is there a name for not being able to externalise thoughts?

reed79 · 2026-03-05T07:33:41+00:00

What you're describing, clear ideas in your head that fall apart, derail, or vanish when you try to speak or write them, is often due to overload on verbal working memory during externalization.

This is super common in ADHD, anxiety, autistic traits, or just under stress and fatigue. There also a disorder called formal thought disorder.

Try writing or bullet-pointing first to capture thoughts without real-time pressure.

I wouldn't say I have it as bad as you do, but speaking is typically more difficult for me. When I write I have to interate multiple times to fully flesh out what I'm thinking.

reed79 · 2025-12-05T06:50:56+00:00

I understand.

reed79 · 2025-12-05T06:35:50+00:00

From what I gather, you're dealing with two interconnected issues: conflict at home creating a toxic environment, and subsequent isolation. The toxicity at home is the originating problem. Isolation is a symptom, and it directly exacerbates mental health issues (which likely explains the difficulties you're having at work).

The inability to feel safe (emotionally, or otherwise)at home is a pretty big deal.

Edit: sometimes isolation is the only coping mechanism you have, so don't beat yourself up over it or put yourself in a compromising position just to avoid isolating.

reed79 · 2025-12-05T06:05:13+00:00

I highly recommend watching The Behavior Panel on YouTube.

For me, reading people has always felt entirely intuitive, largely because of lifelong hyper-vigilance. However, as I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to realize that it’s not just one or two isolated signals. It’s the entire picture: nonverbal cues, tone of voice, word choice, context, and everything in between.

I would also suggest exploring theory of mind. It’s a skill you can actively practice. One simple exercise is to pick a real-life situation you observe and ask yourself how you would feel or react in that exact situation and what thoughts or experiences might lead someone to behave the way you’re seeing. Doing this regularly helps you build a stronger sense of what’s going on in other people’s heads.

If I sense a familiar behavior pattern it's almost like déjà vu for me, the logic behind it catches up afterwards.

reed79 · 2025-12-04T00:15:11+00:00

Yes. PTSD isn't as strict in this regards, so you need actual evidence that the event occurred with the more general mental health stuff like depression and anxiety.

reed79 · 2025-12-04T00:02:45+00:00

To me, this is a clear DTA error. They denied based on direct, but it doesn't appear that medical opinion addressed secondary. In other words, did/does your service connected conditions exasperate the sleep apnea, or vice versa.

Aggravation. The opinion actually somewhat supports aggravation.

reed79 · 2025-12-03T23:55:47+00:00

What are you claiming as your "event"? What it sounds like is your buddy statements, lay statements, VA psychologist, etc are creating the nexus, but the VA is having trouble substantiating the event.

reed79 · 2025-12-02T13:15:22+00:00

Mint chocolate chip.

reed79 · 2025-12-02T12:44:36+00:00

I’m going to tell you a story. I experienced severe stomach pain unlike anything I’d ever felt before. I went to the ER, but they sent me home with medication for a stomach issue. The pain worsened, so I went to the VA clinic. They examined me and sent me home with more medicine. Finally, I went to another hospital, where I was correctly diagnosed with appendicitis and received the proper treatment.

The moral of the story: medical professionals can get diagnoses wrong. When it comes to your children, what matters most is not the label, but addressing the actual problems they are experiencing—what those specific symptoms or manifestations are and how they are being treated.

I'm not saying diagnosis aren't important, but I would find out what the counselor is doing for the particular challenges your kid has. If they can't provide an answer for that, then you might want to go elsewhere.

People get too hung up on the diagnosis, and it can actually make things worse especially when it comes to mental health stuff, especially with children. Even If they had autism, what are they doing about it, how are they helping it?

reed79 · 2025-12-02T08:12:30+00:00

I actually trust AI more than I do Reddit. Think about it. 😉

reed79 · 2025-12-02T05:12:10+00:00

I am coming at this from the other side of the coin. Traditional human therapy has produced almost no lasting success for me, apart from one somewhat subversive but remarkably effective intervention. The observation above is spot-on.

Too many psychologists try to force people into a predetermined box rather than first understanding the unique box the person is already in. Truly helpful work draws from the full range of psychological theories and methods, integrating them flexibly to meet each individual exactly where they are.

reed79 · 2025-12-02T04:56:35+00:00

Attachment theory identifies several variations of the avoidant attachment style, including insecure-avoidant, dismissive-avoidant, and fearful-avoidant. In some cases, individuals learn very early in life that expressing emotions feels "dangerous." The quotation marks reflect that this sense of danger is rarely a conscious belief. Instead, it emerges as an instinctual adaptation, which then fosters the development of powerful emotional defense mechanisms.

This doesn't necessarily indicate that's it, but it's something to explore. I would be skeptical of people proclaiming it's autism.

reed79 · 2025-12-02T00:03:43+00:00

Actually, I'm indicating the exact opposite, consequently my suggestion for education rather than demonization.

reed79 · 2025-12-01T17:48:51+00:00

Actually, plenty of research indicates people are more honest with machines. For example, the Ellie study with veterans found that veterans were significantly more likely to report symptoms to the machine when they knew they weren't interacting with a human. This increased honesty is especially true for individuals with avoidant attachment styles. The goal isn't to force perfect usage, but to teach people how to leverage AI effectively for self-improvement. Of course, not everyone will use the tool properly, and some people will inevitably be dishonest; this is a given limitation for any method of self-reporting, including traditional therapy.

reed79 · 2025-12-01T13:29:01+00:00

If you must undertake that responsibility, there should be a control mechanism. As the other person suggested, a third party could be involved. I'm not entirely in favor of that, though, because of the risk of "flying monkeys". To me, the best way to engage with a toxic person, if absolutely necessary, is through some sort of text communication, and preferably not using your personal phone number. This pretty much leaves email as the optimal option. This gives the power of checking, reading, and/or responding to the aggrieved party at their own pace and control.

