weak critical thinking and daydreaming

[Gawan]

Hi there,

at the beginning I would like to give a small introduction of who I am, because I haven't done so far, but it seems to fit right now to do so…

1 1/2 years ago I found a chapter  of "the wave" (chapter XXII) more or less coincidentally via google.
Everything has been strange to me, who are the lizzies, why are they „feeding on us“ and what are densities? But then I said to me, I have to give it a go and so I started reading „the wave“ series from the beginning. Read later on for example the SHOTW and ISTOM.
About three years before I found Laura's work, I have been interested in the „flower of life“ movement and the work of  Drunvalo Melchizidek. But all I can say about it, it has been creating more bubbles of wishful thinking, until I plunged into the water that YCYOR is not working…



Through reading the forum, SOTT articles and especially the comments of users, I recognised that my mind is working somehow differently from others, I can't see what many other members can see, to put it straight: I'm naive, a weak-critical thinker and „working“ more or less irrational.

So I started, to do some research on what critical thinking is and and kept wondering why I can't think that way!?

At the beginning I thought it has something to do, because I'm left handed and male, so that I'm „working“ more over the right brain hemisphere (when it can be so easily described) and Candace B. Pert stated in „Molecules of Emotion“: that the corpus callosum is bigger and more developed in women than in men, so that women can „switch“ more easily between the brain hemispheres. But I found than another statement:

_http://www.nysun.com/national/one-election-outcome-certain-a-lefty-will-win/80480/

„Studies have shown that whereas righties favor the left hemisphere of their brain, which controls language, left-handers are more likely to have bilateral brain function, which could allow them to visualize problems more broadly and with more complexity. A higher percentage of mathematicians and scientists are left-handed, and the same is true for artists.“

Emphasis mine

So, I'm still not sure what it is, why I'm a weak critical thinker. Another point came to my mind, for example Gurdjieff said:

Everything has a hand in this: the involuntary imitation of older people on the part of the child […]

Because my father is also a weak critical thinker and I haven't learnt practical things for example: mawing, building a fence, cooking. To do things in a proper order. My parents have done everything for me, when it is going about housework.


Then it also happens to me, that I'm very, very often (when my mind is not in another way occupied) switching off my mind (daydreaming, perhaps it can be also dissociation). I personally call it: running into maybe-futures.
Or Peter A. Facione calls it (who wrote “Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts”)  “the simulation”, that means when I'm imagining how various scenarios will unfold, to think about what will happen and how I will react on a specific situation. (how a conversation will go…) and he describes it further on:

_http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/what&why2006.pdf

[…] these simulations, like movies in our heads, help us prepare and do a better job when the difficult moment arrives. But they can also lead us to have mistaken expectations. People may not respond as we imagined, things may go much differently.

Emphasis mine.

Sometimes it gets so far unless I'm feeling good, that some chemical reactions get triggered. It also happens now and then that I put myself into a position (in this thinking mood), where I get kind of acknowledged by others. Where I talk to others. That could be because I'm shy and introverted, besides I'm expressing myself in photographing and scribbling/spray-painting, so that I have an output, so to speak.


Having said this, these two things (weak critical thinking and daydreaming) are giving me occasionally really the nuts. It is also a deal of, osit when I look back on my past experiences and how I dealt with problems, escaping from reality as it is, to not face the problems I have…



I would be thankful for any given advice!! And Martha Stouts book "Myth of Sanity" is the next book I start to read, to get an better understanding what dissociation is.



And last but not least thanks to you Laura, for your great work!! And also thanks to the many forum members who are participating here for many years!



Joerg.

 

[Buddy]

Hi abcdefghiJoerg,

How do you feel about your critical thinking ability when you re-read your own post? For what it's worth, my reaction is: "not bad".

Through reading the forum, SOTT articles and especially the comments of users, I recognised that my mind is working somehow differently from others, I can't see what many other members can see, to put it straight: I'm naive, a weak-critical thinker and „working“ more or less irrational.

I can relate to that self-observation to some extent as well; as embarrasing as it is to admit.

...and kept wondering why I can't think that way!?

...the same thing I've asked myself.

Then it also happens to me, that I'm very, very often (when my mind is not in another way occupied) switching off my mind (daydreaming, perhaps it can be also dissociation). I personally call it: running into maybe-futures.

