[Paleopsych] REBT cognitive distortions
shovland at mindspring.com
Sat Oct 23 19:49:12 UTC 2004
Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Had WMD or Major Program,
Supported al Qaeda
(in spite of the facts on the ground- skh)
Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq
did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to
believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing
them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had
actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq
had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on
all these points.
Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was
providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear
evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters
assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume,
incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here
again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite
These are some of the findings of a new study of the differing perceptions
of Bush and Kerry supporters, conducted by the Program on International
Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, based on polls conducted in
September and October.
Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, "One of the reasons that Bush
supporters have these beliefs is that they perceive the Bush administration
confirming them. Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry
supporters agree." Eighty-two percent of Bush supporters perceive the Bush
administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or that Iraq had a major
WMD program (19%). Likewise, 75% say that the Bush administration is saying
Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. Equally large
majorities of Kerry supporters hear the Bush administration expressing
these views--73% say the Bush administration is saying Iraq had WMD (11% a
major program) and 74% that Iraq was substantially supporting al Qaeda.
Steven Kull adds, "Another reason that Bush supporters may hold to these
beliefs is that they have not accepted the idea that it does not matter
whether Iraq had WMD or supported al Qaeda. Here too they are in agreement
with Kerry supporters." Asked whether the US should have gone to war with
Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making WMD or
providing support to al Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters said the US should
not have, and 61% assume that in this case the President would not have.
Kull continues, "To support the president and to accept that he took the US
to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive
dissonance, and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling
information about prewar Iraq."
This tendency of Bush supporters to ignore dissonant information extends to
other realms as well. Despite an abundance of evidence--including polls
conducted by Gallup International in 38 countries, and more recently by a
consortium of leading newspapers in 10 major countries--only 31% of Bush
supporters recognize that the majority of people in the world oppose the US
having gone to war with Iraq. Forty-two percent assume that views are
evenly divided, and 26% assume that the majority approves. Among Kerry
supporters, 74% assume that the majority of the world is opposed.
Similarly, 57% of Bush supporters assume that the majority of people in the
world would favor Bush's reelection; 33% assumed that views are evenly
divided and only 9% assumed that Kerry would be preferred. A recent poll by
GlobeScan and PIPA of 35 of the major countries around the world found that
in 30, a majority or plurality favored Kerry, while in just 3 Bush was
favored. On average, Kerry was preferred more than two to one.
Bush supporters also have numerous misperceptions about Bush's
international policy positions. Majorities incorrectly assume that Bush
supports multilateral approaches to various international issues--the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the treaty banning land mines
(72%)--and for addressing the problem of global warming: 51% incorrectly
assume he favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty. After he denounced
the International Criminal Court in the debates, the perception that he
favored it dropped from 66%, but still 53% continue to believe that he
favors it. An overwhelming 74% incorrectly assumes that he favors including
labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. In all these cases,
majorities of Bush supporters favor the positions they impute to Bush.
Kerry supporters are much more accurate in their perceptions of his
positions on these issues.
"The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information," according to
Steven Kull, "very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and
equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in
its immediate wake. This appears to have created a powerful bond between
Bush and his supporters--and an idealized image of the President that makes
it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made
incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion could be
critical of his policies or that the President could hold foreign policy
positions that are at odds with his supporters."
The polls were conducted October 12-18 and September 3-7 and 8-12 with
samples of 968, 798 and 959 respondents, respectively. Margins of error
were 3.2 to 4% in the first and third surveys and 3.5% on September 3-7.
The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide panel,
which is randomly selected from the entire adult population and
subsequently provided internet access. For more information about this
methodology, go to www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp
Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
From: Michael Christopher [SMTP:anonymous_animus at yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 7:55 PM
To: Paleopsych at paleopsych.org
Subject: [Paleopsych] REBT cognitive distortions
Can't remember what book this was from, something on
REBT (Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy)...These are
"Cognitive distortions as disempowering thinking
1. Over-generalizing: jumping to conclusions on little
evidence or without facts
2. All-or-nothing thinking: Polarizing at extremes.
Black and white thinking. Either-or thinking that
posits options as two-valued choices
3. Labeling: Name-calling that uses
over-generalizations which allow one to dismiss
something via the label, or to not make important
distinctions, or that classifies a phenomenon in such
a way that we do not engage in good reality-testing
4. Blaming: Thinking in an accusatory style,
transferring blame, guilt, and responsibility for a
problem to someone or something else.
5. Mind-reading: Projecting thoughts, feelings,
intuitions onto others without checking out one's
guesses with the person, over-trusting one's
"intuitions" and not granting others the right to have
the last word about their internal thoughts, feelings,
6. Prophesying: Projecting negative outcomes onto the
future without seeing alternatives or possible ways to
proactively intervene, usually a future pacing of
fatalistic and negative outcomes.
7. Emotionalizing: Using one's emotions for filtering
8. Personalizing: Perceiving circumstances, especially
the actions of others, as specifically targeted toward
oneself in a personal way, perceiving the world
through ego-centric filters that whatever happens
relates to, speaks about, or references oneself.
9. Awfulizing: Imagining the worst possible scenario
and then amplifying it with a non-referencing word,
"awful" as in, "This is awful!"
10. Should-ing: Putting pressure on oneself (and
others) to conform to "divine" rules about the world
and life, then expressing such in statements that
involve "should" and "must".
11. Filtering: Over-focusing on one facet of something
to the exclusion of everything else so that one
develops a tunnel-vision perspective and can see only
"one thing". Typically, people use this thinking style
to filter out positive facets, thereby leaving a
12. Can't-ing: Imposing linguistic and semantic limits
on oneself and others from a "mode of impossibility"
and expressing this using the "can't" word.
Anyone who can find one of the above that isn't a
constant feature in the current election cycle gets a
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
paleopsych mailing list
paleopsych at paleopsych.org
More information about the paleopsych