Dr. Michael Cørnwall

01/29/2026

Repetition often outruns evidence, and belief settles in before thought arrives.

Send a message to learn more

01/29/2026

Society trains us to accept untested ideas as truth so quickly that, once absorbed, they resist correction not because they are true, but because they feel settled.

Send a message to learn more

01/29/2026

The Illusion of Control: Why Human Agency Has Been Fundamentally Misunderstood

Michael Cornwall, PsyD, PhD
Cornwall Counseling
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States

Abstract

The concept of personal control is foundational to Western psychology, culture, and moral reasoning, yet it is largely unsupported by neuroscience, cognitive science, and lived human experience. This paper argues that human beings do not have control over their thoughts, emotions, physiological reactions, or external outcomes as commonly assumed. Instead, what is often labeled as control is more accurately described as delayed influence operating within biological and contextual constraints. The persistent conflation of control with choice and decision-making has contributed to widespread self-blame, shame, and ineffective approaches to emotional regulation and mental health treatment. Drawing on neuroscience, cognitive psychology, Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), and mindfulness-based frameworks, this essay reframes human agency as participatory rather than commanding. Mindfulness is examined not as a technique for controlling internal experience, but as a deliberate stance toward uncontrollable phenomena. By abandoning the illusion of control and redefining responsibility in biologically realistic terms, individuals and clinicians can reduce psychological suffering and engage more effectively with the realities of human functioning.

Keywords: control, mortality, agency, mindfulness, REBT, neuroscience, emotional regulation

If Human Beings Truly Possessed Control, Mortality Would Be Optional

Western psychology and culture are built on a deeply flawed assumption—that human beings possess meaningful control over themselves and their lives. From childhood onward, individuals are taught to regulate emotions, direct thoughts, suppress unwanted reactions, and shape outcomes through willpower. Self-control is framed not only as a skill, but as a moral obligation. When people fail to meet this expectation—as they inevitably do—the failure is interpreted as weakness, laziness, or lack of discipline.

This paper advances a more unsettling but more accurate claim: human beings do not have control in the way the concept is commonly understood, and much psychological suffering arises from insisting that they should. What is commonly labeled as control is better understood as delayed influence constrained by biology, learning history, and context. The persistent confusion between control, choice, and decision-making has distorted how responsibility, emotion, and mental health are conceptualized.

Control Fails at the Level of Definition

Control implies authority: the ability to initiate, alter, or stop an experience at will. Applied to emotional life, control would require choosing when anxiety appears, how long anger lasts, or whether sadness arises at all. Human experience does not support this premise. Thoughts arise spontaneously. Emotions activate automatically. Physiological responses unfold prior to conscious awareness.

Neuroscientific research demonstrates that emotional appraisal occurs in subcortical systems before cortical reasoning is engaged (LeDoux, 1996). Conscious awareness follows neural activation rather than initiating it. Even voluntary action is preceded by measurable neural activity before conscious intention is reported (Libet et al., 1983). Consciousness, rather than commanding experience, often narrates it after the fact.

Biology Does Not Ask Permission

The human nervous system evolved for survival, not compliance with rational intent. Emotional reactions are not malfunctions but adaptive responses shaped by conditioning and context. The body does not consult values, goals, or self-concept before reacting.

Attempts to control internal experience reliably intensify distress. Thought suppression increases the frequency and emotional salience of thoughts (Wegner, 1994). Emotional suppression elevates physiological arousal rather than resolving it. The more individuals attempt to dominate their internal states, the more reactive those states become.

The failure is not due to insufficient effort.
The failure is the expectation of control itself.

Choice and Decision Are Mistaken for Power

The illusion of control persists because choice and decision-making are mistaken for authority over outcomes. Individuals may choose to remain calm or decide to respond rationally, yet those decisions do not govern whether anxiety arises, whether the body escalates, or whether cognition narrows under stress.

Decisions occur within constraints; they do not remove them. When outcomes fail to match intention, individuals are encouraged to interpret this mismatch as personal failure rather than conceptual error. In clinical settings, this misunderstanding compounds shame and reinforces helplessness.

