By Atty. Farah G. Decano

 

ESTHER Perel, a leading psychotherapist, theorizes that the stories we tell ourselves can either make or break us.  They are our own interpretations of events in our lives.  They help us understand and make sense of our present and past realities. In the process of generating our own plots, we stitch these episodes together which may turn out to be either a beautiful fabric or a messed-up dirty rag of tales.

What are examples of stories?

About tardiness is one. If a person is late for a date, what narrative do we tell ourselves?  Do we say that the person has no respect for our time, that he/she is simply ill-bred, or, do we excuse him/her and just acknowledge that something unforeseen probably came up?  What are the narratives we have in our minds about chest-beating chauvinist politicos? Are we persuaded that they are decisive protectors of their constituents, that they are great fathers of a community, or do we see them as brainless brawns with size problems?  What stories do we have about women as crisis managers?  Are we convinced that they break down under pressure and that they should be mere assistants of men, or do we firmly believe that women have an effective and creative crisis management style because they are multi-taskers?

It is important to be aware of our go-to stories to explain circumstances.  Our accounts of the events magnify our prejudices shaped by previous experiences.  We must double check the narratives we tell ourselves.

Ms. Perel, then further asks, “what if you are trapped in your own story?”

Interesting question. Whether or not our lives’ chronicles are attuned to reality, being stuck with our tales results to possible maladjustments to present circumstances. What may be a valid story in the past may no longer be valid in the present. In the end, she suggested that we must welcome new stories or be open to editing old ones.

Since our narratives are dependent on our accurate perception of the events in our lives, then we must be aware of our thought processes.  We must be conscious of   our   reasoning so can avoid having “thought patterns that cause people to view reality in inaccurate-usually negative-ways”. Rebecca Joy Stanborough of Healthline refer to these errors in thinking as cognitive distortion.

One flawed thought process is called overgeneralization. The person with this kind of cognitive distortion, for instance, will view a political candidate’s charity during the campaign period is indicative of his generosity all though out his elective term. Logic has another word for this faulty reasoning. We call it the fallacy of converse accident.

The “all-or-nothing” erroneous thinking makes a person only see the black and the white categories and ignore the grey areas.  As an example, a voter with a distorted view may see a candidate who sings and dances as accessible while those who do not entertain are not. He/she ignores the varying standards of accessibility.  This flawed thought process is also called “false dichotomy” in argumentation.

There are other types of cognitive distortions. It is imperative that they be corrected early in our own families, in schools and in our communities.

Why must we pay attention to our thought processes? Imagine a group of individuals called the citizenry, engaged in unremedied constant distorted thinking. What stories would they tell to the next generation?  Shall they be stuck in intergenerational narratives that are no longer applicable in present realities?  Ah, the possibility of a nation’s fall is not remote.

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments