The notion of "Cognitive Distortions" is related to Cognitive Behavior Theory, which I think is a kind of brain washing, the substitution of an ideology to solve neurotic problems. It solves the immediate manifestations of individual problems, by displacing them with whatever the dominant ideology favors, which sinks their causes deeper into the psyche, IMHO.

The notion of "Cognitive Distortions" is related to Cognitive Behavior Theory, which I think is a kind of brain washing, the substitution of an ideology to solve neurotic problems. It solves the immediate manifestations of individual problems, by displacing them with whatever the dominant ideology favors, which sinks their causes deeper into the psyche, IMHO. — Cavacava

Why do you think it's a kind of brainwashing? And why do you think it displaces them to whatever the dominant ideology favours?

I mean, the medical establishment may certainly do that when they apply CBT, but CBT is a practice that can be disentangled from whatever direction the medical establishment is using it to steer people in.

However, CBT seems to have a limitation to me, because it encourages rumination. What if a certain belief is not false, and yet it causes pain? What the patient needs in that case seems to be a detachment from the said belief (known as cognitive distancing), regardless of its truth or falsity. This sort of detachment can often be achieved through mindfulness. ACT therapy is the new CBT, which also combines mindfulness with the process of belief disputation. So this new approach prefers cognitive distancing to disputation of thoughts. I think this is indeed an advancement.

Cognitive Distortions — Posty McPostface

So this is Cognitive Distortions, not cognitive distortions? I looked it up and it refers mostly to psychopathology. Is that how you're using it? How's about a definition.

The doctor/patient relationship favors the doctor over the patient, in a power dynamic. The patient's desire to feel better merges with the patient's desire to please the doctor. It biases the choice of goals in favor of the doctor's views of what is normal or not. That is why I think it is a kind of a brainwashing or mind control.

CBT works. It diminishes symptoms, but I do not think it reaches the source of the issues that caused the symptoms in the first place. It displaces the patients problems with a set of agreed upon goals, ways to solve or avoid symptoms. It is popular because it is quick and therefore easier to study on a clinical basis. From what I read about ACT it seems to seek the core values of the patient and to use these values to assist the patient in creating goals in line with their core beliefs, which makes sense.

Here's the Wikipedia definition:

Cognitive distortions are thoughts that cognitive therapists believe cause individuals to perceive reality inaccurately. These thinking patterns often are said to reinforce negative thoughts or emotions.[2] Cognitive distortions tend to interfere with the way a person perceives an event. Because the way a person feels intervenes with how they think, these distorted thoughts can feed negative emotions and lead an individual affected by cognitive distortions towards an overall negative outlook on the world and consequently a depressive or anxious mental state.

Here's the Wikipedia definition:

Cognitive distortions are thoughts that cognitive therapists believe cause individuals to perceive reality inaccurately. These thinking patterns often are said to reinforce negative thoughts or emotions.[2] Cognitive distortions tend to interfere with the way a person perceives an event. Because the way a person feels intervenes with how they think, these distorted thoughts can feed negative emotions and lead an individual affected by cognitive distortions towards an overall negative outlook on the world and consequently a depressive or anxious mental state. — Posty McPostface

All our minds are subject to illusions, prejudices, fears, superstitions, habits, ideologies, misunderstandings, misperceptions. How are these different from "cognitive distortions" except in origin? Human minds are imperfect. They're more than imperfect - in order to do the job established by evolution to help us survive, our nervous systems, brains, minds must be structured to give us a simplified, distorted view of the world.

That's not to say that the concept of cognitive distortions isn't worth studying in relation to psychopathology, just that it doesn't seem to me to be anything mysterious or different from our other mental processes.

All our minds are subject to illusions, prejudices, fears, superstitions, habits, ideologies, misunderstandings, misperceptions. How are these different from "cognitive distortions" except in origin? Human minds are imperfect. They're more than imperfect - in order to do the job established by evolution to help us survive, our nervous systems, brains, minds must be structured to give us a simplified, distorted view of the world.

