Irrational Thoughts and "Crazy" Ideas

The core of cognitive distortion, fixation, is articulated in a series of beliefs and convictions that underlie the interpretation of concrete facts and assume an absolute character, far from the vision of reality in its complexity and subjective relativity. Let's look at irrational ideas associated with this character's fixation:

• "If I surrender to a relationship, I lose myself." • "I like 'being alone in the middle of people': I need almost constant contact with friends, partners, colleagues... but keeping myself partially isolated, with my head lost in another dimension. I enjoy being with others but in a bubble, always half a meter away." • "The world is dangerous" – "If I act, I may be in danger" – "I'm never ready to act."

The Self-Preservation 6 is an intellectual who fears acting, replacing action with thinking, fantasizing about future actions or ruminating on past actions. They are dreamers who excessively worry about the best way to act and doubt whether they are right.

• "If I don't obey, they won't want me and I'm in danger."

• "I knew I had to be obedient (for fear of losing the love and protection of loved ones), and I was. But inside, I was convinced that what I thought was fair." The fantasies of omnipotence were many (to compensate for the impotence caused by fear). Fearing life, during my adolescence, I lived with fantasies of omnipotence. I preferred to be alone and read, but at the same time, I felt lonely. I read many novels (my grandmother had a good collection), and in my fantasies, I was always the hero.

• "Saying what I think is dangerous."

Another characteristic of their thinking is nebulosity: on the Rorschach test, they are the most likely to see maps and misty landscapes.

They gave me the Rorschach test as a selection test for a job. I mistrusted my employers, so I answered many pictures relating to biology, a career I had studied, and that left me very calm.

It is a response associated with preferring generality over detail. To avoid getting to the heart of the matter, they avoid being specific, for fear of criticism, accusation, and antagonism. It amounts to endless circumlocution, over-explanation, and speaking "about" something with a long "warm-up" to avoid revealing their privacy. The inhibition of frankness and not getting to the point can end up compromising mental agility, making them dysfunctional in matters that require efficiency.

I have the conviction that as soon as I say what I really feel, I will be attacked. That’s why I start thinking about the subject a lot, not being clear, and slowly getting closer to what I really want to say, controlling every millimeter of the listener's gestures to anticipate any hint of rejection or anger.

What assumption supports this phobic way of being in the world? That one will not be able to; that one is not ready to face the situation. This insecurity can be traced to thoughts like: "I'm not ready to act yet" and "I don't feel safe enough." What do they need to feel secure? Put their thoughts in order naturally and perhaps get support from others to counteract this active doubt.

• "I never have the necessary data to make a decision" – "If I'm wrong, there's no going back" – "It's better for others to decide."

Even more basic is the handing over of power implicit in this relationship style: the feeling of not having what is needed to make a decision combines with the thought that others are

capable of making decisions. This world of others contains multiple dimensions. These could be people with the ability to provide guidance or authorities that influenced culture, such as founders of great religions, ideologues, or spiritual entities like God, enlightened saints, or the spirit of Dharma.

Krishnamurti, one such example, began his career as a writer with a book titled At the Feet of the Masters. But after his awakening, he dedicated his life to showing that we should be careful with the belief that we need teachers; what we need, in reality, is to realize our autonomy. The thought of needing the other is connected with feeling orphaned, unable to manage alone.

• "Feeling anger is dangerous" – "If the other gets angry, they can destroy me" – "If I'm not good/weak, they will abandon me" – "If I'm good, they won't hurt me."

Another central idea is the inadmissibility of anger or aggression. Having turned themselves into a "good person," they have developed an ideal of themselves that excludes anger. This trait, which condemns them to weakness when asserting themselves in life, also supports an implicit ideal of nonviolence. (In his mature life, Krishnamurti declared that non-violence was unrealistic.)

The message I received was: "A mother's love is not limitless. If you're not good, I will not love you." The fetish fable—the nightmare that made me cry every time I read it—was Peter Pan: the boy who escapes from home to live freely in Kensington Gardens, and when he flies home, he finds the window closed and his mother with a new child in the cradle.

I recognize the neurotic need to be "good" and the great fear of being "bad" (and the corresponding divine punishment), but I do not identify with the need to "enlighten myself" or reach great transcendence. Rather, I often find myself lacking faith in my ability to connect with the divine. Nor do I believe I have personal work.

I alternate between feeling that the world is threatening and taking a confident, "naive" attitude. I realize that it is a defense: neutralizing danger with a good face and behavior, naive, even sometimes a bit silly, something I do even with myself. I have a constant need to "transform the jungle into a garden." I do this by "beautifying" the environment around me. This is how threats or dangers are neutralized: creating a friendly environment, with beauty and warmth.

I care a lot about what others think of me, always being very aware, almost "watchful" of how they see me. Not to shine or be seen as special, but to avoid disappointing, not to be seen as bad or wrong. My main strategy has always been to make alliances, to be a good friend, trustworthy, affectionate, careful: give gifts, listen, attend... and especially offer

friendship, warmth. Since childhood, friendship has been central to my life: I have always had a “best friend,” and very rarely did I do things alone or take the initiative.

• "It is better not to trust."

This character seeks to understand to what extent others love them to decide how far they can love. They present themselves as available to friends and lovers, but always with a little mental reserve, which they gradually reduce as they understand they can trust, until they trust completely and love fully. At that moment, they may be manipulated, betrayed, or ignored, and they will maintain the illusion of love for a long time. In the end, once the situation is understood, they will cut ties without hesitation, feeling guilty about doing so but prioritizing self-preservation.

When someone shows attraction and approaches me, a part of me thinks: "Oh, I deceived them! They haven't seen the real me." Since my mother didn't appreciate me, deep down, I can't do it either, and somehow, I despise those who appreciate me. Replace "love" with "appreciate," and "hate" with "despise," and you'll find the story of my life.

Other "Crazy" Ideas

• I have to please the world. • I always have to win. • They will discover my flaws (not being valid, intelligent); I'm not up to it. • They won't understand me. • Exposing myself is dangerous. I won’t know how to defend myself. • If they see me as I am, they will not love me, they will reject me, ridicule me, or humiliate me. • I'm not worthy. • I'll never amount to anything worthwhile. • I am only worthy if others value me. • I know nothing.

Here is the corrected version with improved grammar, while preserving the content: