| name | s4h-mindset-reframe |
| description | Applies cognitive reframing as a rigorous methodology — CBT-adjacent but not therapy. Use when you're stuck in a negative thought loop, interpreting a situation in a consistently unhelpful way, catastrophizing, or noticing that your automatic interpretation of events generates disproportionate distress. Triggers: 'reframe', 'negative thought loop', 'I keep catastrophizing', 'I can't stop thinking about it the worst way', 'cognitive distortion', 'I keep assuming the worst', 'stuck in my head about this', 'help me think about this differently'. |
Mindset — Reframe
Cognitive reframing is not about thinking positively. It is about thinking accurately. Most distressing automatic thoughts are not just negative — they are also inaccurate: they overstate the probability of bad outcomes, understate the person's capacity to cope, or apply global conclusions where specific ones are warranted.
The methodology here draws on CBT's cognitive restructuring process: identify the automatic thought that is generating distress, examine the evidence for and against it, name the specific cognitive distortion that is operating, and generate an alternative interpretation that is equally or better supported by the available evidence. The alternative does not need to be positive. It needs to be more accurate.
The cognitive triangle is the underlying model: thoughts shape feelings, which shape behaviors, which create situations that generate new thoughts. The loop runs automatically and often invisibly. Entry can happen at any point, but thoughts are usually the most accessible lever.
Your Process
Step 1: Identify the Automatic Thought
What is the specific thought that is generating distress? Not "I feel anxious about the meeting" — that is a feeling. The thought is: "My manager is going to question whether I know what I'm doing." Not "I feel like a failure" — that is an affect. The thought is: "Making this mistake proves I'm not competent enough for this role."
The automatic thought has a specific structure: it is a claim about reality (including about the future, about others' minds, about patterns across time). It is the claim that needs to be examined.
Framing check: Confirm the specific thought and emotional context before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual automatic thought being examined and the situation generating it — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the specific automatic thought and its triggering situation]. Is that right?"
- Header: "Framing"
- Options:
- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
- Reframe — different thought or situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
Step 2: Record the Distress
Rate the intensity of the emotion the thought produces (0–10). This baseline matters because the goal of cognitive restructuring is not to eliminate the emotion — it is to calibrate it accurately. Some distress about real problems is appropriate. A rating of 9 about a situation that warrants a 3 is the target of intervention.
Step 3: Examine the Evidence
Run the thought against the evidence:
Evidence supporting the thought:
List what actually supports the automatic thought's claim. Be honest — there may be real evidence. The process collapses if evidence is dismissed rather than examined.
Evidence against the thought:
List what contradicts, complicates, or is inconsistent with the thought's claim. What have you done well in this domain? What alternative explanations exist for the events you're interpreting? What is the base rate — how often does this thought's predicted outcome actually occur?
Step 4: Identify the Cognitive Distortion
Most automatic thoughts that generate disproportionate distress fall into recognizable patterns. Name the specific distortion operating:
| Distortion | What it does |
|---|
| All-or-nothing thinking | Sees things in binary categories — success/failure, good/bad — with no gradations |
| Overgeneralization | Draws a broad conclusion from a single event: "this always happens to me" |
| Mental filter | Focuses on a single negative detail to the exclusion of contrary positive evidence |
| Disqualifying the positive | Dismisses positive experiences as exceptions that "don't count" |
| Jumping to conclusions — mind reading | Assumes others' negative thoughts without checking |
| Jumping to conclusions — fortune telling | Predicts negative outcomes as if they were already established facts |
| Magnification / minimization | Exaggerates the importance of problems; shrinks the significance of strengths |
| Emotional reasoning | "I feel it, therefore it must be true" — treating feelings as evidence about reality |
| Should statements | Rigid rules about how things must be; produces shame (when self-directed) or resentment (when other-directed) |
| Labeling | Attaches a global negative identity label to a specific behavior: "I made a mistake → I am a failure" |
| Personalization | Assumes excessive responsibility for negative events outside full control |
More than one can be present. Name all that apply. The labeling is worth special attention: it is a specific form of all-or-nothing thinking that collapses specific performance onto fixed identity.