Responsibility Without Command

Rejecting control does not eliminate responsibility; it clarifies it. Responsibility does not require preventing internal events from occurring. It requires responding skillfully once they occur. Human beings are not autonomous agents standing outside biology. They are adaptive systems shaped by reinforcement, learning, and context.

Change is not commanded.
Change is trained.

Over time, individuals may notice earlier, pause longer, and respond more flexibly. These changes are probabilistic and cumulative—not instantaneous or absolute.

Mindfulness Works Because It Abandons Control

Mindfulness is frequently misrepresented as a technique for regulating or controlling internal experience. Framed this way, mindfulness becomes another failed control strategy. Properly understood, mindfulness is not control at all—it is a decision and a stance.

One does not choose what arises in consciousness; one chooses whether to attend to it and whether to interfere with it. Mindfulness is the deliberate act of remaining present with experience as it unfolds, without suppression or avoidance (Kabat-Zinn, 1994). Emotional softening or physiological settling may occur, but these are secondary effects—not outcomes that can be demanded.

Mindfulness works precisely because it relinquishes the demand for mastery.

REBT and the Illusion of Emotional Authority

Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) clarifies the limits of agency when stripped of control language. Individuals do not control activating events (A), nor do they control the automatic belief appraisals (B) that arise in response. Emotional and physiological consequences (C) follow without conscious consent.

Agency exists not in preventing these processes, but in examining beliefs after they arise (Ellis, 1994). Disputation does not retroactively control emotion; it alters the probability of future appraisals. REBT succeeds not by granting control, but by cultivating influence through repetition and learning.

The Psychological Cost of Pretending Otherwise

The belief in control carries a hidden cruelty. When individuals believe they should manage their internal world, emotional disruption becomes evidence of failure. Anxiety is framed as weakness. Anger becomes a moral defect. Sadness becomes pathology.

Abandoning the illusion of control often produces relief. Emotions become signals rather than enemies. Thoughts become events rather than commands. Psychological health shifts from dominance to adaptability.

Conclusion: Agency Without Fantasy

Human beings do not control their thoughts, emotions, bodies, or outcomes as cultural narratives insist. What they possess instead is awareness, learning capacity, and the ability to respond over time. Neuroscience, mindfulness, and REBT converge on the same conclusion: control was never the mechanism of change.

Letting go of control does not diminish responsibility.
It grounds responsibility in reality.

References

Cornwall, M. (2026). The illusion of control: Why human agency has been fundamentally misunderstood. Unpublished manuscript.

Ellis, A. (1994). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy (Rev. ed.). Carol Publishing Group.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go, there you are: Mindfulness meditation in everyday life. Hyperion.

LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. Simon & Schuster.

Libet, B., Gleason, C. A., Wright, E. W., & Pearl, D. K. (1983). Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). Brain, 106(3), 623–642. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/106.3.623

Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101(1), 34–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.34

01/23/2026

The Unacclaimed Personality Disorder:
Subthreshold Pathology, Social Adaptation, and the Limits of Diagnosis

Michael Cornwall, PsyD, PhD
Cornwall Counseling Group

Abstract

Personality disorders represent some of the most impairing and enduring forms of psychopathology, yet they remain diagnostically controversial and frequently underrecognized. Beyond formally diagnosed categories lies a substantial population of individuals who exhibit persistent maladaptive personality patterns that cause significant functional impairment while failing to meet categorical diagnostic thresholds. This paper introduces the construct of the “unacclaimed personality disorder” to describe clinically meaningful but unrecognized personality pathology. Drawing on categorical and dimensional models, the paper examines historical limits of diagnosis, diagnostic avoidance, social camouflage of pathology, and the implications of subthreshold personality dysfunction for treatment and prevention. The unacclaimed personality disorder is conceptualized not as a new diagnosis but as a diagnostic blind spot that reflects systemic limitations in psychiatric nosology. Recognition of this population requires a shift toward dimensional assessment, severity-based formulation, and earlier intervention to reduce chronic impairment and improve clinical outcomes.

