Cognitive distortions predict safetyism-inspired beliefs in college students
My question is: who is deciding what is the correct reality to perceive?<p>For example, this from their questionnaire:<p>&gt;Kim’s friends told her that she could not come to the concert with them because
they were unable to get enough tickets for everyone. Kim knows they probably
didn’t exclude her on purpose, but she feels rejected. Therefore, part of her
believes she was rejected<p>What in such a scenario gives the impetus to the charitable interpretation (that they simply could not get tickets)? which they seem to indicate would be what a &#x27;well-adjusted&#x27; person free of cognitive distortion would assume.<p>Secondly, while intentionality can be important, why is there so much weight seemingly being placed on it these days (or is that just my perception?)  People can intend one thing and harmful outcomes still result.  One could drive drunk without any intention of anything bad happening and still get into an accident.  One could fire a gun randomly into the air with no intention of harming anyone and the bullets still come down and hit someone.<p>The main intent, it seems to me, at least by some, is to obscure the notion that humans and systems may act in ways contrary to their expressed intent.  Much atrocity and discrimination has been predicated on actions justified by philanthropic intent, ie &#x27;elevating the savages&#x27;.<p>And I wonder if a person free of cognitive distortions would even be referred to as human, as the quote goes:<p>&quot;Reason Is and Ought Only to Be the Slave of the Passions.&quot;  --David Hume