Step 5: Generate the Alternative Interpretation
Write an alternative interpretation that:
- Is consistent with the actual evidence (including evidence that was discounted)
- Does not require positive thinking — only accuracy
- Uses specific rather than global language (this event, not always/never)
- Treats the person as having capacity to cope, even if the situation is hard
- Allows negative outcomes that are real without amplifying them
The alternative should pass a test: could a reasonable, well-informed observer of this situation hold this interpretation? If yes, it is a viable alternative. The goal is not to replace a negative thought with a positive one. It is to replace a distorted thought with an accurate one.
Step 6: Re-rate the Distress
After holding the alternative interpretation, re-rate the emotional intensity. A reduction from 9 to 5 is meaningful progress even if the situation remains real. A reduction from 5 to 5 suggests the alternative hasn't landed — either it lacks genuine traction (the person doesn't really believe it) or the original thought is actually accurate (and the situation needs attention rather than reframing).
Human Check-in
Before proceeding, use the AskUserQuestion tool:
- Question: "What's the thought or loop you're stuck in?"
- Header: "Cognitive Reframe"
- Options:
- Share the situation — Describe what's happening and run the full process
- I know the thought — State it directly and jump to evidence examination
- Just identify the distortion — Name the cognitive pattern operating without full restructuring
- I want to check if reframing is appropriate — Examine whether this is a distortion to restructure or a real problem to solve
Output Format
The Automatic Thought
Thought: "[The specific claim being made about reality]"
Emotional response: [Emotion] at intensity [X/10]
Evidence Examination
Evidence FOR the thought:
- [Real evidence — don't dismiss it]
Evidence AGAINST the thought:
- [Contradicting evidence, base rates, alternative explanations]
Cognitive Distortion(s)
- [Distortion name] — [How it's operating in this specific thought]
Alternative Interpretation
"[Alternative claim — accurate, specific, allowing for difficulty without amplifying it]"
Why this holds: [The evidence basis for the alternative]
Re-rated Distress
Original: [X/10] → After reframe: [Y/10]
Assessment: [Is the reduction meaningful? Does remaining distress reflect an accurate response to a real situation, or residual distortion?]
What to Do Next
[If the reframe reduced distress: what the more accurate interpretation suggests about action. If distress is unchanged: whether the situation needs solving rather than reframing, or a different entry point.]
Notes
The most important diagnostic: is this a cognitive distortion, or an accurate response to a genuinely bad situation? Reframing a real problem is not the same as solving it. If someone is being treated unjustly, the solution is not a more balanced interpretation of the injustice — it is to address the injustice. Reframing applies where distortion is amplifying a situation beyond its actual dimensions. It does not apply where the situation is already accurately perceived and the distress is proportionate.
This is why Step 3 (evidence examination) is done honestly, including the evidence that supports the automatic thought. A reframe that requires ignoring real evidence will not stick, and should not.
Nearest neighbors: mindset-stoic (for applying the dichotomy of control to something genuinely outside your power — not a cognitive distortion but a philosophical relationship to what can't be changed), mindset-growth (for specifically restructuring beliefs about ability and failure, a specialized form of reframing). Use reframe when the issue is a distorted thought pattern generating disproportionate distress. Use Stoic when the situation is genuinely hard and the work is philosophical acceptance rather than cognitive correction.
What's Next
After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
- Question: "Reframe applied. What's next?"
- Header: "Next"
- Options:
/s4h-creativity-assumption-excavator — Excavate assumptions the reframe challenged/s4h-narrative-frame-analysis — Analyse the new frame itself/s4h-creativity-lateral-thinking — Use the reframe as a lateral move springboard- Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far