Keywords: personality disorder, subthreshold pathology, dimensional diagnosis, ICD-11, DSM-5 alternative model

The Unacclaimed Personality Disorder: Subthreshold Pathology, Social Adaptation, and the Limits of Diagnosis

Introduction: A Diagnostic Blind Spot

Personality disorders occupy a paradoxical position in modern psychiatry. They are among the most impairing and enduring forms of psychopathology, yet they remain some of the least clearly defined, most contested, and most stigmatized diagnoses in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2022). Within this already ambiguous domain lies a further, largely unarticulated category: individuals who exhibit persistent maladaptive personality patterns that cause interpersonal, occupational, and emotional impairment, yet fail to meet formal diagnostic thresholds. This population—those with unrecognized, subthreshold, or socially camouflaged personality pathology—may be conceptualized as suffering from what can be termed an “unacclaimed personality disorder.”

The notion of an unacclaimed personality disorder does not refer to a discrete diagnostic entity but rather to a structural problem in psychiatric nosology: the existence of clinically significant personality dysfunction that remains undiagnosed, untreated, or mislabeled due to limitations in categorical diagnostic systems (Livesley, 2012; Widiger & Mullins-Sweatt, 2009). These individuals often present with chronic relational instability, affective dysregulation, rigid cognitive styles, and impaired self-concept, yet are described instead as “difficult,” “high-conflict,” “burned out,” or simply “personality problems” (Hopwood et al., 2018). The unacclaimed personality disorder, therefore, represents not a new diagnosis, but a diagnostic blind spot.

Historical Limits of Categorical Personality Diagnosis

Historically, personality disorders have been defined categorically, with discrete thresholds separating “disordered” from “normal” personality. This approach, formalized in DSM-III and retained through DSM-5-TR, assumes that pathology begins at an identifiable boundary (APA, 2022). Yet decades of research have demonstrated that personality traits are continuously distributed in the population and that impairment increases gradually rather than categorically (Krueger & Eaton, 2015). Subthreshold personality pathology is common, clinically meaningful, and strongly predictive of functional impairment, service utilization, and poor treatment outcomes (Skodol et al., 2005; Tyrer et al., 2015).

Individuals with unacclaimed personality pathology often fall into what Tyrer and Johnson (1996) described as “personality disorder not otherwise specified” or what later models conceptualize as moderate personality dysfunction. These individuals may exhibit pervasive rigidity, interpersonal mistrust, emotional volatility, or compulsive control, yet not meet full criteria for borderline, narcissistic, avoidant, or obsessive-compulsive personality disorders. Despite this, longitudinal studies demonstrate that subthreshold personality pathology predicts chronic depression, anxiety, occupational instability, and relationship dissolution more strongly than many Axis I disorders (Skodol et al., 2005).

Diagnostic Avoidance and the Reluctance to Name Personality Pathology

One reason such pathology remains unacclaimed is diagnostic avoidance. Clinicians are often reluctant to diagnose personality disorders due to stigma, concerns about damaging the therapeutic alliance, and pessimism regarding treatability (Lewis & Appleby, 1988; Shea et al., 1990). As a result, personality pathology is frequently reframed as mood disorders, adjustment disorders, or trauma-related conditions, even when maladaptive personality traits are primary drivers of impairment (Zimmerman et al., 2018). The unacclaimed personality disorder thus persists not because it is rare, but because it is systematically overlooked.

Social Adaptation and the Camouflage of Pathology

A second reason lies in the adaptive camouflage of many personality traits. Individuals with high-functioning narcissistic, obsessive, or paranoid traits may achieve professional success, social status, and apparent stability while simultaneously producing significant relational harm (Ronningstam, 2016). Their pathology becomes socially reinforced rather than clinically questioned. Rigid perfectionism may be rewarded in corporate culture; emotional detachment may be misinterpreted as professionalism; grandiosity may be mistaken for leadership (Millon & Davis, 1996). In such contexts, pathology becomes invisible until later life, when relationships collapse, burnout emerges, or aging disrupts compensatory structures.

Dimensional Models and the Continuum of Personality Dysfunction

From a structural perspective, the unacclaimed personality disorder aligns closely with dimensional models of personality pathology. The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders defines personality pathology in terms of impairments in self and interpersonal functioning, combined with maladaptive trait domains (APA, 2022). Similarly, the ICD-11 adopts a severity-based model in which personality disorder is diagnosed along a continuum from mild to severe (World Health Organization [WHO], 2019). These models explicitly acknowledge that clinically significant personality dysfunction exists below traditional categorical thresholds.

