Recovery from Social Anxiety and Related Conditions

Robert F Mullen, PhD
Director/ReChanneling

For each new subscriber, ReChanneling donates $25 for workshop scholarships.

Recent Posts

The distinction between social anxiety and social anxiety disorder is in severity. We are not all affected by the same symptoms or relentlessness. The characteristics and traits are equivalent. These conditions originate homogeneously, their trajectories differentiated by environment, experience, and the diversity of human thought and behavior. While comorbidities dramatically benefit, the recovery methods identified are for social anxiety and social anxiety disorder, and reference to one includes the other.  

13 Cognitive Distortions Germane to Social Anxiety

Defense Mechanisms

Defense mechanisms are temporary safeguards against emotionally challenging situations that our minds struggle to manage. They are mostly unconscious and automatic psychological responses designed to protect us from our fears and anxieties. We deny, avoid, and compensate rather than confront our problems. We rationalize our behaviors, project them onto others, or displace them by kicking the dog..

The defense mechanisms called cognitive distortions are exaggerated or irrational thought patterns that perpetuate our anxiety and depression. In recovery, we identify these self-destructive processes and, over time, eliminate them from our thoughts and behaviors.

“Dr. Mullen is doing impressive work helping the world. He is the pioneer of proactive neuroplasticity utilizing DRNI – deliberate, repetitive, neural information.” – WeVoice (Madrid, Málaga)   

COGNITIVE DISTORTIONS

Understanding how we use cognitive distortions as subconscious strategies to avoid facing certain truths is crucial to recovery. Our social anxiety drives illogical thought patterns. Every instinct perpetrated by social anxiety is counterproductive. That’s how it subsists.

By cognitively distorting our reactions and responses to situations, we twist reality to reinforce or justify our toxic behaviors and validate our irrational attitudes, rules, and assumptions. Our attitudes refer to our emotions, convictions, and behaviors. Rules are the principles or regulations that influence our behaviors, and our assumptions are what we believe to be accurate or authentic. Social anxiety, depression, and related conditions compel us to create inaccurate self-perceptions.

Our compulsion to twist the truth to validate our negative self-appraisal is indeed powerful. However, understanding how these distortions sustain our social anxiety is a vital step towards taking back control.

Be Mindful of Distorted Thinking

For those experiencing social anxiety, the susceptibility to cognitive distortions is high. However, cultivating awareness, which involves recognition, comprehension, and acceptance, is a crucial guide in understanding and addressing the self-destructive nature of these distortions.

Space is Limited
For Information

“It is one of the best investments I have made in myself, and I will
continue to improve and benefit from it for the rest of my life.” – Nick P.

Similarities

One concern in working with cognitive distortions is recognizing their overlapping characteristics and parallels. Multiple names for the same cognitive distortions are common, and distinguishing one from the others can be challenging.

For instance, when we catastrophize, we predict the worst-case scenario, often blowing things out of proportion. Polarized thinking compels us to view life as either uncompromisingly good or bad, with no middle ground. When we filter, we usually focus on the negative aspects of a situation, ignoring the positive. These are all examples of cognitive distortions that perpetuate our social anxiety.

Control fallacies lead to blaming and vice versa. We often jump to conclusions when we label someone based on a single characteristic. Emotional reasoning begets personalization, filtering, polarized thinking, and the fallacy of fairness. The distinctions are often obtuse and blurred, but as long as we remain mindful of their self-destructive nature, we can learn to recognize and even anticipate them, devising rational responses.

We are highly susceptible to cognitive distortions when under stress. Social anxiety and related conditions paint an inaccurate picture of the self in the world with others.

We are highly susceptible to cognitive distortions when under stress. They are emotional IEDs, capable of destroying our confidence and composure. Cognitive distortions are rarely cut and dried, but they tend to share common traits and characteristics. That’s what makes it difficult to distinguish clearly. Still, as long as we remain mindful of their self-destructive nature, we can learn to recognize and even anticipate them, devising rational responses. After time and with practice, our reactions become automatic and spontaneous.

The number of cognitive distortions listed by experts ranges substantially. There are thirteen that are particularly relevant to social anxiety. 

• Always Being Right
• Blaming
• Catastrophizing
• Control Fallacies
• Emotional Reasoning
• Fallacy of Fairness
• Filtering
• Heaven’s Reward Fallacy
• Jumping to Conclusions
• Labeling
• Overgeneralization
• Personalization
• Polarized Thinking

ALWAYS BEING RIGHT

A dogmatist believes that their principles and opinions are incontrovertibly accurate, despite the convictions of others. Due to our worries over criticisms and ridicule, we tend to be dogmatists, disputing and dismissing those who disagree with us.

The constant need to be right is a heavy burden we carry, always striving to prove ourselves correct, dismissing any conflicting opinions as false. We refuse to acknowledge our mistakes, insisting that our way is the only way.

This irrational thinking pattern helps to compensate for our symptomatic expectation of being challenged. We will go to any length to prove we’re right, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary, reflecting our inability or unwillingness to accept our fallibility. Hence, we dismiss opposing or correcting beliefs as misinformed or mistaken. We go to great lengths to defend our opinion while demonstrating the inaccuracy of the opposition. Our desire to be right becomes more important than the beliefs, opinions, or feelings of others.

The Lure of Perfectionism

Living with constant negative self-evaluation is emotionally destabilizing, leading us to overcompensate by striving for perfection. This is a significant and understandable characteristic of social anxiety. We adopt perfectionism as an unhealthy coping mechanism for our feelings of incompetence and inadequacy, but it only exacerbates our emotional instability.

As perfectionists, we perceive anything short of excellence as failure. The compulsion to always be right is a common thought pattern typical of our condition. We see things as black or white. There is no middle ground, no compromise. We are either brilliant or abject failures. Our friends are for us or against us. We are winners or losers. Anything less than flawless is emotionally untenable.

Unfortunately, our drive for perfectionism causes us to set unreasonable expectations for ourselves.

Wanting to be the best we can be is a wholesome function of human behavior, motivating us to learn and make sensible decisions. However, our need to always be right, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, can lead us to disregard the feelings of others and push them away. This insistence that only we know the answer alienates relationships, leaving us feeling isolated.

Rigid Core Beliefs

The unhealthy need to always be right reflects our low implicit and explicit self-esteem. Unfortunately, even when our belief system is self-destructive, it defines how we see ourselves. When we decline to question our beliefs, we act upon them as though they are infallible, ignoring contrary evidence. Our insecurity can be so severe that our maladjusted perceptions run roughshod over facts and the feelings of others.

