Magnification or Minimization are Cognitive Distortions...
What are Magnification or Minimization besides being cognitive distortions?
They are exaggerated or irrational thought patterns that are believed to perpetuate the effects of psychopathological states, especially depression and anxiety.
Psychiatrist Aaron T. Beck laid the groundwork for the study of these distortions, and his student David D. Burns continued research on the topic.
Most notably, Burns’ 1989 book, "The Feeling Good Handbook" presented information on these thought patterns along with a proposal of how to eliminate them.
They are exaggerated or irrational thought patterns that are believed to perpetuate the effects of psychopathological states, especially depression and anxiety.
Psychiatrist Aaron T. Beck laid the groundwork for the study of these distortions, and his student David D. Burns continued research on the topic.
Most notably, Burns’ 1989 book, "The Feeling Good Handbook" presented information on these thought patterns along with a proposal of how to eliminate them.
What is THE KEY TO RECOVERY?
Understand the power of your subconscious mind and how to communicate with it effectively. Change? Hmm...only if you can unlock your subconscious where all your beliefs are stored. The power of your subconscious mind is a true wonder.
It allows humankind to reach incredible heights of achievement and The Power Of Your Subconscious...is the Key to resolve cognitive distortions...
Understand the power of your subconscious mind and how to communicate with it effectively. Change? Hmm...only if you can unlock your subconscious where all your beliefs are stored. The power of your subconscious mind is a true wonder.
It allows humankind to reach incredible heights of achievement and The Power Of Your Subconscious...is the Key to resolve cognitive distortions...
Defined for the main article linked above...Emotional Intelligence Therapy
Magnification or Minimization are subconscious programs:
Magnification or Minimization give proportionally greater weight to a perceived failure, weakness or threat, or lesser weight to a perceived success, strength or opportunity, so the weight differs from that assigned to the event or thing by others. This is common enough in the normal population to popularize idioms such as "make a mountain out of a molehill". In depressed clients, often the positive characteristics of other people are exaggerated and negative characteristics are understated.
There is one subtype of magnification called...
Catastrophizing –
That is...giving greater weight to the worst possible outcome, however unlikely, or experiencing a situation as unbearable or impossible when it is just uncomfortable.
Note: People who are struggling with this issue (in general) at their psychological core have “arrested emotional development”. (more on this linked above).
Having Magnification or Minimization issues?
For the treatment method I recommend click the “Emotional Intelligence Therapy” link above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notes:
Thinking Errors or Cognitive Distortions
When you increase, you highlight factors out of percentage to their real significance. Little errors become dreadful problems. Minimal recommendations become damaging critique. Any small back pain becomes a punctured hard drive. When you increase, you may use terms such as "huge", "impossible", or "overwhelming". This type of altered considering is also known as the "binocular trick", because you are either ruining factors up out of percentage or reducing them. Zoom generally happens when you look at your own errors, worries, or blemishes and embellish their importance: "My goodness--I created an error. How terrible! How awful! The phrase will propagate like wildfire! My popularity is ruined!" You're looking at your errors through the end of the field glasses that creates them appear enormous.
When you think about your strong factors, you may do the other. You may look through the incorrect end of the field glasses so that factors look small, insignificant. This is known as minimization.
If you increase your blemishes and reduce your excellent factors, you are assured to experience substandard. But the issue isn't you, it's the insane contacts you're wearing!
I think our community is getting more intense about this muffling heuristic, because we are constantly developing up a patience for mean-spirited and excessive language; consequently, our views adhere to that terminology, our values adhere to those views, and so on.
“You’re creating a hill out of a molehill,” is user-friendly and typical enough to know what this distortions is about, but it becomes an even more innovative tool. It goes beyond worry and concerning to allow individuals to keep keep individuals and factors in the bins they have psychologically put them in, and then can go on with their consistently planned system. Lemme ‘splain.
Distorting certain factors of a particular scenario or storage of a scenario such that they do not reply to purpose truth is an simple way to incapacitate ourselves. They either increase these factors to create them more important and highly effective than they really are (Magnification), or they play down factors to create them less important (Minimization).