In this framework, the unacclaimed personality disorder corresponds most closely to mild or moderate personality dysfunction: stable impairments in identity, self-direction, empathy, or intimacy that produce enduring difficulties but may not reach the dramatic severity of classic borderline or antisocial presentations (Bach & First, 2018). Importantly, such dysfunction is not benign. Even mild personality pathology predicts increased health-care utilization, higher rates of comorbidity, and poorer response to standard treatments for depression and anxiety (Hopwood et al., 2018; Tyrer et al., 2015).

Clinical Presentation and Treatment Implications

Clinically, the unacclaimed personality disorder often presents indirectly. Patients may seek treatment for chronic dissatisfaction, repeated relationship failures, workplace conflict, or persistent anxiety that does not respond to conventional interventions. Over time, patterns emerge: rigid attribution of blame, intolerance of ambiguity, unstable self-esteem, or chronic interpersonal sensitivity (Livesley, 2012). Yet without a personality framework, treatment becomes symptom-focused rather than structural, leading to repeated partial remissions and recurrent relapse (Clark, 2007).

The consequences of leaving such pathology unacclaimed are significant. First, it perpetuates ineffective treatment. Evidence-based therapies for personality pathology—such as schema therapy, mentalization-based treatment, and transference-focused psychotherapy—are rarely offered unless a formal diagnosis is made (Bateman & Fonagy, 2016; Young et al., 2003). Second, it externalizes responsibility. Without a personality formulation, maladaptive patterns are attributed solely to external stressors, reinforcing rigidity rather than promoting insight (Hopwood et al., 2013). Third, it delays prevention. Subthreshold personality pathology in adolescence strongly predicts adult psychiatric morbidity, yet early intervention remains rare (Cicchetti & Rogosch, 2002).

Implications for Theory, Diagnosis, and Prevention

The concept of an unacclaimed personality disorder therefore highlights a systemic failure: a gap between the reality of personality dysfunction and the structure of diagnostic practice. It is not that such disorders are unknown to science; it is that they remain unnamed in practice. As Widiger and Mullins-Sweatt (2009) argue, the future of personality diagnosis lies not in adding new categories, but in recognizing severity, trait structure, and functional impairment across a continuum.

In this sense, the unacclaimed personality disorder is best understood not as a new diagnosis, but as a clinical reminder. It refers to the large population of individuals whose lives are shaped by enduring maladaptive personality patterns that remain undiagnosed, untreated, and misunderstood. These individuals are not free of pathology simply because they fall short of diagnostic cutoffs. They represent the hidden majority of personality dysfunction, occupying the space between normal variation and formal disorder.

Conclusion

Ultimately, acknowledging this population requires a shift in both theory and practice. It requires moving from categorical to dimensional thinking, from symptom suppression to structural formulation, and from diagnostic avoidance to diagnostic responsibility. Only then can the unacclaimed personality disorder become not a blind spot, but a central focus of prevention, treatment, and clinical understanding.

⸻

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.; DSM-5-TR). American Psychiatric Publishing.

Bach, B., & First, M. B. (2018). Application of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders. BMC Psychiatry, 18(1), 351. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1908-3

Bateman, A. W., & Fonagy, P. (2016). Mentalization-based treatment for personality disorders: A practical guide. Oxford University Press.

Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (2002). A developmental psychopathology perspective on adolescence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.70.1.6

Clark, L. A. (2007). Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder. In W. J. Livesley (Ed.), Handbook of personality disorders: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 227–255). Guilford Press.

Hopwood, C. J., Wright, A. G. C., Ansell, E. B., & Pincus, A. L. (2013). The interpersonal core of personality pathology. Journal of Personality Disorders, 27(3), 270–295. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2013.27.3.270

Hopwood, C. J., et al. (2018). Personality pathology and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 86(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12329

Krueger, R. F., & Eaton, N. R. (2015). Transdiagnostic factors of mental disorders. World Psychiatry, 14(1), 27–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20175

Lewis, G., & Appleby, L. (1988). Personality disorder: The patients psychiatrists dislike. British Journal of Psychiatry, 153, 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.153.1.44

Livesley, W. J. (2012). Handbook of personality disorders: Theory, research, and treatment (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Millon, T., & Davis, R. D. (1996). Disorders of personality: DSM-IV and beyond (2nd ed.). Wiley.