Cognitive Bias

Remember, we store information consistent with our negative core and intermediate beliefs, which generates a cognitive bias – a subconscious error in thinking that leads us to misinterpret information, impacting the accuracy of our perspectives and decisions. 

Yet, we tend to ignore what others say because we need to be right, notwithstanding logical alternatives. We avoid anything that might lead us to accept that we are mistaken. Even when we know we are wrong, we find it challenging to admit it.

When our opinions clash with those of authority figures, we grudgingly bow to their point of view, covertly convinced of our superiority. This servility strips us of our power, generating anger and resentment. We cater to their authority but envy their power, irritated and bitter.

Always being right does not bode well for healthy relationships. Our unwillingness to consider the feelings and opinions of others is dismissive and demeaning. Friendships thrive on mutual respect and understanding, not on one person’s need to always be right. Few want to deal with someone unwilling or unable to value their opinions, insight, or belief system.

Our need for others to see us as clever and erudite protects our fragile self-image. Many of us compensate for our fears of criticism and rejection by emphasizing our intellectual proficiency, even when our ‘knowledge’ is unsupported by evidence.

The tendency on social media to attack someone’s conflicting beliefs and the pundits who deny, obfuscate, and shout down the opposition are excellent examples of the always-being-right syndrome.

It reminds us of the cognitively immature teenager who upends the board game when they sense defeat, preferring to throw in the towel rather than suffer the indignity of losing.

As with most cognitive distortions, the key objective is to think before reacting, asking ourselves the obvious questions. This self-reflection empowers us to take control of our cognitive biases and make more informed decisions:

Could I be wrong? The probability is high if we get our facts from the Internet.

Have I considered the opposition’s opinions objectively? Perhaps their argument has merit. Being open to different perspectives can broaden our understanding and lead to more balanced decisions.

Even if I’m right, is it necessary to demean the other’s position?  What do I gain by winning the argument other than selfish satisfaction? It’s not like we’re on a debate stage. Is my need to be right more important than someone else’s feelings? This line of questioning encourages us to be more empathetic and considerate in our interactions.

BLAMING

What do many of us do when we refuse to take responsibility for failing to live up to expectations? Blaming is a negative thinking pattern in which we mistakenly assign responsibility for a negative outcome. That blame can be external when we hold someone or something else accountable, or internal when we blame ourselves.  

External Blaming

External blaming occurs when we hold others accountable for situations that are of our own making. Years of self-reproach for experiencing social anxiety can feel overwhelming, leading us to unconsciously assign blame to others for what we are unable or unwilling to manage emotionally.

We convince ourselves that others are responsible for our defects because it is more emotionally manageable than accepting responsibility. For instance, if we fail an exam, we might blame the instructor for a perceived bias instead of acknowledging our lack of preparation. If we’re for work, it is more convenient to blame traffic, rather than our lackluster morning preparations due to a hangover.

Internal Blaming

We generally have significantly lower implicit and explicit self-esteem compared to those without social anxiety. Our sense of inadequacy and inferiority can compel us to blame ourselves for situations or circumstances that are not our fault. For example, if a dinner guest appears less than enthusiastic, we may blame our cooking or hosting skills rather than considering other reasonable explanations. Similarly, if our roommate is fraught with personal issues, we might attribute it to something we said or did, even when we have nothing to do with their circumstances.

Blame for Our Social Anxiety

Blaming ourselves or others for the origins of our condition is misguided. Early childhood does not provide the cognitive development to assign blame, even if we could identify the source(s). Scientists have linked the serotonin transporter gene “SLC6A4” with social anxiety disorder, but anxiety is produced by polygenic traits controlled by multiple genes, supported by numerous other factors.

One client would always return to his childhood when discussing the reasons for his social ineptness. A physically abusive father and emotionally denigrating mother can probably be held responsible for his negative core beliefs, but they are a catalyst for multiple disorders other than or comorbid with social anxiety. Steven found solace in assigning his parents some responsibility for the origins of his condition, but did not allow that to interfere significantly with his healing.

Notwithstanding, recovery focuses on the here and now and how it reflects on the future. The past is not negligible, but it pales in importance.

Our adolescent/adult thoughts and behaviors indeed aggravate our condition, but to attribute them to perceived character deficiencies and shortcomings rather than recognizing them as symptoms of our condition is problematic. This blame irrationally fails to acknowledge the true nature of our disorder and hinders our progress toward recovery, for which we are responsible. So again, the blame is not the onset and experience of social anxiety, but for our willingness or inability to remedy the situation.

Blaming Mistreatment by Others

Justifiable blame can be a healthy response to harm, but we often cling to anger and resentment, thinking it will negatively affect those who have wronged us. However, the responsible party is usually (a) unaware of their actions, (b) has forgotten their transgression, or (c) refuses to take responsibility for it. The only person damaged in this scenario is the injured party, and we can reclaim our power through forgiveness.

Forgiveness helps us resolve our animosity and restore balance by eliminating the influence of the past and the actions of others. Our innate desire for vengeance can be substantial; our basic instinct may seek retribution. With its profound healing power, forgiveness frees us from the desire for retaliation and helps us move beyond victimization and vindictiveness. This underscores the importance of self-forgiveness in our healing journey.

Blame for Our Mistreatment of Others

Feeling shame for harming another is a natural and necessary part of our emotional landscape. Accepting blame is crucial but carrying that emotional baggage is illogical. The past is over. We learn from it and move on. Our guilt and self-blame can be resolved by making direct or symbolic amends and forgiving ourselves. Remember, self-forgiveness is not just a necessary tool but a powerful act of self-empowerment in our healing journey.

CONTROL FALLACIES 

Do you sometimes fell that everything that happens is your fault, or are do you feel impotent and unable to change anything?  

A fallacy is like a mirage in the desert of our minds, a false oasis we believe in without proof.  We accept these assumptions as true, but they are merely speculations.

In short, a fallacy is a belief based on unreliable evidence and unsound arguments.

A control fallacy is when we believe we have complete control over everything that happens to us. On the flip side, we might think that fate or other people are in control because we feel incapable. We either think things are beyond our control or we take responsibility for things we have little to no power over. 

These feelings cause negative thoughts and behaviors, leading to an unending cycle of distress and irrational thought patterns. Both aspects of this cognitive distortion can generate guilt and shame, compelling us to blame ourselves or someone else.

External Control Fallacy

When we feel externally controlled, we perceive ourselves as weak and powerless. We blame outside forces (fate, weather, authority figures) rather than assume responsibility for our actions. A delinquent blames her parents, the philanderer blames his wife, and our failing grade is because our instructor dislikes us.

