View Full Version : Using statistics as reassurance
Does anyone else do this? I constantly look up statistics to help myself feel better, but within a few minutes that reassurance is gone and I convince myself that I am one of the 0.00001% of people to get the disease.
Currently worried about ovarian cancer :( Apparently the chances of getting it at the age of 30 are 1 in 15,000. Now get this, my anxiety is so sky high right now that this doesn’t sound all that rare to me. It’s driving me nuts. Usually these things reassure me, but this time I’m just out of my mind with worry :( Bah
tryingtosurvive1
24-01-18, 05:24
while seeking reassurance isn't great, this strikes me as a fairly rational way of doing so
I doubt that it helps much. Look how rare diseases like ALS are and yet the board is constantly inundated with people fearing they have ALS or rabies or a hundred other rare illnesses. Googling to find statistics is still Googling and you are bound to come across the rare cases which you would be better off not knowing about.
Thelegend27
24-01-18, 06:34
Statistics is a good place to start, it shows you what the chances are, which is a good thing as most have low chances. but doing it over and over is obviously not doing much good for your anxiety.
I would actually say this is one of the worst forms of reassurance seeking, primarily because statistics in this case are usually concerned with vast populations and therefore little individual specifity.
At least for me, that would mean a higher likelihood of strengthening my worries (I.e that I am the exception because X number is not that big) as opposed to eroding them.
TheGroundhog
24-01-18, 09:47
All reassurance seeking is destructive. You have to stop all behaviours in this vein, it's vital.
HA is so sneaky, it will say, 'well surely it's okay if I just....'
No, no, no. Whatever your symptom/obsession, don't Google (in any way shape or form), don't talk about it (to anyone, including here), don't check yourself, ever.
It's really hard, and the only way.
Doesn't work for me. I got a syndrome once that was very very rare - from 1 to 6 people in 1 million get it every year. That is 0.0001 to 0.0006 percent. Steven - Johnson syndrome. In my age group (20 to 29) it is found even rarer.
I know the statistics for getting ALS (almost impossible) and yet I knew someone who was in his 30s and got it. So when I went through my ALS fear which one kept popping into my head? It wasn’t the statistic that’s for sure.
I understand what other people are saying, but I find that statistics help me. When the media, or internet in general, is reporting worst case scenarios, I look for the reality of things. I want to know the truth. I can think of several things off the top of my head that are triggers for many people. And if I read that "scary" story and it triggered me, I would research the facts and it stops the madness for me. Knowledge can be very helpful.
Also, I don't constantly look up statistics. I can see where that would be a problem with someone trying to reassure themselves.
If you discover something's a million to one chance, yes, it can help you put it out of your mind.
But what if you find 1/1000 get your feared disease in their lifetime? Or 1/100? Or 1/3? Or you're in the most likely age bracket, or ethnic group? What are you supposed to do with that information?
It doesn't matter. You're still choosing an arbitrary thing you'll probably never have to be scared about, whether it's a 1/1000,000 or 1/10 chance.
What works for some people doesn't work for others. It doesn't mean it's wrong. If statistics help me to rationalize an irrational situation, so be it. If ten minutes of research clarifies something for me, I find it helpful. But I know what works for me.
What works for some people doesn't work for others. It doesn't mean it's wrong. If statistics help me to rationalize an irrational situation, so be it. If ten minutes of research clarifies something for me, I find it helpful. But I know what works for me.
Someone's choice at the end of the day, but if they want advice for dealing with health anxiety long-term it will always be stopping and scaling back reassurance behaviour.
It was my therapist who suggested learning the facts rather than relying on the irrationality of the fears. She knows how my brain works, as do I.
Someone's choice at the end of the day, but if they want advice for dealing with health anxiety long-term it will always be stopping and scaling back reassurance behaviour.
Agreed. While I do agree that certain statistics can prove to be beneficial when one is in the right state of mind (which is often not the case), just the fact one is researching statistics is a reassurance seeking behavior. Besides, how many times have you seen on here the poster convinced they have that 1 in a million illness?