My own self-observation seems to indicate the presence of at least one 'little I' that has questionable mental gifts, and stands ready to do my speaking for me when I'm tired or otherwise 'off my guard'. My problem is that I don't always know that I've shifted or slipped until it's too late and I've already put my foot in my mouth. I can go back over something I've said or written and it looks like I was daydreaming...not connected to some essential point(s) that I should have been aware of.

...“the simulation”, that means when I'm imagining how various scenarios will unfold, to think about what will happen and how I will react on a specific situation. (how a conversation will go…)

I can relate to that as well. As I've indicated in a previous post, my own tendency is to do "modeling", where I take what I learn, create 'models' of various appropriate scenarious and calculate my action/reaction ahead of time in an effort to 'be right'.


All in all, I would say: 'Welcome to the forum'; I think you're in the right place! I have learned to trust the feedback from members to help me see my own shortcomings so that I can formulate and carry out self-improvements.

Unfortunately, I'm not qualified or knowledgable enough to answer your specific questions. My only contribution to your thread is probably just limited to letting you know you're not alone.

Good luck to you!

 

[Color]

Hi there,

at the beginning I would like to give a small introduction of who I am, because I haven't done so far, but it seems to fit right now to do so…

Hello abc,

welcome :D

It's an early morning here (in this part of the pocket,) and I may be off to some extent (or completely?), but first observation
of your post is: it's a bit too 'perfect'. You seem to tend to back up and secure urself and your views just a bit 'too much'.
As if there's no room for any questioning/discussion :/ It's just my impression, ofcourse, but the major 'feeling' I got from
your post is 'all the doors closed/secured'.

I would be thankful for any given advice!!

this seems a bit strange, if that was an sencire asking on your part, although I'm also not sure what your asking could be, in the first place - after readily answering, most of your questions, in front, by yourself...

Could it be that you don't know how to put your quest/aim in words and share/ask, cause of some Narcissistic be-perfect programming?

If I'm not way off, then - it's quite a common thing, many of us started introducing ourselves in that way, on this forum...


Alice

 

[Renaissance]

Hi Joerg,

Being left handed, or male, or being raised in a 'weak minded' environment are parts of a machine; being right handed, or female, or raised in a 'strong minded' environment are still parts of a machine. It seems your getting off course by trying to identify causes of mechanicalness when you're actually seeing its parts. Seeking the cause of mechanical behavior is an interesting route of discovery, but I'm not sure if it's putting the cart before the horse. Knowing first how your machine works probably provides a better framework to then understand how it got messed up. Myth of Sanity and the other four essential text go to answer the first. I think Political Ponerology and material on OP's provides material for the second. They do become interrelated and Mountain Crow posted this yesterday as well:

The Fourth Way challenges us to fully remember ourselves one day ago, even one hour ago.

It also teaches that our fragmented selves are a result of being raised in our "civilized" environment:

[From The Prospectus for The Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man]

"Owing to the conditions of modern life, man has departed from his original type, that is to say from the type he should have become by virtue of his surroundings: place, society and culture in which he was born and nurtured.

By their very nature, these conditions marked out for man the paths of development and the final normal type to which he should have attained. The civilisations of our time, with its unlimited means for extending its influence, has wrenched man from the normal conditions in which he should be living. It is true that civilisation has opened up for man new paths in the domains of knowledge, science and economic life, and thereby enlarged his world perception. But, instead of raising him to a higher all-round level of development, civilisation has developed only certain sides of his nature to the detriment of other faculties, some of which it has destroyed altogether. Civilisation has robbed man of the natural advantages of his type, without at the same time providing him with what was needed for the harmonious development of a new type. And from an individually finished man, normally adapted to the nature and the environment in which he was placed and which created him, civilisation has produced a being, torn from his element, unfitted for life, and a complete stranger to all the conditions of his present mode of existence."

It seems during childhood, those with potential higher centers were given the 'wrong tools', which in turn deny individuality from being born at responsible age. The tools provided are most often either pathological or only for the lower centers, ie for organic portals. Ideally, there would be different types of education for the different types of people. As of right now there is relatively no external education to help nurture the development of higher centers. There does seem an internally based education though. Dabrowski saw neurosis as a sign of growth from those who have development potential (the possibility for higher centers) - and of course this is treated as disease in the pathological and lower center based education!