We believe external forces control us because our condition is unmanageable and makes us feel impotent. This is a valid assumption because, in essence, until we seek recovery, social anxiety is in control of our emotional stability.

Perhaps we’ve convinced ourselves that we are stuck in an uncomfortable job or relationship, unable to take control of our self-worth or happiness. We believe we can’t fix anything and become casualties of the ‘why bother’ syndrome of helplessness, where we feel that no matter what we do, the outcome will be the same, so why bother trying at all?

Internal Control Fallacy

The fallacy of internal or hyper-control occurs when we assume responsibility for the conduct of others. We feel that we are so in control of everything that if anything goes wrong, it is our fault. This is a form of personalization, where we believe everything is somehow related to us. Often, we compensate for our inability to manage our lives by falsely assuming control of others.

Our illogical mindset makes us feel responsible for what others experience and guilty for their adversities and unhappiness. Our symptomatic apprehension of judgment and criticism drives us to assume responsibility for other people’s thoughts and behaviors, which makes us mind-readers and fortune-tellers.

Assuming responsibility for someone else’s behavior often leads to self-blaming. “It’s my fault my wife is unhappy.” “He drinks because I don’t appreciate him.” The notion that we have failed them invites self-guilt and wreaks havoc on our self-esteem.

One egregious internal control fallacy is our tendency to blame ourselves for our condition, forgetting or disputing the real cause of childhood disturbance and the negative trajectory it sets in motion. We must remain aware that we are not responsible for experiencing social anxiety. We did not ask for it. It happened to us.

Control fallacies are inaccurate assignations. Logic dictates that we assume responsibility for our actions and stop taking it for problems we do not create. Social anxiety does not thrive on logic, so we must recognize when we fall into either aspect of this cognitive distortion. For instance, when we find ourselves blaming external factors for our situation, we can pause and consider our own role in it. Similarly, when we start feeling responsible for others’ actions, we can remind ourselves that we are not in control of everything.

Recognizing control fallacies can be a liberating experience. It’s a step towards understanding and managing our social anxiety. It’s important to remember that control fallacies are not unique to us. Many people struggle with these distortions. Understanding this can help us feel less isolated and more connected, helping us recognize that we inherently control our mental health.

EMOTIONAL REASONING

Cognitive distortions, with their exaggerated and irrational thought patterns, wield significant power in sustaining our anxiety and depression. They distort reality to reinforce or justify our toxic thoughts and behaviors, particularly our negative self-appraisal.

Recognizing how we use cognitive distortions as strategies to avoid facing certain truths is a significant step toward awareness and recovery.

Cognitive distortions are rarely clear-cut; they often overlap, making them challenging to define precisely. However, because they disrupt our emotional well-being, we learn to recognize their individual impact, anticipate them, and work to eliminate them from our thoughts and behaviors. While the number of cognitive distortions can vary, thirteen are particularly relevant to social anxiety.

We will begin our exploration of the thirteen cognitive distortions most relevant to social anxiety with emotional reasoning. This distortion involves making judgments and decisions based solely on our feelings.

The term ‘emotional reasoning’ is misleading as a cognitive distortion because it implies a coalescence of emotions and reasoning when its true meaning is that our reasoning is emotionally induced. We rely on our feelings to make decisions rather than on objective evidence. The phrase my gut tells me encapsulates this irrational thinking.

In essence, we believe that our feelings must be true. For instance, if we feel like a failure, we conclude that we are a failure. If we feel incompetent, we assume we are incapable. If we make a mistake, we think we must be stupid. We convince ourselves that all our negative beliefs about ourselves, others, and the world are valid because they feel genuine. Understanding this compulsion equips us with the knowledge we need to combat it.

What are some examples of how emotional reasoning can affect our lives? Our core beliefs and symptoms make us feel helpless, hopeless, undesirable, and worthless. Feeling hopeless disincentivizes us from trying anything new. Our helplessness makes it challenging to make healthy decisions. Feeling undesirable will prevent us from social activities and disrupt any attempt to make friends and establish close relationships. And if we feel worthless, then why bother with anything?

If we are solely guided by our feelings, opposing facts, and positive experiences will not change our perspective. How we feel influences our emotions, impacting us unconsciously and automatically. For example, if we fear public speaking, our emotions will convince us of our inability, even if we have evidence to the contrary. Our distorted thoughts and beliefs manifest in our emotions, causing us to misinterpret reality.

When we feel guilty about something, our emotional reasoning decides we must be guilty even when there is no evidence that we have done anything wrong.

We may have excellent grades in high school, but if we feel stupid, we are convinced we are dumb and unworthy of higher aspirations. If we feel unattractive, no outfit, no matter how appealing, will make us feel otherwise, and we avoid social situations because our chances of having healthy interactions are hopeless. We will be alone forever, we tell ourselves.

Let me provide a vivid example from my social anxiety days. On an infrequent hiatus from alcohol and pharmaceuticals, I was lucky to be cast in a small part in a major film, Report to the Commissioner. They rewrote my mediocre page of dialogue minutes before filming. I managed to fluster myself through the dialogue and exited the scene by running into the camera. The producer, John Frankenheimer, grumbled that my work was passable and necessary to the script. Months later, I attended the premiere at the Cinerama Dome and waited excitedly for my big break, which, unbeknownst to me, had landed on the cutting room floor. It had no place in the film because the plot line of my disappearing sister had been edited out of the film. Nonetheless, my emotional reasoning convinced me they rewrote around me because of my pathetic performance. I gave no thought to the rational explanations, i.e., the insignificance of my character or the fact that being edited from a film was commonplace.

My SAD-induced insecurity, coupled with core beliefs of undesirability and incompetence, dominated my self-appraisal. It was an excellent excuse to pop a Quaalude, get drunk, and ignore my agent for several months.

Staying in touch with our feelings and trusting our instincts is healthy when supported by experience and evidence. SAD, however, fuels irrational thoughts and feelings, compelling us to make poor decisions. A balanced perspective requires a coalescence of right and left brain thinking. The right hemisphere supports our emotions, while the left is analytical and logical.

Our doctor recommends a healthy diet to lower our cholesterol. For the past two weeks, we have been eating oatmeal and berries for breakfast, and lunches have consisted of kale and spinach salads. We’ve avoided saturated fats and added fish to our diet twice weekly. Then our date takes us Outback Steakhouse, where you splurge on a 13-ounce ribeye and a bowl of bloomin’ onions. Rather than recognizing the positive benefits of fourteen days of healthy eating, our emotional reasoning (and hunger) convince us it was all for naught, and we pick up a six-pack of Guinness stout and a bag of Doritos Nacho Cheese on the way home.