Positive thoughts
TheGroundhog
24-01-18, 13:33
If you just happen across a scare story on the internet, and then chose to refute that sensationalist, shoddy journalism by checking some hard facts, and then feel totally reassured and never think of it again, then that's just fine.
But I'd suggest the person in that scenario doesn't have HA.
If you are constantly seeking out statistics to reassure yourself, but find the reassurance wears off and you need another 'hit' that's problematic behaviour that is feeding your anxiety.
The two are very different things.
It’s all perspective then. For those who suffer from health anxiety, statistics may provide temporary reassurance, but nothing more
Here's an example: A year and a half ago a bat got into my house. It was scary and I spent a week spiraling. My fearful thoughts were based on bits and pieces of nonsense regarding rabies that I had gathered over the years. Prior to a bat flying around in my living room I had never had a rabies fear. I learned about bats, their behaviors, rabies, etc.. The spiraling stopped and I gained a realistic understanding of the situation.
When I talk about sensationalized news, I am not necessarily talking about shoddy journalism. I am talking about replacing the negative news with a positive. An example is the reports about the "deadly flu season" this year. It scared me. I spent five minutes looking up statistics...I discovered that 80-95% of the population do not get the flu. If my thoughts go to "the deadly flu season, I counter it with a positive. A reality.
In case you don't know the basics about CBT:
Automatic Negative Thoughts
"One of the main focuses of cognitive-behavioral therapy is on changing the automatic negative thoughts that can contribute to and exacerbate emotional difficulties, depression, and anxiety. These negative thoughts spring forward spontaneously, are accepted as true, and tend to negatively influence the individual's mood.
Through the CBT process, patients examine these thoughts and are encouraged to look at evidence from reality that either supports or refutes these thoughts. By doing this, people are able to take a more objective and realistic look at the thoughts that contribute to their feelings of anxiety and depression. By becoming aware of the negative and often unrealistic thoughts that dampen their feelings and moods, people are able to start engaging in healthier thinking patterns."
You can have your opinions, folks, but I'll stick with my psychologist who has 25 years experience.
darkside4k
24-01-18, 14:18
Yes, I do this. I even calculate it down to the specific state I live in inside the US lol
I’m pretty sure that most people on this thread have a good understanding of CBT. So how’s all that research working out for you? I guess you are recovered.
---------- Post added at 23:51 ---------- Previous post was at 23:50 ----------
Yes, I do this. I even calculate it down to the specific state I live in inside the US lol
And look how much better you are now. lol
MyNameIsTerry
24-01-18, 14:53
Here's an example: A year and a half ago a bat got into my house. It was scary and I spent a week spiraling. My fearful thoughts were based on bits and pieces of nonsense regarding rabies that I had gathered over the years. Prior to a bat flying around in my living room I had never had a rabies fear. I learned about bats, their behaviors, rabies, etc.. The spiraling stopped and I gained a realistic understanding of the situation.
When I talk about sensationalized news, I am not necessarily talking about shoddy journalism. I am talking about replacing the negative news with a positive. An example is the reports about the "deadly flu season" this year. It scared me. I spent five minutes looking up statistics...I discovered that 80-95% of the population do not get the flu. If my thoughts go to "the deadly flu season, I counter it with a positive. A reality.
In case you don't know the basics about CBT:
Automatic Negative Thoughts
"One of the main focuses of cognitive-behavioral therapy is on changing the automatic negative thoughts that can contribute to and exacerbate emotional difficulties, depression, and anxiety. These negative thoughts spring forward spontaneously, are accepted as true, and tend to negatively influence the individual's mood.
Through the CBT process, patients examine these thoughts and are encouraged to look at evidence from reality that either supports or refutes these thoughts. By doing this, people are able to take a more objective and realistic look at the thoughts that contribute to their feelings of anxiety and depression. By becoming aware of the negative and often unrealistic thoughts that dampen their feelings and moods, people are able to start engaging in healthier thinking patterns."
