
Mistakes were made but not by me: http://biasandbelief.pbworks.com/w/page/6537204/Mistakes-Were-Made-but-not-by-me
20101030
Karma Harms No One
Karma does not really harm anyone.
Rather, one's actions may have positive or negative consequences — that's how karma works.
Yet karma is neither good nor bad. Rather, judgment calls are made by observers of events in life.
If the consequences are harmful and of no benefit, then they are deemed "bad"; if the consequences are harmless and of lasting benefit, then they are deemed "good".
Yet, to take delight in negative consequences in another person's life, calling it "bad" karma, is schadenfreude.
If a loved one from whom one is estranged has "bad luck", then the expected reaction ought to be to feel bad for them; and, if they have good luck, to share their joys.
If one is fickle about one's love for another, and thus makes her love conditional, then I could see why one would delight in evil befalling a former lover.
It is far more healthy to delight in what joys happen to my friends than to wish them misery.
For the consequences of karma is that ill will towards others may result in psychic turmoil for myself.
Karma happens to everyone, yet only spiritually ignorant people would mistake the fruit of their actions (consequences) as "bad" or "good".
However, a positive mindset and faith in a Higher Power helps one to transcend judgment.
Rather, one's actions may have positive or negative consequences — that's how karma works.
Yet karma is neither good nor bad. Rather, judgment calls are made by observers of events in life.
If the consequences are harmful and of no benefit, then they are deemed "bad"; if the consequences are harmless and of lasting benefit, then they are deemed "good".
Yet, to take delight in negative consequences in another person's life, calling it "bad" karma, is schadenfreude.
If a loved one from whom one is estranged has "bad luck", then the expected reaction ought to be to feel bad for them; and, if they have good luck, to share their joys.
If one is fickle about one's love for another, and thus makes her love conditional, then I could see why one would delight in evil befalling a former lover.
It is far more healthy to delight in what joys happen to my friends than to wish them misery.
For the consequences of karma is that ill will towards others may result in psychic turmoil for myself.
Karma happens to everyone, yet only spiritually ignorant people would mistake the fruit of their actions (consequences) as "bad" or "good".
However, a positive mindset and faith in a Higher Power helps one to transcend judgment.
20101007
Possible Solutions to Cognitive Distortions
Usually when a person is negative about what another person has said or written, it says more about his unconscious negativity in his life.
In some rare cases, it may be indication of any number of cognitive distortions.
If so, here's what I managed to come up with as possible solutions to key cognitive distortions.
1) Things do not fit black and white categories. This is the fallacy of all or nothing thinking. Things might be both grey and colourful. The proof of this is the metaphor of a digital photograph, which is saturated with colours and tinged with shades of grey. Likewise, being human, I am not perfect and live within the limits of my imperfection. The solution here is found in pausing to reflect on the greyness of living in post-modern times.
2) A single negative event does not fit into any sort of pattern of defeat. This is a fallacy of over-generalization. For each event has both positive and negative qualities. Therefore, I need to focus on accepting the event as happening as it is.
3) The fallacy of the mental filter is that it distorts reality into being just the focus of one negative detail which is dwelt on until all of reality is darkened. What positive details I may have noticed are forgotten, but not for long. I may think of the positive details as they come into focus. Thus, reality is not dark nor is it just that one negative detail.
The truth is, reality is composed of neutral events and things to which each of us ascribes positive or negative qualities based on criteria according to a multitude of factors including our experiences, education, vocation, and so on.
4) Positive experiences are more important to my well-being than negative experiences. The fallacy of disqualifying the positive is that it rejects those positive experiences based on the flimsy criteria that "it does not count" or some other baseless claim. Everyday experience consistently demonstrates that positive experiences occur more often than negative ones, because that is the way the human mind works. It is how the universe works.
5) The fallacy of jumping to conclusions consists of the negative interpretation of events despite there being no definite facts which convincingly support the conclusion. One variety of jumping to conclusions is mind reading, where I may conclude that someone is reacting negatively to you, and you don't bother to check this out. The solution to this is to either check it out or to pro-actively drop all thought of the matter using meditation. The other variety of this fallacy is the fortune teller error, where I may anticipate that things will turn out badly, and feel that my prediction is an already-established fact. The solution to the fortune teller error is to not anticipate any kind of outcome at all, but to go with the flow i.e. life will bring to me great rewards when I go out into the world.
6) The fallacy of magnification (catastrophizing i.e. making a catastrophe of a thing) or minimization is the exaggeration of the importance of things (my mistakes or someone else's achievements) or "the binocular trick", the inappropriate shrinking of things (events, details) until they appear tiny (my own desirable qualities or the other person's imperfections). The solution to exaggeration of importance requires a lot more work i.e. everything is of equal importance, neither greater or lesser. My own desirable qualities is as important as the next person's. Other people's imperfections are usually of no consequence. Indeed, the fallacy of magnification requires meditation consisting of careful reflection on the matter in order to cut through the delusion of magnification, catastrophizing and minimization.
7) The fallacy of emotional reasoning is that I may assume my negative emotions necessarily reflect the way things are i.e. "I feel it, therefore it must be true." The solution here is to see that the way things are are equally devoid of my emotions, positive or negative. If I feel that the way things are as "bad", then that is not true. If I feel that the way things are "good", then that is not true either. My feelings do not make the way things are true or false. The fallacy of emotional reasoning is the fallacy of the false dilemma.