Emotional intelligence (EQ) is perceiving, managing, controlling, or communicating emotions. Those of us experiencing social anxiety ostensibly have a low EQ because it requires rational thinking, a faculty anathema to our condition. We compensate for emotional reasoning this lacuna by enhancing our left brain’s intellectual attributes to balance our right brain’s creative pursuits.

Understanding and mitigating our tendency for emotional reasoning is necessary for personal growth. Recovery requires a strategy based on rational coping statements to achieve psychological balance. We need to examine and analyze our emotions rationally without self-indulgence. This self-analysis counteracts our tendency to allow our feelings to guide our behaviors.

In other words, we enhance our ability to perceive, manage, and communicate by balancing our emotions with rational thought. Through cognitive processes, including Socratic questioning, we aggressively and consciously learn to utilize both brain hemispheres—a harmony crucial to recovery from social anxiety and related conditions. This alleviation of emotional reasoning helps us achieve optimal coherence, producing a well-balanced, rationally creative symmetry.

FALLACY OF FAIRNESS & HEAVEN’S REWARD

A fallacy is a belief based on unreliable evidence and unsound arguments, as in control fallacy, where we either believe something or someone has power and control over things that happen to us, or (2) we hold that type of power over someone else. The fallacy of fairness is a common and relatable cognitive distortion. It’s the unrealistic assumption that life should be fair, a notion many of us grapple with frequently. It’s the most immature cognitive distortion used by children to justify their selfish notion that the world revolves around them.

Due to our Irrational perception, we are the centerpiece of everyone’s attention; we tend to exploit the fallacy of fairness, albeit unconsciously, to compensate for our comparison envy and any disappointment that may arise.

It is human nature to equate fairness with how well our personal preferences are met. We know how we want to be treated, and anything that conflicts with that seems unreasonable and emotionally suspect. 

Fairness is subjective, however. Two people seldom agree on its application. The concept is irrational, and our compulsion is childish and evasive. As Grandpa remarks in The Princess Bride, “Who says life is fair? Where is that written?”

Fairness is subjective, based on personal beliefs and experiences. It is our biased assessment of how well others, institutions, and nature meet our wants and expectations. When reality conflicts with our perceptions of fairness, it generates distressing emotions such as anger, frustration, and resentment.

The belief that everything should be based on fairness and equality is a noble but unrealistic philosophy. We can strive for such things, but life is inequitable. People are self-oriented, and institutions are singularly focused. Only nature is impartial.

Wanting things to work in our favor is rational and normal. Expecting them to do so unfailingly is unreasonable to the extreme.

We often base our concept of fairness on conditional assumptions, which allows us to shun personal accountability. “If my teacher knew how hard I studied, she’d give me a passing grade.” However, studying does not guarantee comprehension, and grades are usually based on test results. And the effort of studying is subjective.

A common misconception is expressed in the phrase,” If my parents had treated me better, I wouldn’t have social anxiety disorder.” Notwithstanding our desire to source our discontent, a direct cause of emotional malfunction is indeterminate, and blaming is irrational, given the evidence or lack thereof. Blaming is another excuse for not taking personal responsibility.

The fallacy of fairness is the unrealistic assumption that life should be subjectively fair. Coupled with the fallacy of heaven’s reward, where we expect to be equitably rewarded for performing kindness, an endless cycle of disappointment and unjustified resentment is predictable. Disappointment is an inevitable part of life, and understanding these fallacies can help us prepare for it.

Heaven’s Reward Fallacy

The fallacy of fairness is commonly associated with heaven’s reward fallacy, which is the unreasonable assumption that we will be justly rewarded for our hard work and sacrifice. Heaven’s reward fallacy, as Aaron Beck explains it, is the belief that someone is keeping track of all our sacrifices and self-denial, for which we will be rewarded someday. Although destined for the afterlife, unlike Job, we expect some assurances in this life. When tangible rewards don’t materialize, it can lead to a profound sense of disappointment and even bitterness.

This anticipation of reward drives us to do things for others with the expectation that some higher power will recognize and reward our efforts. While a return on our investment may be appreciated and reciprocated in this lifetime, it is unreasonable to presume it will happen. If these expectations are unmet, the resultant disappointment aggravates our social anxiety and leads to depression, animosity, and self-recrimination.

Unhealthy Motivations

Anticipating rewards for services rendered makes our expectations real and visceral. This often leads to overcompensation, where we do more than is necessary or reasonable to please others. We become codependent, relying on them for our sense of self-worth and identity, often sacrificing our own needs in the process.

We become consummate enablers, justifying, encouraging, or contributing to someone else’s harmful behaviors to gain their favor and friendship. Rather than standing by our boundaries, we allow ourselves to be bullied and taken advantage of, seeking affirmation and appreciation.

Set Reasonable Expectations

These fallacies are rooted in our innate desire for fairness and reciprocity. We know how we want to be treated, and anything that conflicts with that is emotionally untenable—even if our expectations are immoderate and implausible. Unfortunately, the naïve belief that all our positive support will be recognized and reciprocated epitomizes unreasonable expectations that will inevitably be unmet.

In reality, not all effort or hard work is rewarded. Altruism for the sake of a reward is a misinterpretation because the practice represents unselfishness. Not all good works entitle you to a reward, and not all kindnesses are redeemed by the universe. If we give without expecting some quid pro quo, we convince ourselves our actions are selfless, but they are often motivated by our need for connection and appreciation.

Let’s consider our relationships. It is naïve to assume that our contributions to a relationship are always returned. Making sacrifices for the sake of reciprocation is selfish. Unfortunately, our fear of rejection often compels overzealousness, which can be off-putting. Even if our giving is appreciated, expecting a satisfying and equitable return can lead to resentment, anger, and disappointment, which projects an unsustainable relationship.

In the workplace, expecting notice and reciprocation for services above and beyond what is required is common. Our core and intermediate beliefs of undesirability and worthlessness play a crucial role in our desire to be recognized. Many of us who distort reality by believing that life is fair and that we will be justly rewarded tend to value ourselves based on our work performance and how our cohorts and superiors perceive us.

However, because life is not always fair and expectations are rarely met, we can become frustrated and resentful, which can negatively impact our relationships and productivity.

It is human nature to expect equity or reciprocation for our efforts. However, nature’s algorithms do not support the concepts of fairness and equal treatment. Life is a crapshoot. By letting go of unrealistic expectations, we can experience logical resolutions and reasonable solutions, knowing that our emotional well-being is internally driven and not determined by external factors.