You can have your opinions, folks, but I'll stick with my psychologist who has 25 years experience.
^ Exactly. It's a known technique and used by medical professionals all the time well beyond just HA. Another member talks about probability as per her therapist. If anyone looks at worksheets such as Thought Records it shows counter evidencing plus re framing a conclusion.
It's about how you use it. Changing from a fear driven reassurance seeking compulsion to a challenging process. We do it with intrusive thoughts as part of CBT.
On a board where people tell each other to trust in medical professionals advice...but I've always found that is changeable when it doesn't suit the narrative :winks:
The trouble can be what we are taught about CBT. It's so short in delivery over here that it's often largely exposure work. I learnt very little about CBT in my therapy but a lot once I joined a peer support charity and started to read about it.
Weasley123
24-01-18, 14:56
I'm addicted tbot too
MyNameIsTerry
24-01-18, 15:10
If you discover something's a million to one chance, yes, it can help you put it out of your mind.
But what if you find 1/1000 get your feared disease in their lifetime? Or 1/100? Or 1/3? Or you're in the most likely age bracket, or ethnic group? What are you supposed to do with that information?
It doesn't matter. You're still choosing an arbitrary thing you'll probably never have to be scared about, whether it's a 1/1000,000 or 1/10 chance.
It's not used in isolation, it's part of a re framing technique that uses counter evidence. So, it's a mere element and this means you can decide if it's relevant or not.
As you show it can also bring a negative with it. But that's the case with many elements of evidence e.g. my GP doesn't think it's cancer but he wants me to have X test. I could choose to use that to reframe as my GP is just ruling out though.
The point about age bracket is interesting. We all will reach that at some point when you consider certain things like cancer. So we do need to be able to confront possibility. We could reframe in ways such as how we are doing healthy things advised by doctors not to expose ourselves to risks or dismiss as it's just part of natural life that we move through such stages but that's not evidence i will get x, y or z.
I agree with Chris, it's a technique but it's about finding something that works. That's not always the same thing but underneath it provides the same environment for change that exploits the same brain processes that are used to learn to be anxious or not.
In terms of intrusive thoughts we are taught not to respond to them in negative ways. We are taught to respond with a positive/neutral to prevent feeding of the fear cycle. Sadly, intrusive thoughts are one discussed mostly on the OCD board yet are totally relevant on the HA one too. Some do it through thought challenging and some through acceptance. Some do both.
TheGroundhog
24-01-18, 16:08
Here's an example: A year and a half ago a bat got into my house. It was scary and I spent a week spiraling. My fearful thoughts were based on bits and pieces of nonsense regarding rabies that I had gathered over the years. Prior to a bat flying around in my living room I had never had a rabies fear. I learned about bats, their behaviors, rabies, etc.. The spiraling stopped and I gained a realistic understanding of the situation.
When I talk about sensationalized news, I am not necessarily talking about shoddy journalism. I am talking about replacing the negative news with a positive. An example is the reports about the "deadly flu season" this year. It scared me. I spent five minutes looking up statistics...I discovered that 80-95% of the population do not get the flu. If my thoughts go to "the deadly flu season, I counter it with a positive. A reality.
In case you don't know the basics about CBT:
Automatic Negative Thoughts
"One of the main focuses of cognitive-behavioral therapy is on changing the automatic negative thoughts that can contribute to and exacerbate emotional difficulties, depression, and anxiety. These negative thoughts spring forward spontaneously, are accepted as true, and tend to negatively influence the individual's mood.
Through the CBT process, patients examine these thoughts and are encouraged to look at evidence from reality that either supports or refutes these thoughts. By doing this, people are able to take a more objective and realistic look at the thoughts that contribute to their feelings of anxiety and depression. By becoming aware of the negative and often unrealistic thoughts that dampen their feelings and moods, people are able to start engaging in healthier thinking patterns."
You can have your opinions, folks, but I'll stick with my psychologist who has 25 years experience.