Why do we think much better about doing some factors and not about others? We encounter the way we do because we think the way we do. Our ideas cause our emotions. You will encounter thrilled and pushed about enjoying a activity title if you think you might win, so you will keep with it, even when the likelihood is against you. You will suffer from depression and tired about a activity title that you think you can't win, and you may quit.
Most of us take the way we think for provided. We regularly talk as if activities or other individuals "make" us satisfied or sad or afraid or thrilled. But this isn't quite real. It is not the activities outside me that cause me to encounter a certain way; it is the ideas within me that I believe about those outside activities that "make" me encounter grateful or sad. We have to create an exemption to this in the situation of actual feeling. All other factor being equivalent, If I am in discomfort, I will not be happy; if I am experiencing a excellent food, I will encounter satisfaction. If I am getting tranquilizers, I will encounter relaxed. But most of our emotions cannot be included with regards to our actual atmosphere. The amazing factor is that very often our emotions seem to oppose what we would anticipate just by monitoring our activities and environment: we can be sad when consuming a delightful food and satisfied while going through the rainfall on a cool day.
Even when it seems as if we were responding straight to activities in our atmosphere, if we look more carefully we can see that it's not that easy. We don't respond straight to an event; we respond to our presentation of the occasion. Aaron T. Beck, a doctor who has analyzed the connection between emotions and ideas for many decades, writes:
A personal who is qualified to monitor his ideas. . . can notice continuously that his presentation of a scenario comes before his psychological respond to it. For example, he recognizes a car going toward him; then, he believes, "It is going to hit me," and seems nervous. Furthermore, when a personal changes his evaluation of a scenario, his psychological response changes. A younger lady considered that a buddy approved by her without saying hello. She believed, "He's snubbing me," and sensed sad. After a second look, she noticed that it wasn't her buddy at all and her harm emotions vanished. (28)
Just as we often take our emotions for provided, so we often take for provided the ideas that cause them. This is because most of the ideas we have are not results from considering events; they are automated ideas, routines of considering that come to us so easily we believe they come from outside our own leads.
The intellectual disturbances mentioned here are groups of automated considering. We will be talking about other types of mistakes later that are types of sensible considering. It is essential keep the two types of mistakes personal. Cognitive disturbances, no issue how destructive they may be, are subconscious functions of the brain. People do not select their intellectual disturbances. Indeed, most individuals would disavow the type of considering that is behind their automated ideas. We act on them without even learning them. The first thing to modifying them is to identify that we are using them. Adverse intellectual disturbances drop into four wide groups, with many personal modifications within each. Those four groups are Overgeneralization, Psychological Filtration, Moving to Conclusions, and Emotional Reasoning.
Magnification or Minimization are subconscious programs:
Magnification or Minimization give proportionally greater weight to a perceived failure, weakness or threat, or lesser weight to a perceived success, strength or opportunity, so the weight differs from that assigned to the event or thing by others. This is common enough in the normal population to popularize idioms such as "make a mountain out of a molehill". In depressed clients, often the positive characteristics of other people are exaggerated and negative characteristics are understated.
There is one subtype of magnification called...
Catastrophizing –
That is...giving greater weight to the worst possible outcome, however unlikely, or experiencing a situation as unbearable or impossible when it is just uncomfortable.
Note: People who are struggling with this issue (in general) at their psychological core have “arrested emotional development”. (more on this linked above).
Having Magnification or Minimization issues?
For the treatment method I recommend click the “Emotional Intelligence Therapy” link above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notes:
Thinking Errors or Cognitive Distortions
When you increase, you highlight factors out of percentage to their real significance. Little errors become dreadful problems. Minimal recommendations become damaging critique. Any small back pain becomes a punctured hard drive. When you increase, you may use terms such as "huge", "impossible", or "overwhelming". This type of altered considering is also known as the "binocular trick", because you are either ruining factors up out of percentage or reducing them. Zoom generally happens when you look at your own errors, worries, or blemishes and embellish their importance: "My goodness--I created an error. How terrible! How awful! The phrase will propagate like wildfire! My popularity is ruined!" You're looking at your errors through the end of the field glasses that creates them appear enormous.