FILTERING

When under stress, we are particularly vulnerable to cognitive distortions. Like emotional IEDs, they wreak havoc on our confidence and composure.

One concern in working with cognitive distortions is recognizing their overlapping characteristics and parallels. Multiple names for the same cognitive distortions are common, and distinguishing one from the others can be challenging.

When we filter, we selectively ignore the positive aspects of a situation. This unbalanced perspective leads to polarized thinking, where we perceive things only in black or white. Because of our negative self-appraisal, we assume everything that happens is our fault, and anything said derogatorily reflects on us. This distortion is called personalization, which usually leads to internal blaming. 

While some of these distortions share traits and characteristics, making them difficult to distinguish, we learn to recognize their idiosyncrasies – the thoughts and behaviors specific to your experiences and personality.

Filtering is a cognitive distortion in which we selectively focus on the negative aspects of a situation. While familiar to all of us, this is especially prevalent among those of us experiencing social anxiety. When we filter, we ignore the positive perspectives and embrace those that support our negative self-appraisal. Our learned tunnel vision gravitates toward the adversity of a situation, excluding the recognition of the positive aspects. This habit also affects our mood, memories, and possibilities as we dwell on the unfortunate aspects of past events rather than the broader picture of multiple experiences.

Our compulsion to focus on the negative is additionally challenging because all humans possess that inherent negativity bias, where we are more receptive to adverse events than positive ones. Imagine you are on a plane, and the pilot alerts you to the wonders of the Grand Canyon on your left side and the landscape decimated by the forest fire on your right. Which one gets your undivided attention?

A person who consistently filters out negative information probably has an excessively cheerful or optimistic personality. Conversely, a person who emphasizes gloom and doom might be considered unhappy or defeatist. Those of us living with SAD tend to mirror the latter. We filter out the positive aspects of our lives, creating an emotional imbalance due to our emphasis on adverse thoughts and experiences. We view ourselves, the world, and our future through an unforgiving lens.

A dozen people in our office celebrate our promotion; one ignores us. We obsess over the lone individual and disregard the goodwill of the rest. By dwelling on the one individual’s indifference, we reinforce our feelings of undesirability and alienation. It’s a common pattern fostered by our condition.

Negative Filtering

Negative filtering is one of our more common cognitive distortions. It’s a habit that many of us share, sustaining our toxic core and intermediate beliefs, which are deeply ingrained negative beliefs about ourselves and the world. Our pessimistic outlook exacerbates our feelings of helplessness and hopelessness. We accentuate the negative. We anticipate the worst-case scenario, expect criticism, ridicule, and rejection, worry about embarrassing or humiliating ourselves, and project unpleasant outcomes that become self-fulfilling prophecies. Unsurprisingly, we readily turn to filtering to justify our irrational thought patterns.

I wrote the book and directed an original theatrical production in my twenties. The songs were great, the dancing commendable, and the direction sufficient to garner a few good reviews. One of the trades, however, gave us a vicious review. Any rational person would have basked in the good notices. My social anxiety, of course, zeroed in on the negative one, prompting me to smash my guitar and a pair of glasses.

I did this in public, to boot, which reinfiorced my reputation as a drama queen.

To effectively counter filtering, we need to analyze the unsoundness of our one-sided perspective and consider the broader picture. As we become aware (identify, comprehend, and accept) of filtering’s self-sabotaging nature and characteristics, we can start to mitigate its power. With time and practice, rational and authentic responses to its duplicity become automatic and spontaneous. We learn to consider the glass half full rather than half empty.

SAD is an emotional virus that metastasizes throughout our lives until we moderate its symptoms through recovery. A pathogen brings disease to its host. Another name for a pathogen is an infectious agent, as they cause infections. As with any organism, pathogens prioritize survival and reproduction.

There’s another irritating trait called the comfortable misery syndrome. We’ve lived in the SAD prison for so long that we’ve gotten used to the gruel. 

We view ourselves through myopic lenses. SAD sustains itself by making us inadequate and inferior. It controls us by convincing us we are weak, stupid, and incapable of surviving without it.

LABELING

When we label individuals or groups, we reduce them to a single, usually hostile or dismissive characteristic or descriptor, often based on an isolated event or behavior. As a result, we view them (or ourselves) through the label and filter out information that contradicts it. 

Labeling leads to false assumptions, ostracizing, and prejudice, fueling painful personal emotions and generating hostility. Obvious examples of labeling are, “Because he can’t fix the dishwasher, he is useless.” “Because she won’t talk to me, I am undesirable.”

Labeling is emotionally demoralizing when those of us experiencing social anxiety are labeled by our symptoms, especially if we do the labeling.

Labeling is a form of overgeneralization, a cognitive distortion in which we draw broad conclusions or make statements based on one or two incidents or behaviors and ignore contradicting evidence. Polarized thinking, filtering, emotional reasoning, and jumping to conclusions can also instigate labeling. 

Other Labeling

Because we fear criticism and ridicule, we often label others out of anger and resentment for our perceived inadequacies. We also tend to retaliate to compensate for our insecurity. For example, if we feel alienated at a party, we might label the other guests rude or hostile.

If our companions seem unsupportive, we might label them disloyal and our intimate partner indifferent. 

Personal Labeling

Personal labeling (self-labeling) is when we create negative labels based on our self-appraisal. We know how distressing it can be when someone adversely labels us. When we engage in personal labeling, we sustain our self-loathing and disappointment. “No one talked to me at the event. I must be undesirable.” This self-labeling can be particularly damaging, as it perpetuates our negative self-perceptions and undermines our self-esteem.

Branding ourselves with a negative epithet is self-defeating, sustaining our anxiety and depression. This practice leads to thoughts and behaviors reinforcing our label, triggering a cascade of negative self-perceptions. The self-perpetuating cycle of adverse self-labeling deepens our sense of hopelessness, and our subsequent actions support our despondency. It’s crucial to recognize this self-defeating cycle and take steps to break it. 

Labels are unreasonable because they are subjective interpretations. Arbitrarily evaluating someone based on distinct incidents or behaviors does not define their entire character and is hurtful and harmful.

Rather than focusing on the specific element or prejudice that generated the label, it is essential to value the positive contributions of the person or group. We should appraise everyone with compassionate insight. For instance, instead of labeling someone as ‘aloof’ or ‘arrogant,’ perhaps we can consider their shyness or anxiety. Rather than an arbitrary label, attempting to understand the reasons for their behavior or our discomfort is a kinder and more rational approach.

