Unhappy Anti-Stoics

Thursday, August 13th, 2015

We may be training the next generation to be unhappy anti-Stoics:

Nearly all of the campus mental-health directors surveyed in 2013 by the American College Counseling Association reported that the number of students with severe psychological problems was rising at their schools. The rate of emotional distress reported by students themselves is also high, and rising. In a 2014 survey by the American College Health Association, 54 percent of college students surveyed said that they had “felt overwhelming anxiety” in the past 12 months, up from 49 percent in the same survey just five years earlier. Students seem to be reporting more emotional crises; many seem fragile, and this has surely changed the way university faculty and administrators interact with them. The question is whether some of those changes might be doing more harm than good.

For millennia, philosophers have understood that we don’t see life as it is; we see a version distorted by our hopes, fears, and other attachments. The Buddha said, “Our life is the creation of our mind.” Marcus Aurelius said, “Life itself is but what you deem it.” The quest for wisdom in many traditions begins with this insight. Early Buddhists and the Stoics, for example, developed practices for reducing attachments, thinking more clearly, and finding release from the emotional torments of normal mental life.

Cognitive behavioral therapy is a modern embodiment of this ancient wisdom. It is the most extensively studied nonpharmaceutical treatment of mental illness, and is used widely to treat depression, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, and addiction. It can even be of help to schizophrenics. No other form of psychotherapy has been shown to work for a broader range of problems. Studies have generally found that it is as effective as antidepressant drugs (such as Prozac) in the treatment of anxiety and depression. The therapy is relatively quick and easy to learn; after a few months of training, many patients can do it on their own. Unlike drugs, cognitive behavioral therapy keeps working long after treatment is stopped, because it teaches thinking skills that people can continue to use.

The goal is to minimize distorted thinking and see the world more accurately. You start by learning the names of the dozen or so most common cognitive distortions (such as overgeneralizing, discounting positives, and emotional reasoning; see the list at the bottom of this article). Each time you notice yourself falling prey to one of them, you name it, describe the facts of the situation, consider alternative interpretations, and then choose an interpretation of events more in line with those facts. Your emotions follow your new interpretation. In time, this process becomes automatic. When people improve their mental hygiene in this way — when they free themselves from the repetitive irrational thoughts that had previously filled so much of their consciousness — they become less depressed, anxious, and angry.

The parallel to formal education is clear: cognitive behavioral therapy teaches good critical-thinking skills, the sort that educators have striven for so long to impart. By almost any definition, critical thinking requires grounding one’s beliefs in evidence rather than in emotion or desire, and learning how to search for and evaluate evidence that might contradict one’s initial hypothesis. But does campus life today foster critical thinking? Or does it coax students to think in more-distorted ways?

Let’s look at recent trends in higher education in light of the distortions that cognitive behavioral therapy identifies. We will draw the names and descriptions of these distortions from David D. Burns’s popular book Feeling Good, as well as from the second edition of Treatment Plans and Interventions for Depression and Anxiety Disorders, by Robert L. Leahy, Stephen J. F. Holland, and Lata K. McGinn.

Burns defines emotional reasoning as assuming “that your negative emotions necessarily reflect the way things really are: ‘I feel it, therefore it must be true.’?” Leahy, Holland, and McGinn define it as letting “your feelings guide your interpretation of reality.” But, of course, subjective feelings are not always trustworthy guides; unrestrained, they can cause people to lash out at others who have done nothing wrong. Therapy often involves talking yourself down from the idea that each of your emotional responses represents something true or important.

Emotional reasoning dominates many campus debates and discussions. A claim that someone’s words are “offensive” is not just an expression of one’s own subjective feeling of offendedness. It is, rather, a public charge that the speaker has done something objectively wrong. It is a demand that the speaker apologize or be punished by some authority for committing an offense.


Because there is a broad ban in academic circles on “blaming the victim,” it is generally considered unacceptable to question the reasonableness (let alone the sincerity) of someone’s emotional state, particularly if those emotions are linked to one’s group identity. The thin argument “I’m offended” becomes an unbeatable trump card. This leads to what Jonathan Rauch, a contributing editor at this magazine, calls the “offendedness sweepstakes,” in which opposing parties use claims of offense as cudgels. In the process, the bar for what we consider unacceptable speech is lowered further and further.


If our universities are teaching students that their emotions can be used effectively as weapons — or at least as evidence in administrative proceedings — then they are teaching students to nurture a kind of hypersensitivity that will lead them into countless drawn-out conflicts in college and beyond. Schools may be training students in thinking styles that will damage their careers and friendships, along with their mental health.


  1. Alrenous says:

    Emotions do always represent something true and important. However, that thing is rarely straightforward, and is rarely thought to be anything but straightforward.

    Discounting a part of yourself like that is immediately punished by inciting self-distrust. In the long term it would be exactly as destructive as emotional reasoning, were CBT taken seriously.

    “I’m offended,” is extremely far from an unbeatable trump card. There are byzantine rules determining who is allowed to be offended by what and whom. As the stupid example, white males are only allowed to be offended on some certain other’s behalf.

  2. A Boy and His Dog says:

    It’s interesting The Atlantic chose to run this indictment of the last 40 years of “progressive” management of the educational system. The comments are amusing though. Apparently a good number of Atlantic readers choose to blame evil conservatives.

  3. Graham says:


    Well put. I am persuaded by CBT to a fairly high degree, but there need to be limits to everything — even Stoicism and Buddhism. Our emotional experience is not reality; sometimes it is a very distorted perception indeed, but it isn’t unreal either. It’s part of what we are.

    We can use these kinds of ways of thinking to gain better perception of how others act, or what is driving others to act in certain ways, or of how external situations are developing, and we should be doing all that, but our desires are our desires. They may need to be redirected or tamed, but they can’t simply be declared somehow unreal. That I would expect to do more psychological harm than good.

  4. Bill says:

    “… it is generally considered unacceptable to question the reasonableness (let alone the sincerity) of someone’s emotional state, particularly if those emotions are linked to one’s group identity.”

    For years, I’ve been struck by the deliberate conflation of reasoned argument with psychotherapy. Reasoned argument is the whole point of intellectual life in liberal arts courses; without it, parents are just buying their children useless certificates.

    Perhaps I should have the following printed on a card, so I can present it to anyone I’m having a discussion with:

    “Your counselor or therapist or psychiatrist may have made recommendations for you and perhaps your immediate family regarding your care and well-being, but I am not obligated to participate in your psychotherapy.”

    (Of course, that’s a micro-aggression right there…)

  5. Candide III says:

    Re Alrenous, Graham: Indeed. “[The neo-Victorians'] ability to submerge their feelings, far from pathological, was rather a kind of mystical art that gave them nearly magical power over Nature and over the more intuitive tribes.  Such was also the strength of the Nipponese.”

  6. Isegoria says:

    I could have sworn that passage came up when I discussed The Diamond Age a while back.

Leave a Reply