8) The fallacy of should statements consists of the use of "should" and "shouldn't", as if one had to be whipped and punished before being expected to do anything. "Must" and "ought" are also offenders. The emotional consequence is guilt. When I direct should statements towards others, I feel anger, frustration, and resentment. The solution to this fallacy is to mindfully let go of guilt, and have no expectations of self and others.
9) The fallacy of labelling and mislabelling is the extreme form of over-generalization. Rather than describing my error, I attach a negative label to myself. Rather than admitting I didn't visit my mother , I call myself a "bad son". When someone else's behaviour rubs me the wrong way, I attach a negative label to him: "He's weird". Mislabelling involves describing an event with language that is highly coloured and emotionally loaded. These labels may have context in the real world, but only within the dysfunctional context.
Such over-generalizations are inappropriate judgement calls which are not helpful in any situation since they tend to create more stress and suffering for each of us.
Thus the solution to labelling and mislabelling is to let go of any tendency to label and mislabel behaviour and people. In order to do so, I will cultivate, maintain and perpetuate a nonjudgmental attitude towards life.
In some rare cases, it may be indication of any number of cognitive distortions.
If so, here's what I managed to come up with as possible solutions to key cognitive distortions.
1) Things do not fit black and white categories. This is the fallacy of all or nothing thinking. Things might be both grey and colourful. The proof of this is the metaphor of a digital photograph, which is saturated with colours and tinged with shades of grey. Likewise, being human, I am not perfect and live within the limits of my imperfection. The solution here is found in pausing to reflect on the greyness of living in post-modern times.
2) A single negative event does not fit into any sort of pattern of defeat. This is a fallacy of over-generalization. For each event has both positive and negative qualities. Therefore, I need to focus on accepting the event as happening as it is.
3) The fallacy of the mental filter is that it distorts reality into being just the focus of one negative detail which is dwelt on until all of reality is darkened. What positive details I may have noticed are forgotten, but not for long. I may think of the positive details as they come into focus. Thus, reality is not dark nor is it just that one negative detail.
The truth is, reality is composed of neutral events and things to which each of us ascribes positive or negative qualities based on criteria according to a multitude of factors including our experiences, education, vocation, and so on.
4) Positive experiences are more important to my well-being than negative experiences. The fallacy of disqualifying the positive is that it rejects those positive experiences based on the flimsy criteria that "it does not count" or some other baseless claim. Everyday experience consistently demonstrates that positive experiences occur more often than negative ones, because that is the way the human mind works. It is how the universe works.
5) The fallacy of jumping to conclusions consists of the negative interpretation of events despite there being no definite facts which convincingly support the conclusion. One variety of jumping to conclusions is mind reading, where I may conclude that someone is reacting negatively to you, and you don't bother to check this out. The solution to this is to either check it out or to pro-actively drop all thought of the matter using meditation. The other variety of this fallacy is the fortune teller error, where I may anticipate that things will turn out badly, and feel that my prediction is an already-established fact. The solution to the fortune teller error is to not anticipate any kind of outcome at all, but to go with the flow i.e. life will bring to me great rewards when I go out into the world.
6) The fallacy of magnification (catastrophizing i.e. making a catastrophe of a thing) or minimization is the exaggeration of the importance of things (my mistakes or someone else's achievements) or "the binocular trick", the inappropriate shrinking of things (events, details) until they appear tiny (my own desirable qualities or the other person's imperfections). The solution to exaggeration of importance requires a lot more work i.e. everything is of equal importance, neither greater or lesser. My own desirable qualities is as important as the next person's. Other people's imperfections are usually of no consequence. Indeed, the fallacy of magnification requires meditation consisting of careful reflection on the matter in order to cut through the delusion of magnification, catastrophizing and minimization.
7) The fallacy of emotional reasoning is that I may assume my negative emotions necessarily reflect the way things are i.e. "I feel it, therefore it must be true." The solution here is to see that the way things are are equally devoid of my emotions, positive or negative. If I feel that the way things are as "bad", then that is not true. If I feel that the way things are "good", then that is not true either. My feelings do not make the way things are true or false. The fallacy of emotional reasoning is the fallacy of the false dilemma.
8) The fallacy of should statements consists of the use of "should" and "shouldn't", as if one had to be whipped and punished before being expected to do anything. "Must" and "ought" are also offenders. The emotional consequence is guilt. When I direct should statements towards others, I feel anger, frustration, and resentment. The solution to this fallacy is to mindfully let go of guilt, and have no expectations of self and others.
9) The fallacy of labelling and mislabelling is the extreme form of over-generalization. Rather than describing my error, I attach a negative label to myself. Rather than admitting I didn't visit my mother , I call myself a "bad son". When someone else's behaviour rubs me the wrong way, I attach a negative label to him: "He's weird". Mislabelling involves describing an event with language that is highly coloured and emotionally loaded. These labels may have context in the real world, but only within the dysfunctional context.
Such over-generalizations are inappropriate judgement calls which are not helpful in any situation since they tend to create more stress and suffering for each of us.
Thus the solution to labelling and mislabelling is to let go of any tendency to label and mislabel behaviour and people. In order to do so, I will cultivate, maintain and perpetuate a nonjudgmental attitude towards life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)