• ⚠️ UK Access Block Notice: Beginning July 1, 2025, this site will no longer be accessible from the United Kingdom. This is a voluntary decision made by the site's administrators. We were not forced or ordered to implement this block. If you're located in the UK, we recommend using a VPN to maintain access.

N

noname223

Archangel
Aug 18, 2020
6,024
I wrote a 9 pages analysis of my mind to my therapist to persuade her into extending my therapy sessions.

Many years ago I met a quantumphysics professor as a patient in a clinic who told me I struggle with ambiguity intolerance and making predictions all the time. I certainly analyze the brains of people I have a conversations with. With ChatGPT I gained some insights and a good analysis for my biases. I let my therapist review it.

Here is what chatGPT said and I will comment on it.




1. What does the representation of safety have to do with intolerance of ambiguity?


The representation of safety and intolerance of ambiguity are closely connected because both play central roles in how we psychologically process uncertainty and perceive control. Here's the connection:




1. Intolerance of Ambiguity – What is it?


Intolerance of ambiguity refers to a person's tendency to experience ambiguous, unclear, or contradictory information as unpleasant, stressful, or even threatening. People with high ambiguity intolerance seek clarity, predictability, and control.




2. Representation of Safety


The representation of safety refers to a mental model or internal sense of protection, stability, and predictability. This can relate to physical, social, or emotional safety—such as the belief that a situation is manageable or foreseeable.




3. Connection Between the Two Concepts


a) Safety as Protection from Ambiguity


  • People with high ambiguity intolerance tend to perceive uncertain or open-ended situations as threatening.
  • For them, the representation of safety acts as a psychological buffer: if they feel safe, they are better able to tolerate ambiguity.

b) Need for Safety as a Reaction to Ambiguity


  • A strong need for safety can be understood as a response to high ambiguity intolerance. Such individuals seek clear rules, structures, and unambiguous information to avoid uncertainty.

c) Cognitive Distortions


  • Individuals with high ambiguity intolerance tend to interpret ambiguous situations negatively, which in turn reduces their sense of safety.
  • This can lead to a vicious cycle: less safety → more stress → lower tolerance for ambiguity → increased need for safety.



4. Real-Life Example


In social situations: A person receives a vague message like "We need to talk."


  • Ambiguity-intolerant person: feels immediate anxiety and stress due to the unclear meaning → low sense of safety.
  • Ambiguity-tolerant person: accepts the uncertainty, remains calm → sense of inner safety remains stable.



5. In Psychotherapy or Education


  • People with high ambiguity intolerance benefit from interventions that strengthen their inner sense of safety, such as structured routines or cognitive restructuring.
  • The goal is to broaden their representation of safety, so they can feel secure even in uncertain situations.



✅ Conclusion:


Intolerance of ambiguity and the representation of safety are two sides of the same coin: the less inner safety a person feels, the harder it is to handle ambiguity — and the more intolerant someone is of ambiguity, the stronger their need for clarity and safety. The ability to mentally represent safety even in uncertain situations is key to tolerance of ambiguity.




2. What cognitive biases are people with ambiguity intolerance prone to?


People with high ambiguity intolerance (i.e., low tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity) are especially prone to a number of cognitive biases. These biases help resolve ambiguity prematurely, often at the cost of accuracy.


Here are some key cognitive biases associated with ambiguity intolerance:




1. Confirmation Bias


  • The tendency to seek out information that confirms preexisting beliefs and ignore contradictory evidence.
  • Connection to ambiguity: Ambiguity creates uncertainty—confirmation helps reduce it.

👉 Example: A person believes someone dislikes them. Ambiguous behavior is interpreted as hostile; positive signals are ignored.




2. Jumping to Conclusions (JTC) Bias


  • Drawing conclusions quickly based on limited or ambiguous information.
  • High ambiguity-intolerant individuals seek fast interpretations—even inaccurate ones.

👉 Example: "My boss looked strange today – I'm probably getting fired."




3. Need for Cognitive Closure (NFC)


  • Strong desire for quick, firm answers—discomfort with ambiguity or open-endedness.
  • Closely linked to ambiguity intolerance.

👉 Result: Premature conclusions, resistance to new or disconfirming evidence.




4. Negativity Bias


  • Ambiguous stimuli are interpreted negatively by default.
  • From an evolutionary standpoint, negative interpretations are "safer."

👉 Example: A delayed reply is taken as rejection.




5. Fundamental Attribution Error


  • Over-attributing others' behavior to personality rather than context.
  • Offers a simple explanation in ambiguous social situations.

👉 Example: "She's rude – not: she's having a bad day."




6. Overgeneralization


  • Drawing broad conclusions from a single event.
  • Makes the ambiguous world feel more predictable, albeit inaccurately.

👉 Example: "One bad interview – I'm bad at all interviews."




7. Intolerance of Uncertainty Bias


  • Treating uncertainty itself as dangerous or threatening.
  • Not just a symptom, but a driver of other biases.

👉 Result: Excessive worry, safety behaviors, avoidance.




✅ Conclusion:


People with ambiguity intolerance tend to adopt cognitive shortcuts to create clarity quickly, sacrificing accuracy and openness. These biases reduce anxiety in the short term, but can lead to long-term problems like chronic stress, overgeneralization, and vulnerability to mental health issues (e.g., anxiety, perfectionism, or obsessive-compulsive traits).


My commment: Due to the arbitrary abuse by my mom in my childhood I have a strong need for the feeling of safety. But I don't feel safe. I overcompensate that by creating a safety in my head. My head nudges me into the direction I could look inside the mind of my opponent. I try to predict their behavior because of immense anxiety. People told me they consider me very self-aware but not this quantum physics professor. I think I have many false positive results when I consider that someone thinks something bad about me. It looks like I am very critical of myself but I only project my own anxieties into the mind of others. And as chatGPT says its a vicious cycle. My anxiety becomes worse and worse. And in some sense it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because these thinking fallacies make social interactions more complicated. I don't know how to actually break through them.

The problem is not though I had one bad experience and I extrapolate my future with that. It is rather I have countless of horrible life events and it is difficult to cling to a miracle. This is why I am not sure whether it is actually a negativity bias when even therapists agree with the hopelessness.

I think the fundamental attribution error is certainly something I suffer from. Especially, in dating I notice this error. Jumping to conclusions is so true in my case.

I think I am analyzing the minds of other people. I look at my case from the perspective of that quantum physics professor. And it is interesting because it gives me new insights in my own biases. But isn't this approach flawed when I am actually doing what he adviced against? Pretending like I could read the minds of others. However, trusting my therapists (his suggestion) is also not perfect because they have given me up and never in any sense could deliver such a sophisticated and thorough analysis of my thinking like he did.

What do you think about it?
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Hugs
Reactions: katagiri83 and Praestat_Mori