 

[Gawan]

Thanks for the answers!

It's an early morning here (in this part of the pocket,) and I may be off to some extent (or completely?), but first observation
of your post is: it's a bit too 'perfect'. You seem to tend to back up and secure urself and your views just a bit 'too much'.
As if there's no room for any questioning/discussion :/ It's just my impression, ofcourse, but the major 'feeling' I got from
your post is 'all the doors closed/secured'.

No Alice, your impression is very good. It took me some time to write this post and also all the time with the questioning: Shall I post it!? Is anything all-right (is anything perfect)!?
I could be described as "perfectionist", and maybe also sometimes less-emotional (too headed?, that I try to think all the time?), this the impression I got over the time.

But what is this drive to close/secure all the doors? Is it because I'm afraid to know something uncomfortable about myself?

I would be thankful for any given advice!!

this seems a bit strange, if that was an sencire asking on your part, although I'm also not sure what your asking could be, in the first place - after readily answering, most of your questions, in front, by yourself...

Actually, this question was meant honestly, if maybe someone knows how to work with a less critical thinking mind/daydreaming, if there maybe are some books etc.
But as you describe it, sometimes I'm not sure how to (re-)write such things. The questions have a certain (negative?) touch and it looks also this one.

Could it be that you don't know how to put your quest/aim in words and share/ask, cause of some Narcissistic be-perfect programming?

Yeah, it really looks like it.

 

[Bobo08]

Hi Joerg,

First of all, I would say that you are not alone, not by a long shot. Since childhood, most people are programmed to trust authority figures, to accept manipulation and emotional abuse as normal. Under those conditions, gullibility and daydreaming are only to be expected. The Gurdjieff quote you chose is apt: "Everything has a hand in this: the involuntary imitation of older people on the part of the child" Everyone and everything around you contributed to the programming. I don't think being left handed and male have much to do with it other than maybe making you become target for more programming and abuse.

So how did the senior members of this forum got rid of the programming and developed their critical thinking faculty? It is through Work. More specifically, it is a long process of obtaining knowledge from the books and from networking and applying that knowledge to rewiring themselves. It is that process of absorbing the psychological knowledge and more importantly, of experiencing it in themselves that eventually enables them to see it easily in others. And it is hard Work. Nothing comes for free.

In short, if you sincerely desire to change then my suggestion is "Learn." That's what we all are doing here.

 

[Bo]

Hi there Joerg,

Your problem is not that you are a weak critical thinker, it is the illusion that you think you are.

Honestly I don't think it matters very much if you are right handed or left handed or write with your toe. What you could do is mostly observe yourself, But how do you observe yourself?

An advice that I could give is that you buy a book with all the pages blank, and start writing in it every day, write down your behaviour towards other people, your behaviour towars yourself, your ''weird thoughts'', your angry moments etc, after a week or two you might see something you have not seen before. But it is important to do this EVERY day! there will be times that ''you'' don't want to take 10 min to write anything in it at all, because you are ''tired'', so you skip days, if you continue writing in it every day, you will create some will, some intent, to keep on going, from this point you can build up your will.

Like this, writing in it every day, will show you that you are critically thinking about yourself, critically trying to observe yourself.

After a month of having writtin in it, read everything you have written so far, you will then have some shocks about how you behaved towards some people or towards yourself, or how you became so angry about something that was so silly, the really difficult thing about this is the task of being honest to the book.

But you won't be honest to the book, not in the beginning atleast.


Change your assumption that you are weak-criticall-thinker, because you see, it's like self-pity, try to understand it.

A good start for you would be indeed reading The Myth Of Sanity , never forget that you are not one person, you are many.

Cleaning your machine is not easy, it's a freakin pain, and requires much will and effort, in the beginning it's dificullt, but don't rush it, take your time, do it on your own pace.

Hopefully my post was helpfull.

 

[seek10]

Hi Joerg,
Some good suggestions were already given.

Through reading the forum, SOTT articles and especially the comments of users, I recognised that my mind is working somehow differently from others, I can't see what many other members can see, to put it straight: I'm naive, a weak-critical thinker and „working“ more or less irrational.

So I started, to do some research on what critical thinking is and and kept wondering why I can't think that way!?

There can be different definitions to the critical thinking. As for as the cassiopaea related to WORK is concerned, Glossay mentions the following.