Our preconceived notions often stem from experience, bias, disinformation, or unconscious projections. When we label someone based on their appearance or behavior, it’s crucial to question our assumptions. Why do we feel this way? What motivates our need to characterize someone by a particular attribute? By questioning our assumptions, we can gain a deeper understanding and avoid the pitfalls of labeling.

We are so much more than a label. We are unique individuals with diverse backgrounds, beliefs, and concerns. This awareness should broaden our perspectives.

Consider why someone might act the way they do. Think about how harmful and closed-minded a label is and how it might affect them. How does being labeled affect you? We abhor our fears of being judged or criticized. Why would we do that to someone else? Why would we do that to ourselves? Questioning our assumptions is crucial for rational thought, perception, and behavior.

Overgeneralization, Jumping to Conclusions & Catastrophizing

Three closely aligned cognitive distortions appear moderately indistinguishable because they are all derived from our compulsion to dramatize their conclusions. Overgeneralization, jumping to conclusions. and catastrophizing are the engine, car, and caboose of our exaggerated reactions to common situations.

Let’s take an example from our social anxiety. We overgeneralize that a failed relationship means every other effort will generate the same negative response. We then promptly conclude that we will never experience a healthy relationship. The catastrophic belief is that we will become isolated and friendless, with multiple cats to keep us company. These three closely related cognitive distortions are broad, unsubstantiated, and ostensibly inaccurate subjective projections. Here’s how we tell them apart.

Overgeneralization

We overgeneralize when we draw conclusions that exceed what could be logically explained, usually applying statistics from a small sample size to a larger population.

The neighbor’s teenage son is a delinquent because most teenagers in this neighborhood are delinquents.

Overgeneralizing happens when we make exaggerated claims about something or someone without evidence. We make false conclusions based on limited or inaccurate information, convinced that a negative experience or behavior applies to similar situations, whether or not the circumstances are comparable. 

We assume an isolated behavior represents an entire group, which leads to stereotyping. We view a one-time incident as a never-ending pattern of regularity, disputing the potential for behavioral change. Moreover, we disregard evidence that disputes our findings. 

Like filtering, where we ignore the positive and dwell on the negative, overgeneralization supports our SAD-induced tendency to assume the worst of an incident or behavior, usually due to prior experience. So ‘once’ becomes ‘many,’ ‘sometimes becomes always,’ and ‘possibly’ becomes ‘probably.’ For example, the last time we went swimming, we almost drowned. Therefore, all pools and lakes are dangerous and should be avoided. Because the sushi made us ill, all East Asian restaurants are unhealthy.

These irrational conclusions prevent us from placing ourselves in similar situations where we assume a bad experience will repeat itself. Our automatic negative thoughts (ANTs) are usually overgeneralizations. For example, if we feel rejected at a social gathering, we may conclude, “I am undesirable.’ No one will ever like me,’ which supports the likelihood that we will avoid or suspect future social situations

We overgeneralize when we claim that all politicians are corrupt or all priests are pedophiles based on small representations.  Outlaw gangs often ride motorcycles. Therefore, the couple on the Harley-Davidson must be members of an outlaw gang. These are all instances of overgeneralization that we encounter in our daily lives.

Overgeneralization can make it difficult to establish and maintain relationships. Our condition makes establishing and maintaining relationships difficult, and they often fail, making us consider all potential relationships too risky. A mistake at work might repeat itself and lead to overgeneralizing our ineffectiveness, hindering our professional growth. This cycle of negative self-appraisal further damages our already fragile self-esteem.

Jumping to Conclusions

Jumping to conclusions involves making broad and inaccurate conjectures that are unsubstantiated by evidence. T

he neighbor’s teenage son is a delinquent because he enjoys heavy metal.

When we overgeneralize, we infer that a single behavior or incident indicates a pattern. Jumping to conclusions occurs when we make a broad assumption based on a particular behavior or incident despite having evidence to the contrary.

Most of the symptoms of our condition are examples of jumping to conclusions. Our negative core beliefs and self-appraisal compel us to jump to conclusions. We assume that we will embarrass or humiliate ourselves during a situation because we feel stupid. We jump to the conclusion that no one will talk to us because the shame of our condition makes us want to hide. We avoid companionship and intimacy because we jump to the conclusion that we are undesirable.

Jumping to conclusions implies we are telepathic and clairvoyant. Our projection of adverse outcomes makes us fortune tellers and mind readers. Fortune telling is a type of cognitive distortion where we predict adverse outcomes. We symptomatically focus on the worst-case scenario and the probability of disaster. We become faux mind-readers when we conclude we are subject to criticism and ridicule. Both distortions can lead to a warped perception of reality.

Catastrophizing

When we catastrophize, we assume the worst by imagining a situation potentially more disastrous than logic dictates.

The neighbor’s teenage son will probably do us harm because he is a neighborhood delinquent who enjoys heavy metal.

Chicken Little was plucking worms in the henyard when an acorn dropped from a tree onto her head. She immediately assumed the worst. The sky is falling, the sky is falling, she clucked hysterically. 

Catastrophizing compels us to conclude that the worst-case scenario has occurred when things happen to us rather than considering plausible explanations. It is the irrational assumption that something is or will be far worse than reasonably probable. We prophesize the worst and twist reality to support our projection.

For instance, if our significant other has a bad week, we might conclude that the relationship is in jeopardy (external control), leading to behaviors that could instigate such an outcome. We catastrophize by convincing ourselves that divorce is imminent and we will never find love again.

If we receive a disappointing grade on a test, we may conclude that we will fail the course or catastrophize that we will never graduate. If our manager isn’t happy with how we performed a task, we might jump to the conclusion that we will not be promoted or convince ourselves that we will lose our jobs and will never work again.

If we experience migraines or abdominal pain, we might decide to rest up or see a physician if the pain continues. Convincing ourselves that we have a brain tumor or a ruptured appendix is catastrophizing.

Catastrophizing is not just a cognitive distortion; it’s paralyzing. It limits our interactivity and social engagement because we are on the cusp of disaster. Catastrophizing prevents us from trying new things and experiencing life to the fullest. It shuts out possibilities. It limits our ability to establish, develop, and maintain healthy relationships.

Understanding the paralyzing effect of catastrophizing is the first step towards overcoming it and living a more fulfilling life.

One of the four central core beliefs associated with social anxiety and depression is our sense of helplessness. This perceived impotence, if left unchecked, can become a learned behavior developed through repetition and experience. We express learned helplessness when we convince ourselves that if we lack control over some experience in the past, we will never have control over it.