The 'Deadly Flu Season' headlines are perfect examples of shoddy journalism.
I have been actively engaged in CBT and now also ACT for 7 years.
The examples you are giving are really examples of pretty healthy thinking, and illustrate my first original point exactly.
Personally I'd argue that that kind of undisordered behaviour and thinking is pretty unusual in someone either HA or any other strand of anxiety.
Most people once fused with an idea will get some small relief from facts (unless them are avoiders), then wish to either check those facts again, or seek some other form of reassurance. And then they spiral.
The crux of learning to live with anxiety it learning to tolerate uncertainty, so while statistics might say your chances of the feared thing is 1 in a million, what you need to accept is that 1 might actually be you. And then go about your life.
Anything else is reassurance seeking, which is all always rubbish. Everything someone posts here, the posts that says it's unlikely to be the feared thing, are probably right, but only probably, maybe it is cancer, rabies, whatever. That's the bit you have to learn to live with, not constantly searching for something that will prove your are okay.
That’s a great post groundhog and you demonstrate an excellent understanding of HA. Can I ask you if you are recovered? ��
---------- Post added at 10:21 ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 ----------
:)
MyNameIsTerry
25-01-18, 04:56
The 'Deadly Flu Season' headlines are perfect examples of shoddy journalism.
I have been actively engaged in CBT and now also ACT for 7 years.
The examples you are giving are really examples of pretty healthy thinking, and illustrate my first original point exactly.
Personally I'd argue that that kind of undisordered behaviour and thinking is pretty unusual in someone either HA or any other strand of anxiety.
Most people once fused with an idea will get some small relief from facts (unless them are avoiders), then wish to either check those facts again, or seek some other form of reassurance. And then they spiral.
The crux of learning to live with anxiety it learning to tolerate uncertainty, so while statistics might say your chances of the feared thing is 1 in a million, what you need to accept is that 1 might actually be you. And then go about your life.
Anything else is reassurance seeking, which is all always rubbish. Everything someone posts here, the posts that says it's unlikely to be the feared thing, are probably right, but only probably, maybe it is cancer, rabies, whatever. That's the bit you have to learn to live with, not constantly searching for something that will prove your are okay.
A therapist doesn't have someone Googling over & over though. That's the misconception about this. If they feel someone can't use certain types of evidence, they will account for that in their work. If they feel they can, they do it in a healthy manner.
Healthy manner = note down counter evidence. This may involve a quick grab of a statistic from a reputable place.
Unhealthy manner = Google the stats, panic, Google some more stats, keep Googling, etc. Use of any site whether trusted or BS.
It's not about reassurance seeking, it's about counter evidence and reframing a conclusion. At that point you stop. You refer to your counter evidence & conclusion, you don't keep Googling.
The same can be argued with a Behavioural Experiment. I had to do some of these. The therapist gets you to engage in an unhealthy behaviour (for the purpose of this example, I'm well aware they are used for various types of experiment) but adds in steps to judge the impact and what you feel at the end. And then you stop. You don't keep doing them, you do them once.
So, when Chris says this (and not forgetting his medical professional of 25 years who knows more than all of us uses this technique :winks:) I think some people may be misperceiving how you work it.
---------- Post added at 04:56 ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 ----------
It was my therapist who suggested learning the facts rather than relying on the irrationality of the fears. She knows how my brain works, as do I.
Chris,
Just to add on to what you are saying some may find it interesting to see the CCI modules that are promoted on NMP (see sticky above) and by Robin who is a fully qualified therapist.
Page 9 of this module talks not about stopping internet use but how to change your habits around it.
http://www.cci.health.wa.gov.au/docs/ACF88A2.pdf
Ultimately it's all about living with uncertainty though. Statistics don't protect you. There are no guarantees. Who knows what will happen today, tomorrow or whenever?
---------- Post added at 08:59 ---------- Previous post was at 08:57 ----------
It all boils down to this really.
