New insights analyzing my mind - ambiguity intolerance

[noname223]

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?

 

[-Link-]

However, trusting my therapists (his suggestion) is also not perfect because they have given me up

Therapists don't "give up" on patients so much as they come to the realization that they're not qualified enough to continue treating the patient at the level and intensity the patient requires.

To think of therapists as actually "giving you up" is to set yourself up (in your own mind) as a failure or a lost cause, as if you're the problem. You're not the problem. Your underlying mental health conditions and past traumas are the problem.

People with high ambiguity intolerance benefit from interventions that strengthen their inner sense of safety, such as structured routines or cognitive restructuring.

Cognitive restructuring is probably a big one in your case: Reconditioning or rewiring your brain to remember that life isn't just all positive or negative. There's a lot of neutral in life too -- probably most things in life are neutral. So, if your brain is prone to interpreting neutral events as if they're negative (threats, even), then that's something you'd want to work at changing.

I wrote a 9 pages analysis of my mind

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 think in your case you might want to try to limit the amount of time and mental energy you spend on analyzing, because sometimes this can turn into an avoidance technique where it becomes a way to avoid confronting and managing (painful) emotions and feelings.

Between this and your other posts here over time, it's clear you've compiled an amazing amount of knowledge about your situation. But how can you use all this knowledge in a way that reduces your stress and worries and makes it less challenging to live your life?

Due to the arbitrary abuse by my mom in my childhood I have a strong need for the feeling of safety.

I'm not sure what types of therapy you've tried in the past, but you might ask your therapist or doctor about specialized therapy options.

Trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy would specifically address cognitive distortions that developed as a result of your childhood abuse. CBT relates to identifying negative thinking patterns, reframing thoughts, and changing behaviours that reinforce negative moods. The "trauma-focused" aspect would be important in order to ensure the therapy emphasizes safety and is sensitive to past trauma. (CBT involves a lot of analysis, and I'm not sure it would be a good idea to introduce more analysis than what you're already doing, but that would be a discussion to have with your doctor.)

Trauma-informed dialectical behavioural therapy would have you learning how to better manage intense emotions and to better tolerate distress. Again, the "trauma-informed" aspect would be important because standard DBT may not adequately account for the effects of past trauma.

EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing) would be a way of reprocessing your memories and reducing the impact they have on you, now.

IFS (Internal Family Systems Therapy) can be helpful particularly in situations involving complex feelings towards an abuser (for example, still loving and caring for somebody despite that person having abused you in the past). IFS involves looking at the mind as if it has "sub-personalities" or different "parts" or roles, a metaphor to address internal conflict (eg. part of you feels terrified and wants to feel safe, but another part of you wants to push through these feelings).

These are just a few (of many) therapy options. In any case, this assumes you could ideally access a specialized therapist.

my therapists ... never in any sense could deliver such a sophisticated and thorough analysis of my thinking like he did.

I'd consider the possibility that you don't actually need a therapist to analyze you and that what they could do for you is help you tap into your emotions as you move forward. You already answered, "What happened?" Now you want to look at, "What do I do now?" That's where the therapist comes in, and much of this will require you to confront difficult emotions.

I know that you have this in you, somewhere. You're way too bright for this not to be in you. It might be buried under layers of trauma, anxiety, stress, and depression, but the light is in you, somewhere.

 

[noname223]

I told my therapist one theory and she was pretty impressed. I think though she should come up with that stuff and not me using AI searching for what the quantum physics professor told me about my mind.

Here is a list of cogntitive bias I probably have. A lot of things make sense now. And I think my thinking is pretty pathological.

People who have experienced psychosis, are autistic, and suffer from ambiguity intolerance typically show cognitive biases that can overlap from all three areas.

After Psychosis
Typical cognitive biases after psychosis include:

• Jumping to conclusions: Making quick decisions based on limited evidence.
• Overconfidence: Excessive certainty in one's (possibly false) beliefs.
• Bias against disconfirmatory evidence: Difficulty revising one's assumptions despite contradictory evidence.
• Liberal acceptance bias: A low threshold for accepting things as true.
• Metamemory distortions: Impaired confidence in one's memory, such as excessive certainty in false memories.

In Autism Spectrum
Particularly common cognitive biases in autism are:

• All-or-nothing thinking (black-and-white thinking): Difficulty recognizing shades of gray or nuances.
• Catastrophizing: Expecting the worst possible outcome in social or everyday situations.
• Mind reading: Belief that one knows what others think—usually negatively.
• Emotional reasoning: Confusing felt truth with objective reality.
• Additionally, there are weaknesses in executive functions and theory of mind.

In Ambiguity Intolerance
Typical biases and attitudes include:

• Strong simplification: Tendency to categorize things in clear categories (e.g., good vs. bad).
• Need for certainty: Ambiguous situations are perceived as unpleasant or threatening.
• Avoidance or rejection of uncertainty: Uncertain or complex situations lead to anxiety or avoidance.
• Increased tendency toward authoritarian or rigid thinking: To avoid uncertainties.

Overlaps and Interrelations

• People with all three characteristics might especially struggle with immediately interpreting ambiguous information in absolute, often negative terms.
• The risk of premature judgment and ignoring alternative explanations is increased.
• Negative and anxious thought patterns such as catastrophizing and rigidity are further reinforced by low ambiguity tolerance and autistic thinking styles.

These biases do not represent fixed defects but describe typical thinking styles that become especially noticeable in social, new, or ambiguous situations and can impact daily life and emotional balance.

My remarks: I struggle a lot with thinking I was able to do mind reading. And often I catastrophize of what people think of me. My thinking is no strength or feature it is a huge disadvantage and problem.