It’s crucial to recognize and address the self-destructive nature of our perceived impotence to regain control over our lives.

To Encapsulate

• Overgeneralization: The neighbor’s teenage son is a delinquent because most teenagers in this neighborhood are delinquents.
• Jumping to Conclusions: The neighbor’s teenage son is a delinquent because he listens to heavy metal.
• Catastrophizing: The neighbor’s teenage son will probably do us harm because he is a delinquent who listens to heavy metal.

Solutions

The obvious suggestion is to stop blowing things out of proportion. That’s easier said than done, but given our condition, it’s prudent to repeatedly instruct our neural network to focus on common-sense thinking. Recognizing the irrationality of these assumptions is the first step to challenging and changing them. When we overgeneralize, jump to conclusions, and catastrophize, we prophesize potential adverse outcomes and shape our behaviors to ensure they happen.

By devising rational explanations, we can break this cycle

Our desire for stability causes us to seek certainty and predictability. Our anxiety flourishes in fearful or unfamiliar situations. This is because our ‘fight-or-flight response,’ a natural reaction to stress, compels us to make rash and careless assumptions without considering other possibilities and perspectives.

It is essential to remain vigilant that cognitive distortions may support our twisted interpretations, such as believing ‘I’m a failure’ after a minor setback, and validate our irrational thoughts and behaviors, like avoiding social situations due to fear of judgment.

Still, their inaccuracies perpetuate our anxiety and depression. By considering other possibilities and perspectives, such as ‘I may have made a mistake, but it doesn’t define me’ or ‘Others may not be judging me as harshly as I think’, we can challenge these distortions.

There are simple and obvious steps we can take to eliminate these distortions.

Justify our conclusions with evidence. What research and data support them? Do we truly know anything about the subject? What fears, experiences, and prejudices initiated these conclusions? Perhaps our obsession with others criticizing, ridiculing, and rejecting us compels us to attack first as a form of self-defense. This critical thinking is crucial in combating these distortions.

Put ourselves in the shoes of those we subject to inaccurate and derogatory accusations. How do we feel when the tables are turned, as they invariably are when we succumb to our SAD-induced fears of criticism, rejection, and ridicule?

Assess the situation and consider plausible explanations and other perspectives. Respond rationally rather than emotionally. We have the power to stop these negative thought patterns. We identify them, write them down, analyze their irrationality, and produce common-sense solutions.

Practice basic self-care: These irrational conclusions are more likely to materialize during periods of fatigue or stress. Basic self-care practices, such as getting enough sleep and eating properly, exercising regularly, connecting with nature, and taking time to reflect with gratitude on the positive aspects of our lives, can help us feel more emotionally balanced.

By prioritizing self-care, we show ourselves the care and attention we deserve, which can help manage unproductive thoughts.

Stop overthinking. When we overthink, we obsess, engaging in repetitive and unproductive thoughts. We make mountains out of molehills. Overthinking is a hindrance to personal development because it entails ruminating about our past habits and failures, whereas recovery is a here-and-now solution that will positively impact the future.

Thoughts are just thoughts. They are not facts or reality unless we make them so.

Compassion can help us see situations through the other’s perspective, reducing our tendency to distort the accuracy of the situation. Critical thinking will challenge our assumptions to avoid distorting our conclusions.

As we progress, we become acutely aware (identify, comprehend, and accept) our perverse idiosyncrasies. We recognize them in our behaviors and notice them in others. We identify them when we make unthinking and unfounded statements and observations.

PERSONALIZATION

Did you ever walk into a room and the conversation suddenly stop? It is because we irrationally assume we are the immediate center of attention and are under evaluation when we are nothing more than a momentary distraction.

Personalization, often called the mother of all guilt, is a common human tendency. It’s the belief that everything is somehow directed at us, even without a logical connection. This perception stems from our emotional assumption that we’re always the center of attention, and our suspicion that we’re constantly under negative appraisal, criticism, and ridicule.

When we personalize, we tell ourselves that what others are doing or saying must relate to us personally. We assume random comments are directed toward us. For instance, we are convinced that a teacher’s general criticism of the class is because of something we did. Similarly, if a friend cancels plans, we might conclude it’s because they don’t want to spend time with us, rather than considering other possible reasons.

Understanding personalization can be a game-changer. When someone advises us, “Don’t take it personally,” we might be engaging in personalization. This concept helps us realize that we’re not always the cause of things happening around us. It’s a relief to know that not everything is a reaction to us, and that random comments are often not personally relevant. This understanding can empower us to navigate social situations with a clearer perspective, reducing the burden of unnecessary guilt and anxiety.

Personalization can manifest in various forms, from the belief that our whispering colleagues are critiquing us to the conviction that a friend’s foul mood is a reaction to something we did. This distortion leads to a cascade of negative emotions, including guilt, anxiety, and a pervasive sense of inadequacy. It also gives us a sense of control over other people’s motivations. For example, if we believe a friend’s foul mood is because of us, we might feel we have the power to ‘fix’ their mood, even if we are entirely unrelated to the real cause. This perceived control can be a heavy burden, as it often leads to misplaced responsibility and unnecessary stress.

Personalization causes a misplaced sense of personal responsibility that does not account for external factors or circumstances. We blame ourselves for things that have nothing to do with us. A disappointing event or relationship is our fault, even when we are uninvolved.

Much of this is due to our symptomatic self-centeredness, a term that refers to our tendency to focus on ourselves and our own feelings, often to the exclusion of others. We worry about embarrassing or humiliating ourselves, and our intense anxiety during social situations. Of course, the reality is that everyone is the center of their little world with their busy lives and unique interests. The chances that they are thinking and talking about us are doubtful. As children, we believe the world revolves around us. We are emotionally and cognitively incapable of considering other probabilities. We assume our parents fight because we did something wrong. Reasonable people grow out of this self-obsession. 

Two types of personalization disrupt our emotional well-being. The first is when we take our disappointments and struggles personally due to some perceived character deficit. If we are criticized at work for a report, we assume it’s because our productivity is inadequate. We don’t consider alternative explanations. Perhaps our supervisor has been raked over the coals by their boss, and they are merely displacing their frustration. Or the report may be acceptable, but the supervisor is nauseous from a bad lunch. Or the report has a simple typo. But instead of considering viable options, our immediate recourse is to jump to the conclusion (another cognitive distortion) that we aren’t good enough.

The other form of personalization is when we assume responsibility for the trials and tribulations of others. We believe we are responsible for the welfare of others and convince ourselves we are accountable for their happiness or depression. If our relationship fails, we assume we are to blame. When we are ghosted, it’s because we are unlikable.