When you think about your strong factors, you may do the other. You may look through the incorrect end of the field glasses so that factors look small, insignificant. This is known as minimization.
If you increase your blemishes and reduce your excellent factors, you are assured to experience substandard. But the issue isn't you, it's the insane contacts you're wearing!
I think our community is getting more intense about this muffling heuristic, because we are constantly developing up a patience for mean-spirited and excessive language; consequently, our views adhere to that terminology, our values adhere to those views, and so on.
“You’re creating a hill out of a molehill,” is user-friendly and typical enough to know what this distortions is about, but it becomes an even more innovative tool. It goes beyond worry and concerning to allow individuals to keep keep individuals and factors in the bins they have psychologically put them in, and then can go on with their consistently planned system. Lemme ‘splain.
Distorting certain factors of a particular scenario or storage of a scenario such that they do not reply to purpose truth is an simple way to incapacitate ourselves. They either increase these factors to create them more important and highly effective than they really are (Magnification), or they play down factors to create them less important (Minimization).
Why do we think much better about doing some factors and not about others? We encounter the way we do because we think the way we do. Our ideas cause our emotions. You will encounter thrilled and pushed about enjoying a activity title if you think you might win, so you will keep with it, even when the likelihood is against you. You will suffer from depression and tired about a activity title that you think you can't win, and you may quit.
Most of us take the way we think for provided. We regularly talk as if activities or other individuals "make" us satisfied or sad or afraid or thrilled. But this isn't quite real. It is not the activities outside me that cause me to encounter a certain way; it is the ideas within me that I believe about those outside activities that "make" me encounter grateful or sad. We have to create an exemption to this in the situation of actual feeling. All other factor being equivalent, If I am in discomfort, I will not be happy; if I am experiencing a excellent food, I will encounter satisfaction. If I am getting tranquilizers, I will encounter relaxed. But most of our emotions cannot be included with regards to our actual atmosphere. The amazing factor is that very often our emotions seem to oppose what we would anticipate just by monitoring our activities and environment: we can be sad when consuming a delightful food and satisfied while going through the rainfall on a cool day.
Even when it seems as if we were responding straight to activities in our atmosphere, if we look more carefully we can see that it's not that easy. We don't respond straight to an event; we respond to our presentation of the occasion. Aaron T. Beck, a doctor who has analyzed the connection between emotions and ideas for many decades, writes:
A personal who is qualified to monitor his ideas. . . can notice continuously that his presentation of a scenario comes before his psychological respond to it. For example, he recognizes a car going toward him; then, he believes, "It is going to hit me," and seems nervous. Furthermore, when a personal changes his evaluation of a scenario, his psychological response changes. A younger lady considered that a buddy approved by her without saying hello. She believed, "He's snubbing me," and sensed sad. After a second look, she noticed that it wasn't her buddy at all and her harm emotions vanished. (28)
Just as we often take our emotions for provided, so we often take for provided the ideas that cause them. This is because most of the ideas we have are not results from considering events; they are automated ideas, routines of considering that come to us so easily we believe they come from outside our own leads.
The intellectual disturbances mentioned here are groups of automated considering. We will be talking about other types of mistakes later that are types of sensible considering. It is essential keep the two types of mistakes personal. Cognitive disturbances, no issue how destructive they may be, are subconscious functions of the brain. People do not select their intellectual disturbances. Indeed, most individuals would disavow the type of considering that is behind their automated ideas. We act on them without even learning them. The first thing to modifying them is to identify that we are using them. Adverse intellectual disturbances drop into four wide groups, with many personal modifications within each. Those four groups are Overgeneralization, Psychological Filtration, Moving to Conclusions, and Emotional Reasoning.