Thinking with hammer : http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=22&lsel=T
Thinking Emotional : http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=22&lsel=T
Thinking formatory : http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=21&lsel=T
Thinking Mechanical : http://glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=766&lsel=T

As other pointed out , it is the process of WORK,
first have the desire to modify ,
Have the knoweldge of the machine which includes centers and ones own machines which can be gathered from the books including the suggested psychology books ,
self remember to observe the machines actions ,
parse the actions into different centers ( Mental , physical and emtional centers ) and different I's
etc.

During the process it is necessary to sustain from the intense general law pressures that inevitably come to kick us down . and All these things can't be done with out gathering 'B' influences.
so it is a process . Hang on and network, which is very critical . Most of the times, our self importance makes us not to reveal.

Then it also happens to me, that I'm very, very often (when my mind is not in another way occupied) switching off my mind (daydreaming, perhaps it can be also dissociation). I personally call it: running into maybe-futures.

Regarding the day dreaming , there are lot of possibilities. Some from ISOTM. only after some struggle and self observation, you may get some idea of them.

"Moving center working for thinking center produces, for example, mechanical reading or mechanical listening, as when a man reads or listens to nothing but words and is utterly unconscious of what he is reading or hearing. This generally happens when attention, that is, the direction of the thinking center's activity, is occupied with something else and when the moving center is trying to replace the absent thinking center; but this very easily becomes a habit, because the thinking center is generally distracted not by useful work, by thought, or by contemplation, but simply by daydreaming or by imagination.

"What then is a man to do when he begins to realize that he has not enough energy to attain the aims he has set before himself?
"The answer to this is that every normal man has quite enough energy to begin work on himself. It is only necessary to learn how to save the greater part of the energy we possess for useful work instead of wasting it unproductively.
"Energy is spent chiefly on unnecessary and unpleasant emotions, on the expectation of unpleasant things, possible and impossible, on bad moods, on unnecessary haste, nervousness, irritability, imagination, daydreaming, and so on. Energy is wasted on the wrong work of centers; on unnecessary tension of the muscles out of all proportion to the work produced; on perpetual chatter which absorbs an enormous amount of energy; on the 'interest' continually taken in things happening around us or to other people and having in fact no interest whatever; on the constant waste of the force of 'attention'; and so on, and so on.
"In beginning to struggle with all these habitual sides of his life a man saves an enormous amount of energy, and with the help of this energy he can easily begin the work of self-study and self-perfection.

I would be thankful for any given advice!! And Martha Stouts book "Myth of Sanity" is the next book I start to read, to get an better understanding what dissociation is.

Sure, that is a good start. from another post , here is the psychology books to read if are not aware , http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=9666.0

The Myth of Sanity, by Martha Stout

Trapped in the Mirror, by Elan Golomb

Unholy Hungers, by Barbara Hort

The Narcissistic Family, by Stephanie Donaldson-Pressman and Robert M. Pressman

Drama of the Gifted Child, by Alice Miller

They're essential reading for people who want to work on themselves

seek10

[Moderation : ISOTM quotation tidied]

 

[Renaissance]

Your problem is not that you are a weak critical thinker, it is the illusion that you think you are.

This sounds like a bit like new age gobbledigook. If someone sees their mechanical thinking, it can be quite helpful and and a step towards reality rather than illusion.

 

[Gawan]

Your problem is not that you are a weak critical thinker, it is the illusion that you think you are.

This sounds like a bit like new age gobbledigook.  If someone sees their mechanical thinking, it can be quite helpful and and a step towards reality rather than illusion.   

At the beginning I had some trouble to understand this sentence, but then I figured it out, so to say.

Anyway, the advice with the blank notebook is in my opinion very good. I'm already used to to have a "thought journal", but didn't used it with that intention, to write down -"what I have done today"-. But yeah, I'm by now a little bit aware of the fight to keep on writing, to find excuses: "I'll do it later" and to be honest.
But to have an aim: "to know myself" or "to become free" or something else, is a good reminder to stick to it.

Change your assumption that you are weak-criticall-thinker, because you see, it's like self-pity, try to understand it.

You are right, and it can later on also becoming an excuse for what I'm doing and not doing.

Cleaning your machine is not easy, it's a freakin pain, and requires much will and effort, in the beginning it's dificullt, but don't rush it, take your time, do it on your own pace.