TheGroundhog
25-01-18, 09:04
That’s a great post groundhog and you demonstrate an excellent understanding of HA. Can I ask you if you are recovered? ��
---------- Post added at 10:21 ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 ----------
:)
I don't think I'll ever consider myself 'recovered', one of the principals of ACT is acceptance. I am an anxious person, I was even as a child. I will always return to anxious behaviours when stressed. I do have blips.
However I know how to cope now, I know which behaviours will send me spiralling. I don't indulge in them, if I catch myself, I know to stop.
Some days I am very anxious but it is a blue moon now when it stops me. You just have to take that anxiety with you and go about your day. The longer you carry it and keep moving the lighter it gets.
MyNameIsTerry
25-01-18, 09:21
Ultimately it's all about living with uncertainty though. Statistics don't protect you. There are no guarantees. Who knows what will happen today, tomorrow or whenever?
---------- Post added at 08:59 ---------- Previous post was at 08:57 ----------
It all boils down to this really.
Absolutely.
Changing the mindset to be positive and accepting of life's shades of grey (not the 50 kind :blush:)
I don't think I'll ever consider myself 'recovered', one of the principals of ACT is acceptance. I am an anxious person, I was even as a child. I will always return to anxious behaviours when stressed. I do have blips.
However I know how to cope now, I know which behaviours will send me spiralling. I don't indulge in them, if I catch myself, I know to stop.
Some days I am very anxious but it is a blue moon now when it stops me. You just have to take that anxiety with you and go about your day. The longer you carry it and keep moving the lighter it gets.
I think this approach is what we should all try to aspire to.
The 'Deadly Flu Season' headlines are perfect examples of shoddy journalism.
I have been actively engaged in CBT and now also ACT for 7 years.
The examples you are giving are really examples of pretty healthy thinking, and illustrate my first original point exactly.
Personally I'd argue that that kind of undisordered behaviour and thinking is pretty unusual in someone either HA or any other strand of anxiety.
Most people once fused with an idea will get some small relief from facts (unless them are avoiders), then wish to either check those facts again, or seek some other form of reassurance. And then they spiral.
The crux of learning to live with anxiety it learning to tolerate uncertainty, so while statistics might say your chances of the feared thing is 1 in a million, what you need to accept is that 1 might actually be you. And then go about your life.
Anything else is reassurance seeking, which is all always rubbish. Everything someone posts here, the posts that says it's unlikely to be the feared thing, are probably right, but only probably, maybe it is cancer, rabies, whatever. That's the bit you have to learn to live with, not constantly searching for something that will prove your are okay.
I think a lot of it does come down to where people are on their own journey. Personally, I have used statistics quite a lot in dealing with my HA, not for re-assurance as such, but for context and perspective. To use an example, the trigger for me spiralling into full blown HA was a cancer scare at the beginning of last year (that was actually the straw that broke the camels back after a whole heap of life issues but that's another story!).
I had the tests, got the "all clear" , and went about my business. And then (As we can all recognise), the "what ifs" started. The prescribed medication stopped working after a few months, and the symptoms came back big style.
At that point, I found looking at the numbers really helpful. Because yes, it was of course possible that the test missed something and I really had a cancer. But with the incidence rate in my age group being something like 1 in 20,000, and the test being 95% effective in picking up serious problems, the chances of me having that cancer after a negative test were something like 400,000 to one.
And of course, those numbers meant that in the course of a year, two or three men of my age in the UK would have a negative test but still have the cancer. But what those numbers showed was that while such an outcome was just about possible, it was far more likely that the issue was my mind playing tricks on me. And once I realised that, the symptoms went, and haven't come back. I have another worry at the moment, and a similar use of statistics has kept me on an even keel while the medical process does its thing.
I'm not sure I would have got to that point anything like as quickly without looking at hard facts and making a judgement based on them. Of course, for someone right in the grip of a blind panic, that approach might not be helpful, but i think hard facts and numbers can for some people be a useful way of putting the likelyhood of what they fear into perspective. And rthat perspective can help overcoming the anxiety that is often the real issue.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.