> Well, I personally don't like to use the word "wrong", and was referring to what you (witt) had stated as "wrong." But maybe you were quoting someone else in that use?

i'm not too sure what you mean... do you mean by saying that there is something *wrong*? i guess... in my case what i think is *wrong* is that sometimes i am in a lot of emotional pain :-( but, yeah, maybe its not about something being *wrong* so much as moving from a less prefered state of being to a more preferred state of being.

is that what you meant?

about beliefs...

> isn't it still an irrational belief NOW because the cause is in the past? The belief might have protected someone during events, but isn't needed now, and therefore, since it doesn't refer to current life, it's an irrational belief now?

okay. so that sounds like a theory of what it takes for a belief to count as 'irrational' (in the sense that if this condition is met then the belief counts as irrational though there might be other ways a belief gets to count as irrational too).

so to test whether that is correct... we try and imagine a counter example. which is to say... can you think of a belief whose cause is in the past and the belief refers to the past and yet we do not want to call that belief irrational?

Lets go back to the dog in the skinner box.
tone - shock
tone - shock
at this point
tone - fear
is a rational response...
but at the point the contingency changes
tone - no shock
then to respond with fear is irrational?
does that seem right?

it would seem to be a waste of energy...
it would seem to be needless distress...
but it would seem to be understandable in light of past events...
i'm not sure about calling it 'irrational'.

here is a case of overgeneralisation (though it is not typically considered to be an irrational belief. in fact... you might find yourself being locked up if you DENY the irrational belief).

i have a body and i have a mind (can feel pain etc)
other people have a body
_______________________________________
other people have a mind (can feel pain etc)

i only observe conscious states in my own case.
i only observe a correlation between behaviours and conscious states in my own case.
i observe you have a body...
but to infer you have conscious states...
is the very worst kind of overgeneralisation
it generalises from one instance (your own)
to all other people.

how can we be so irrational?????

yet you are more likely to be locked up if you maintain that other people don't have minds / can't feel pain and thus you can damage their body and it isn't going to hurt them...

bizzare...

whether a belief is the focus of cognitive restructuring or not does not seem to be a function of the 'illogic' of the belief...

it seems to have more to do with whether the belief is useful to the person or not (i think that was what you were getting at)

so my bug is...
if it is more about utility...
then why not just say so?
why the judgement of 'irrationality'
(which, IMO just functions to perpeptuate the stereotype of mental illness as being an 'irrational' and not-understandable phenomena)

?

> I wonder why there seems to be so much resistance to eliminating some of your beliefs, witt, or at least for you to challenge your own beliefs.

i have no problem with either of these...
i do challenge my beliefs..
and i allow others to challenge my beliefs...
but...
i do not take kindly to other people judging my beliefs to be 'irrational'
and i do not take kindly to other people attributing me 'unconscious beliefs' by definition
(bang thump)

:-)