Try calling yourself on these unacceptable practices, or cognitive distortion (although you may first need to learn to recognize them. .
So lets return to the court room, and practice the Art of Self Defense.
Then when you are done, return to your own inner arguments, and listen to the voice of the prosecution inside your head!
Treating cognitive distortion the way defense counsel treats the prosecutors case is not as far fetched as you may think.
Take for example the commonly heard objection, "I object your honor, assumes facts not in evidence"
Now ask yourself how often you have put yourself down, given up on a dream or walked away without trying, without objective evidence.
So take a look at the objections of "Calls for a conclusion: the question asks for an opinion rather than facts. or "Calls for speculation": the question asks the witness to guess the answer rather than to rely on known facts.
We don't expect the prosecution to introduce evidence of the accused's possible innocence,. We work on the presumption that they won't and look to see what evidence they have excluded.
Defense council may even hire their own investigators to find additional evidence that has been overlooked, with police often stopping once they 'get their man.'
Are you guilty of the same thing? Do you stop looking once you find evidence of your guilt? What evidence is missing from our case?
Once gathered, evidence is organized and explained based on the meaning attributed to it. Just take a look at the prosecutions opening statement and you will see this being illustrated. But remember in a court case the defense challenges the value the prosecution attaches to the evidence who is challenging your internal prosecutor?
Test your skill in our trial case, and see if youcan tell the value attributed by the prosecution to some evidence and dispute (challenge) it?.
Objective evidence! Can you prove it? Mind reading, Fortune Telling, Emotional Reasoning, These are not skills valued by a court of law, at least not as evidence!
In fact this is where any reasonable defense team would object if it were evidence being given by a witness, and use it as a means to dispute the case if it is introduced in opening by the prosecution. Can you see where the prosecution uses knowing in our trial case?.
There is a big gap between evidence of a crime and evidence of someones guilt. Obvious right?
But personalization, magical thinking and other similar cognitive distortions overlook this core criteria.
In a court of law the evidence needs to prove motive, means, and opportunity. In our personal lives we need to consider the same criteria.
"Understand your role and intention, and ensure that your strategy supports both"