I'll take my time and keep on reading, and at least trying to do. When I think about how I started reading "the wave" and where I'm know some things already changed. But the crux of the matter is, I think, to apply the knowledge. But that's THE WORK.

 

[Laura]

Your problem is not that you are a weak critical thinker, it is the illusion that you think you are.

This sounds like a bit like new age gobbledigook. If someone sees their mechanical thinking, it can be quite helpful and and a step towards reality rather than illusion.

Actually, I think it is quite apropos. Notice that Joerg has written a very "critical thinking" post! He has observed things, drawn inferences, and presented it very logically!

 

[Bo]

Your problem is not that you are a weak critical thinker, it is the illusion that you think you are.

This sounds like a bit like new age gobbledigook. If someone sees their mechanical thinking, it can be quite helpful and and a step towards reality rather than illusion.

Laura already answered it actually.

By realizing that self destructive thoughts brings you nowhere, you can start with what matters, like working on the issue you have, instead of destroying yourself by self-pity.

I hope that it is clarified now.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I agree with Bo and Laura on this one - I think to say "I am a weak critical thinker" is a pretty broad blanket that does not differentiate between specific strengths and weaknesses. But if you truly start to "believe" yourself to be a weak critical thinker then you could literally "create" that reality as belief like that could turn into an "expectation" of yourself. You could artificially stunt your own thinking to conform to that impression and expectation. It's a weird concept but I found that it is very powerful.

Another way to put it is confidence and faith in yourself - or lack thereof. Lack of faith and confidence in yourself create artificial blocks where no real blocks may exist. I think Bo made a good point, it does become like self-pity, and we become just as attached to our own self-loathing and self-pity as we are to self-aggrandizement and self-praise. It's 2 sides of the same coin - but the gist is that we get attached and identified with that impression of ourselves either "good" or "bad". And when that identification forms we literally try to maintain that state (again, whether it is a "negative" or "positive" trait) and conform to it, without consciously realizing we're doing that.

So my advice is to focus on specifics. Yes, we are machines, and yes, we are ponerized and largely confused. But it would be easy to use that as an excuse to do nothing or for incompetence, and to begin to identify with a state of helplessness and powerlessness. But to truly address it I think we must realize that the devil is in the details - and that's where self observation comes in. Don't assume that you're worse than you are, or that you're better. Just observe and address what you observe with faith and confidence in yourself - but without anticipation or assumption (so more like positive mental attitude really). Cassiopedia entries on faith and anticipation shine some light on it. Please keep in mind that we can anticipate external outcomes, but we can also anticipate ourselves to be a certain way because of the aforementioned identification/attachment to an "impression" of ourselves. It's just as bad when it's an illusion of a "positive" quality as it is when it's a "negative" quality. Either way it's an illusion. So with that in mind, here are the cassiopedia entries:

http://www.cassiopedia.org/glossary/Belief_vs._Faith

In QFS discourse, the word belief means a concept which is accepted as a given truth, without necessarily being critically evaluated. The concept often connotates emotional attachment of the believer to the belief.

Belief is sometimes used as the opposite of 'faith.' Belief here means that one has firmly decided that the world is a certain way and holds fast to this view even in the face of evidence to the contrary. In essence, one is attempting to force one's model on the world. 'Faith' in this context implies an open and receptive attitude to the universe. Faith implies trust but does not imply an inflexible judgement on how things must be. Belief is in a sense controlling and scared of being wrong, while faith is adventurous and flexible.

Even though the dictionary definitions of faith and belief are similar, the Cassiopaea material tends to make the above distinction between the two.

http://www.cassiopedia.org/glossary/Anticipation_and_non-Anticipation

The Cassiopaea material discusses anticipation in relation to following one's path or interacting with reality at large. There two sides to the discussion; the first being that one should always anticipate attack in order to avoid problems by preparation; the second is that one should not be fixated on any particular imagined outcome of one's creative efforts because such fixation or anticipation restricts the 'creative flow.'

This is the closest the Cassiopaeans come to discussing 'you create your own reality' or 'YCYOR.'

Intent can invite realization but anticipation of any particular realization metaphysically nullifies the intent. Anticipation is expecting the self to be confirmed, expecting to bend the universe to one's will and thus falls on the side of the service to self principle. Intent is non-personal and can be generally creative in the service to others sense. Anticipation does however have its uses in a world of service to self but this use is for the service to others candidate principally in predicting and blocking possible foreseeable difficulties. This takes the form of simple physical or mental preparedness.