I’ll provide a personal example. At any level in the entertainment industry, an actor is subjected to the inhumane process of casting, a journey that leads to an inordinate number of rejections. As someone who personalized the indifference of my cat, I lived in a sad cycle of self-criticism. Like many artists, I craved the recognition and occasional moments of audience adulation to compensate for my lack of self-worth. When Report to the Commissioner premiered at the Cinerama Dome on Sunset Blvd., I put on my finest threads and anxiously awaited my small moment on the giant screen. It never appeared, of course. The fact that I was so nervous I couldn’t remember my lines might have been a factor, although my original scene was incongruous to the final product. Numerous actors have survived the indignity of the cutting room floor, including Kevin Costner, Mickey Rourke, George Clooney, Kevin Spacey, and Christopher Plummer, but they were made of sterner stuff.

Here are some coping techniques to help us recognize and mitigate our tendency toward personalization.

First and foremost, it is crucial to recognize the thirteen cognitive distortions that are relevant to our condition. While it’s common for these distortions to have multiple names, distinguishing one from the others can be challenging. Many are catalysts for personalization. We’ve already touched on emotional reasoning. With control fallacy, we either believe something or someone has power and control over things that happen to us, or (2) we hold that type of power over others. Other distortions with similar characteristics include overgeneralization and labeling. 134

One powerful tool in our arsenal is the ability to devise immediate situational affirmations to counter triggers that lead to personalization. Situational affirmations are positive statements to remind ourselves of our worth and capabilities. For instance, if we feel inadequate at work, we can remind ourselves of past successes and unique skills. By doing so, we can regain control over our reactions and prevent negative personalization.

It’s sensible to consider the source of criticism. We are not responsible for other people’s ignorance, prejudice, and temperament, but we control our responses and reactions to their opinions. This allows us to resist the urge to dwell on the clumsy criticisms of witless individuals. We must stop overthinking the criticism and retain our power.

Identifying our triggers in advance is not just advisable, it’s crucial. This proactive approach ensures we will not be piqued when someone tries to inflame them. Is it a particular memory, emotion, or sensation? Pay attention to the sources of your triggers, and take control of your emotional responses.

There is a vast difference between taking things personally and being personally invested. When we take things personally, we are affected by others’ actions or words, but it doesn’t mean we have to let them antagonize or define us. Convincing ourselves that other people’s beliefs and opinions don’t matter can lead to dehumanization and moral disengagement. Personal investment means we invite criticism but don’t let it influence our self-worth.

Standard techniques help mitigate our discomfort when we assume we are the center of attention. For instance, we can remind ourselves that our belief is irrational. Everyone is too busy thinking about themselves to focus on us. Or we can challenge our beliefs. We can use the ‘Look Around Technique’ to observe what’s happening, not what our self-consciousness tells us is happening. Are people specifically talking about us or judging us? Are they even looking at us?

On the other hand, what if a stranger is staring at us, and evaluating or criticizing us? So what? That’s their issue. They don’t know us. They’re just making an uninformed evaluation. Why should we care what they think? We do not need someone else’s approval to be who we are.

Here’s what we can do when we feel self-conscious in public. We take a deep breath, relax our muscles, and gradually look around the room or environment. We’re not staring people down or trying to attract their attention. We are casually looking around to gauge what’s happening around us. The Look Around Technique will reveal that hardly anyone is looking at us, and if they are, they have an ulterior motive, which means they are likely cognitively distorting.

What you observe will reassure and surprise you.

POLARIZED THINKING

One of the most unfortunate battles we face is our constant self-criticism. We endlessly dissect every move and conversation, berating ourselves for perceived ignorance and incompetence. This self-imposed pressure to be perfect can be overwhelming, as we convince ourselves that anything less than perfection is a failure.

In polarized or all-or-nothing thinking, we view things in extremes – black or white. There is no middle ground, no room for compromise. We are either exceptional or complete dullards. Our friends are with us or against us. It’s important to remember that this type of thinking is more common than we might think, and understanding its prevalence can help us feel less isolated and more understood.

We deny the possibility of balanced perspectives or positive outcomes. We hesitate to give people the benefit of the doubt and apply the same skepticism to our behaviors.

 Worse than our anxiety about criticism is our self-judgment. Our self-judgment is even harsher than our fear of outside criticism. We must be broken and inept if we are not flawless and masterful. We have little tolerance for mistakes or mediocrity, leading to self-deprecating conclusions like, “I failed my last exam; I fail at everything I try. I’m a loser.” It’s important to note that change is possible. Tending to polarized thinking doesn’t mean we’re broken or flawed. It’s a common human trait that can cause problems when taken to extremes.

All-or-nothing conclusions damage self-esteem and self-perception. We face constant disappointment and demoralization when we judge ourselves or others by impossibly high standards.

Concluding Remarks

Individuals grappling with social anxiety often find themselves entangled in cognitive distortions and defense mechanisms. However, the journey to recovery begins with the empowering act of recognizing, comprehending, and accepting these self-destructive patterns. This process not only fosters recovery but also cultivates attentive listening skills, enabling us to engage in active communication where we truly value what others have to say. In empathic interaction, our goal is to understand, and then to be understood.

As we nurture our self-esteem, we embark on a journey of self-discovery, learning to identify the root causes of our irrational thinking patterns. By overcoming our fears of judgment and criticism through the regeneration of self-esteem, we open ourselves to accepting and appreciating the value of others. Positive psychology serves as our guide, leading us to embrace our unique character strengths, attributes, and shortfalls. This journey of self-appreciation not only fills us with confidence and joy but also inspires us to pay it forward, spreading positivity and understanding.

It’s vital to approach life’s events with a holistic view, considering multiple perspectives. We need to steer clear of the narrow focus of filtering, the inflexibility of polarized thinking, and the half measure of emotional reasoning. Instead, we should embrace the diverse kaleidoscope of viewpoints, interpretations, and possibilities that life offers.

Proactive Neuroplasticity YouTube Series

INDIVIDUAL RECOVERY. The symptoms of social anxiety make it challenging for some to participate in a collective workshop. Dr. Mullen works one-on-one with a select group of individuals uneasy in a group setting. ReChanneling offers scholarships to accommodate the costs. What is missed in group activities is provided in our monthly, no-cost Graduate Recovery Group. In this supportive community, graduates interact with others who have completed the program.  Contact ‘rmullenphd@gmail.com’.

Committing to recovery is one of the hardest things you will ever do.
It takes enormous courage and the realization that you are of value,
consequential, and deserving of happiness.