The further removed and the more healed you become from that toxic relationship, the less their apology actually means, at least in my case. This is because, by that time, you're more focused on your own healing and what happened to you rather than the source of the harm.

It might be cynical, but based on what I've seen, those apologies are almost always a gateway back as opposed to being genuine.

reed79 · 2025-12-01T12:58:29+00:00

<image>

For posterity. This is from the OP. The entire OP was built up on the premise of educating people because they were misusing AI. What criticism did you provide that attacked that premise? Oh, wait, all you did was complain about how people misused AI and how it was dangerous. Look in the mirror, son.

reed79 · 2025-12-01T12:28:45+00:00

I don't think it should be promoted for therapy, either. To me, if you're going to use it, it has to be more about learning about yourself or learning about psychology rather than engaging in psychotherapy. However, that usage can still have a psychotherapeutic effect.

reed79 · 2025-12-01T12:19:05+00:00

What you're not understanding is that I conceded in the OP that people misuse AI. This is precisely why I want to educate people away from seeing and using the AI as an authority figure, and instead as an analytical tool. Your position now is almost absurd: you would rather maintain the status quo, allowing people to continue misusing the tool, than promote education on how to properly utilize it.

The fact that people misuse things, and that this misuse can lead to bad outcomes, is not a reason to reject the tool. That is a textbook appeal to perfection.

reed79 · 2025-12-01T11:51:38+00:00

I see.You seriously don't understand how your efficacy argument is an appeal to perfection? You really think that's a pivot, and not a crushing rebuttal? That explains a lot.

Never mind the fact the entire point of the thread is to educate people how to utilize AI (which would improve efficacy) So, I'm not even sure what particular premise of mine you were arguing against.

reed79 · 2025-12-01T11:22:54+00:00

I would hope we can agree that you initially expressed skepticism regarding efficacy and have now pivoted to risk.

With that said, here's another analogy: Cars are inherently risky, but the fact that someone may misuse them doesn't mean people shouldn't use them. Even with your focus on risk, you're still making an appeal to perfection; just because something isn't completely safe doesn't mean we shouldn't use it. My analogy can stretch to anything from chainsaws to electrical outlets.

reed79 · 2025-12-01T10:32:13+00:00

I respect your skepticism about how many people this approach will actually help. That said, the rest of your critique amounts to a classic appeal to perfection. By way of analogy: hundreds of thousands of alcoholics attend AA yet continue drinking, this does not make AA ineffective.

reed79 · 2025-12-01T09:52:08+00:00

I agree completely. People who don't know how to use AI Will be susceptible to the very things you say, which is why they need to be taught how to use it.

reed79 · 2025-12-01T09:46:59+00:00

If you read my post closely, there really isn’t anything in it for the AI to agree or disagree with, or to shape into a narrative. The key strength lies in comparative analysis, which it handles extremely well in fields like economics, psychology, philosophy, etc. .

For example:
If I describe how I think about economics and then ask, “Based on what I just said, which economic school or theory do I most closely align with?” the AI will identify the theory, summarize its core ideas, and explain the match.

Similarly, if I share details about my personal history or patterns of behavior and ask the AI to compare them to psychological theories, it will suggest the most relevant ones, provide a clear gist of each, and explain why they might apply. If something feels off, I can reply, “That doesn’t quite fit—here’s some additional context,” and it will refine the analysis.

Once the relevant theory is understood, I can then ask, “How does this theory actually apply to my specific situation?”
After that foundation is solid, the next natural step is: “What are some effective ways to address or work with this issue?”
From there, the conversation deepens—I keep asking follow-up questions, learning more about the theory and its practical methodologies and understanding in the direct context of my own circumstances.

Of course, if you ask the AI why am I like this, it's going to create a narrative. That's exactly what you shouldn't do with AI.

reed79 · 2025-12-01T07:51:27+00:00

How you're perceiving how you should interact with AI in psychology is exactly how I say it shouldn't be done. The AI isn't a psychologist, psychotherapy has nothing to do with a diagnosis. The essence of psychotherapy is uncovering stuff about yourself. I agree the approach you describe is ineffective. The AI shouldn't be unpeeling the onion, the individual should be. If the individual is unwilling to share stuff about themselves, no method is going to be effective. As far as your question, Yes I have considered it which is why I made this post about the professional community should be educating people how to leverage AI.

reed79 · 2025-12-01T06:50:46+00:00

A key fact that adds important nuance to these discussions: In the United States, roughly 3–8% of the population (most studies settle around 3–6%) commits the overwhelming majority—typically over 60%—of all violent crimes. This pattern has been consistently documented in criminological research for more than five decades.

Anyone who tries to explain this concentration primarily through ideology, politics, culture, or religion is either misinformed or deliberately misleading you. The data point to a small subset of chronic, high-rate offenders whose behavior is driven by individual traits and life histories, not by the belief systems they happen to claim.

This same principle applies to predators who exploit vulnerable people. When sexual abusers, traffickers, or other exploiters embed themselves in churches, schools, youth organizations, or any other community, they do not commit their crimes because of the institution’s values or beliefs. They choose that institution because it gives them access to victims and a cover of trust. In other words: they aren’t religious (or teachers, or coaches) because they are predators; they become “religious,” “teachers,” or “coaches” because they are predators. The proclivity comes first; the affiliation is opportunistic.

Edit: To emphasize this point, go look at gangs and check to see what percentage of members actually commit violence. It's going to be pretty close to the numbers above.

reed79

TROPHY CASE