An alternative formulation of the idea could be that if one thinks one must have more money, the idea of having more money is projected into the future and the idea of not having enough money is asserted for the present. In the reverse, if one thinks one could get mugged and therefore avoids the side alley after dark, one asserts that one could be mugged in the future and is safe in the present and to give this idea physical expression even avoids places where muggings are the most common. If any part of mind really influences reality by metaphysically attracting events, it is not the conscious wishing part. If this part has effect on reality, the effect is rather in selecting what is an appropriate perception, hence blocking much information that would otherwise be available. This too has a survival oriented role but it is overexpressed in people who will only accept that which conforms to their assumptions or anticipations.

Another way of thinking about this would be the idea that ignoring something is an invitation for experientially learning this something. This is generally so in the case of ignoring warnings of impending danger. The 'all giving universe' responds by allowing one to experience the danger.

We could say that uses of anticipation are defensive and rooted in knowledge of possible dangers. Anticipation can also be used in a controlling sense when people make precise plans about carrying out a project that has little to do with openness to the 'creative principle.' Such activity is mostly concerned with meeting external requirements or getting confirmation for oneself being in control.

Having internal discipline is a somewhat different matter. Discipline implies staying the course and being consistent, while not "anticipating" specific outside effects as a result of merely expecting them.

The greatest creative contribution in the service to others mode can be realized in a state of not anticipating outcomes or effects while expressing one's fundamental nature or gift. Much work may be required to properly know this gift and where its use is appropriate. It is not a simple process of self-expression, as it includes doing this in accordance with objective reality. Openness to reality is what makes constructive and non-restricting response possible. Without this objectivity and state of non-assumption one is again forcing one's interpretation, even if unconsciously, on reality.

Acting completely on behalf of universal principles and on an unbiased seeing of reality without any desire for the self is vanishingly rare. Still, combining intent with accurate perception can lead one to entirely unexpected openings and synchronicities. Placing too many restrictions on what are acceptable openings may simply lead one to miss them. This is more a manifestation of obsession than objective seeing.

This idea is tied to the adage that knowledge protects. Knowledge of risks makes preparing for them possible and may offer some psychic protection also. Obsession with specific results is not knowledge, it imposes one's subjectivity on the world and thus does not protect, but can invite quite the contrary. Thus flexibility and objective perception are key.

I guess the difference between anticipation of reality to be a certain way vs anticipating yourself to be a certain way is that reality will always be the way it is no matter what you believe, so you'll just be shocked/surprised and often hurt when your anticipation is shattered by reality. But anticipating yourself to be a certain way could be even more dangerous because you actually *can* make yourself that way without knowing you're doing it.

 

[vinny]

I guess the difference between anticipation of reality to be a certain way vs anticipating yourself to be a certain way is that reality will always be the way it is no matter what you believe, so you'll just be shocked/surprised and often hurt when your anticipation is shattered by reality. But anticipating yourself to be a certain way could be even more dangerous because you actually *can* make yourself that way without knowing you're doing it.

and also, if you anticipate too 'optimistically' and believe yourself to be a certain way and have certain level of abilities / knowledge / 'being' etc, when you are not / do not then, again, you'll be shocked/surprised/hurt etc when your anticipation is shattered by reality.

But there is an extra danger that acting from this subjective view of reality can hurt not only yourself, but also others. That's a good reason to be as objective about yourself as possible.

 

[Beau]

By realizing that self destructive thoughts brings you nowhere, you can start with what matters, like working on the issue you have, instead of destroying yourself by self-pity.

I do think that Joerg does have a valid point when he says that critical thinking is a weakness for him. It obviously was not a problem when he wrote his initial post. But the connection he made to daydreaming, or dissociating, is a good one. Maybe Joerg's main problem is related to concentration. When he wrote the first post he had full concentration, so his post was clear and very understandable. Their may be times when he is not focused and this causes him to lose or dampens his critical thinking.

But, I would agree that for him to let this affect him to the point of self-pity would be a waste. If you are aware of your shortcomings, you have a great opportunity to grow and eventually stop doing whatever is causing them. Getting Myth of Sanity and reading it would be a great start in this area.