The lack of critical thinking is baffling

[u/Hatrct]

In people, including those in this field.

It is bizarre that nobody in this field was able to do the simple extrapolation required to understand the following.

It is bizarre because it is the same thing, it applies to clinical disorders, all you have to do is shift the focus from cognitive distortions to cognitive biases, yet not a single person in this field was able to realize this. This is proof that people are mechanistic and that grad school emphasizes rote memorization over critical thinking.

The reason there are problems in the world is because evolution has not caught up to modern living arrangements, which are quite recent in terms of human history. Therefore, people still automatically abide by the amygdala-driven fight/flight response. While this response is necessary and beneficial and needs to be quick with the threats humans faced for the majority of humanity, such as an attack from wild animal, this quick amygdala driven response is not beneficial in terms of solving modern day problems, which require complex and long term rational thinking. It instead leads to people getting triggered quickly and having unnecessary conflict and polarization, which is what happened throughout "civilized" human history, and is quite evident today. But the issue is that clinicians don't understand this basic knowledge: that is why they will rage downvote me here: they will factually prove me correct: they too will exhibit the amygdala-driven response. You can't make this stuff up folks.

Now, our PFC is capable of rational thinking, but the issue is that 80-98% of people have a personality type that is not conducive to actually using it in most domains. Therefore, around 80-98% of people abide by emotional reasoning and cognitive biases instead of rational reasoning. That is why we have problems. That is why my post will factually get downvoted into oblivion. That is why zero replies will acknowledge what I say here. That is why zero replies will use what I say to improve their own lives and the world, and instead will childishly personally attack me. I will unfortunately be factually proven correct as a direct result.

None a single clinician knew the above, not a single one went public to fix the world by saying the above. The above is why we have problems. Unless the masses know the above, we don't be able to fix the world. It is quite bizarre.

The reason I said 80-98% of people are not critical thinkers is because they can't handle cognitive dissonance. There is IU (Intolerance of Uncertainty), but bizarrely, not one person in this field had the common sense to coin ICD (intolerance of cognitive dissonance), which I just did, and it is just as important as IU. Cognitive dissonance is when we hold 2 or more contradictory thoughts. 80-98% of people either randomly choose one thought, or they pick the thought that aligns more closely to their emotionally-derived subjectively-determined pre-existing notion, and will double down and then attack anybody who tries to tell them the mere possibility that they may not be 100% right. That is why we have so much polarization. That is why we have problems. Very few people have a personality type that is conducive to critical thinking. These people encounter the same environmental constraints to critical thinking, yet they are able to push past and adopt critical thinking regardless, because their personality type fosters intellectual curiosity to the point that it offsets the pain caused from cognitive dissonance.

Yet the unfortunate thing is that none of the above I wrote can practically change anything, because the 80-98% will not listen. You can show them 1+1=2 but they will insist it is 3. They simply can't handle any cognitive dissonance in such a context. I will explain further using the analogy of therapy. If you look at the research, you will see that without the therapeutic relationship, regardless of therapeutic modality, there won't be improvement. The therapist can say all the right things in the first session, but 80-98% of people will attack them for saying it or disagree. First the therapeutic relationship is required, before the person will even consider anything the therapist mentions. Due to time and other practical constraints, the few critical thinkers in this world will not be able to form a long term 1 on 1 relationship (a la therapy) with many other people. So they are limited to mass media, such as writing books, or reddit posts, or making youtube videos, etc.. And this is why they will never get their message across to a sufficient audience, because theses mediums do not allow for the long term personalized emotional connection, so 80-98% of people will either ignore them or attack them for what they say.

It is even worse in terms of text-based platforms such as reddit because you are lacking facial expressions and tone and are limited to text, so people are even more likely to automatically discount what you say/attack you for it, as I will now be factually proven: I will now be downvoted into oblivion. Zero people will accept or acknowledge even 1% of what I say: they will say I am 100% wrong because I did not use a fake humble tone and went directly into the rational subject matter that is required to stop problems and fix the world. Fixing the world? Who cares? It is more important to be fake nice and fake humble. This is why we have problems. This is why the world cannot be changed. Because the people who downvote me and others who say this sort of stuff would rather listen to charlatans who tell them blatant feel good lies. That is why the best selling books and highest viewed youtube creators tend to be charlatans who say nothing of value. They reduce temporary fear in people and make them feel good in the moment: classic example of what is called avoidance in the therapeutic context. Again, only after the therapeutic relationship is formed will someone believe you that they are just harming themselves with avoidance and that it is better to accept the truth/reality in the long run. But as I will be factually proven, bizarrely, clinicians here will understand this but solely in the clinical context: they will attack me for daring to use some basic logic to extrapolate this into the mainstream context in an effort to change the world in a positive manner. This is why I have given up on humanity. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. You can lead a human to logic but they will get angry at you attempting to do so.

[u/Zippy_Da_Mew]

So I noticed a few things while reading this. Firstly, you keep reporting numbers and ideas you have as facts but don’t provide any sources or citations. This leads me (and likely many others) to assume your criticisms are based in assumptions and preconceived beliefs you have. Secondly, you mentioned how you already seem to know what downvotes or responses will mean or be. To an extent this comes across as a mix of a self-fulfilling prophecy and confirmation bias (maybe even something else). You’ve already decided how you will interpret our responses and reactions. There is no conversation to be had with someone who has already made up their mind.

Also, looking over your post history you seem to leave similar posts/rants elsewhere too. What is the purpose of this? What do you get out of it? Other than perhaps trying to confirm or reaffirm your own beliefs by assuming the reasoning for others actions/interactions.

I think you’ll likely take this a personal attack based on reading through this, but it isn’t meant to. Just my thoughts and observations. You’re allowed to have your beliefs, but stating them as fact without sources, citations, or any real evidence isn’t helpful or reassuring that you know what you’re talking about. It honestly makes you come across as someone who thinks they’re smarter than everyone else, but doesn’t necessarily make that true.

To summarize the above: you appear to be making a lot of assumptions, seem biased toward how you will interpret interactions to reaffirm your current thoughts and beliefs. I also have doubt you’re a trained clinician or have any formal training in psychology from reading through this because, as previously stated, you’re just coming across as someone who thinks they’re smarter than everyone else based on your current beliefs about yourself and others. You’re making claims without evidence. There isn’t any credibility to these claims. That is a large part of why you will be dismissed I’m sure.

[u/Roland8319]

Oh, is it already time for the hatrct self-masturbatory post again here on Clinical Psychology?

[u/MattersOfInterest → u/Roland8319]

The number of times I have reported OP to the mods, to no avail, is disappointing. Reddit deletes subs that don't show evidence of active moderation, so clearly some mod activity is occurring here--thus I can only conclude that they either don't care about these low-quality, rule-breaking posts or they are doing the bare minimum and aren't deeply looking at reported content.

[u/MattersOfInterest]

The irony is that you are the one posting this after coming here on-and-off for months now repeatedly posting long, poorly informed or badly reasoned diatribes and then insulting anyone who even politely points out where your points need improvement or are altogether wrong.