That's not to say that the concept of cognitive distortions isn't worth studying in relation to psychopathology, just that it doesn't seem to me to be anything mysterious or different from our other mental processes. — T Clark

I would like to better understand the relationship between cognitive distortions and beliefs in isolation or et ceteris paribus. Meaning, if psychology tells us that we can have beliefs that cause individuals to perceive reality inaccurately, then what does that imply? That a belief can be or is subject to a means of justification about their accuracy with reality, and hence truth or validity in holding them?

The doctor/patient relationship favors the doctor over the patient, in a power dynamic. The patient's desire to feel better merges with the patient's desire to please the doctor. It biases the choice of goals in favor of the doctor's views of what is normal or not. That is why I think it is a kind of a brainwashing or mind control. — Cavacava

Yes, but that's to do with how it is implemented, not with the method itself.

From what I read about ACT it seems to seek the core values of the patient and to use these values to assist the patient in creating goals in line with their core beliefs, which makes sense. — Cavacava

Yes. Many therapists are already moving towards this view anyway. CBT is already old-school, but the popular consciousness doesn't yet realise it.

My first question is why you weigh a philosophy (Solipsism) against a branch of psychology science (Cognitive distortion)?
Parts of philosophy have become sciences but not all, so in fact the unconverted are out side of science's reach.
Let's take an example: Galileo believed in heliocentrism but the Church denied it. He would have been badged as insane because the Church controlled legitimate science at the time.

I mean we need to break it down to smaller questions.

My first question is why you weigh a philosophy (Solipsism) against a branch of psychology science (Cognitive distortion)? — Dzung

I would say because it's a logically sound belief to have yet incredulous to actually believe in. Hence, the question as to what's the whole issue about in regards to the process of belief formation (psychology).

still too broad. Can we pick critical philosophy as a start? Kant, say.
But you wanted something scientific which needs researches. Let's pause for a moment to check if this article is of your interests:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5200943/

Can we pick critical philosophy as a start? Kant, say. — Dzung

Sure, go ahead. I have no ideas on how to analyze the issue, hence the OP.

OK so let's forget science for a minute, though we'll soon see its role, ironically, as a hindrance to the course.

what's the whole issue — Posty McPostface

"No great philosopher has espoused solipsism" (http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/) that's why it's so difficult to linger about. We need to pick up one author in order to analyze instead of the just so called solipsism. Descartes is obvious because of his influential name and many have attributed the philosophy to him.
There is the first problem: Descartes asked for a prerequisite that readers/analyzers must meditate along with him- how many of us can properly? This must be emphasized because the problems raised are so profound that people chose to avoid them. No good enough conceivable reasons such as being far from "common sense" or "egocentric"...etc except for the fact they are on the edge of philosophy, even knowledge in general. Any deviation from the provenance regardless of how subtle could be misleading. Anyhow we are about to apology him for violating the convention and jumping in his mouth for what may not be supposed by himself.
"I think, therefore I am" is how he took the first clue of knowledge - only "my" mind is of certainty, nothing else. Going further to claim nothing else exists, like does solipsism, is a deviation therefore implausible.
The mind's counterpart he considers is the body which is totally different to the mind and so their relationship has still been problematic. How can the immaterial mind interact with the material body? Descartes even refused to give a resolute answer, saying vaguely it doesn't require such proposition. On this account, Kant's solution was "a vis activa" which is a kind of mediating force between. Kant also introduced "transcendental" about the mind, a debateful concept which implies something beyond experiences. I would say both Descartes and Kant are big figures in philosophy but Kant had gone a further step. They appear to be in different manners but deep down they identically refuted empiricism.
Since Kant's years (Enlightenment epochs) human knowledge has biased towards scientific empirical methods more and more - the deviation has been so vast that even the most rational thinking could be challenged or simply ignored. No wonder why solipsism has such a fate.
To be fair, solipsism goes too far without restraint. Looking back at Descartes, his claims were more of a first person cognition in meditation. He sees what other may not or cannot see, perceive or even comprehend. Nevertheless what he saw was quite limited that he could not reach the end of elaboration, saying with respects how sophisticated it was. Keeping in mind he was first a scientist of some noble extent, is also to imply that for him science should be such a trivial tool as anything else he would make use of. Kant was a bit different in contemplation and we can see him as self-enlightened like he explained what enlightenment is. Is that any close to a kind of meditation? Maybe still so far that his "universal" and "transcendental" notions are also about to wear out.