Ronningstam, E. (2016). Pathological narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder. Current Psychiatry Reports, 18(5), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-016-0680-0

Shea, M. T., et al. (1990). The diagnosis of personality disorders in clinical practice. American Journal of Psychiatry, 147(6), 745–750. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.147.6.745

Skodol, A. E., et al. (2005). Functional impairment in patients with personality disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(10), 1919–1925. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.10.1919

Tyrer, P., & Johnson, T. (1996). Establishing the severity of personality disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153(12), 1593–1597. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.153.12.1593

Tyrer, P., et al. (2015). Personality disorder and clinical outcome. The Lancet, 385(9969), 717–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61919-5

Widiger, T. A., & Mullins-Sweatt, S. N. (2009). Five-Factor Model of personality disorder. Journal of Personality, 77(6), 193–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00589.x

World Health Organization. (2019). International classification of diseases (11th rev.; ICD-11). WHO.

Young, J. E., Klosko, J. S., & Weishaar, M. E. (2003). Schema therapy: A practitioner’s guide. Guilford Press.

Zimmerman, M., et al. (2018). Why clinicians do not diagnose personality disorders. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 79(1), 16m11391. https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.16m11391

12/31/2025

Mask Theory

A Preverbal Model of Emotional State Organization

Overview of the Model

Mask Theory is a biopsychosocial model of emotional functioning grounded in the premise that human cognition evolved before spoken language and remains fundamentally predictive, embodied, and state-based. Rather than treating emotion as a subjective feeling, symbolic appraisal, or cognitive interpretation, Mask Theory conceptualizes emotion as a temporary, whole-organism configuration organized around anticipated threat or safety (Cornwall, 2014, 2018).

The term mask is used deliberately. A mask is not an affect, mood, or trait. It is the organism’s best current answer to a predictive question: What state must I be in to survive this? Once a mask is active, physiology, attention, emotion, and behavior align to support that answer. Thought does not disappear in these states, but it becomes subordinate to survival organization—a process Mask Theory identifies as state capture (Cornwall, 2018).

Within this framework, emotional intelligence is not defined by emotional control or expression, but by state literacy: the capacity to recognize which mask is active, understand its protective function, and facilitate an adaptive transition when the state no longer fits the environment (Cornwall, 2014, 2018).

Evolutionary Foundation

Mask Theory is anchored in the observation that humans survived for tens of thousands of years without spoken language. During that period, cognition could not have depended on narration, explanation, or internal dialogue. It had to function through pattern recognition, anticipation, and bodily readiness.

Before words, humans learned which sensory configurations preceded danger and which preceded safety. These configurations—facial expressions in others, shifts in group behavior, environmental cues—were not interpreted symbolically. They were experienced as readiness for action. This aligns with evolutionary and affective neuroscience perspectives suggesting that emotional responding preceded reflective cognition (James, 1884; Damasio, 1999).

Mask Theory treats this preverbal organization as a conserved form of intelligence rather than a primitive limitation. Under stress, humans do not regress; they revert to an older cognitive system that still governs threat detection and response (Cornwall, 2018).

Core Mechanism: Prediction and State Selection

At the center of Mask Theory is prediction.

Contemporary predictive processing models describe the brain as a system that continuously forecasts what is likely to happen next and prepares the organism accordingly (Bar, 2007; Friston, 2010). These predictions are probabilistic, rapid, and largely preconscious. Importantly, they do not require language.

Mask Theory extends this account by emphasizing state selection rather than discrete response. When a prediction carries sufficient survival or social relevance, the organism organizes immediately. Facial posture shifts, breathing changes, muscles prepare, and attention narrows or broadens depending on whether threat or safety is anticipated.

Emotion emerges as the animation of this predictive state, not as its cause (James, 1884; Damasio, 1999). Once a mask is active, cognition becomes constrained by that state. Beliefs feel rigid not because they are deeply held, but because they are being supported by bodily evidence. Mask Theory identifies this constraint as state capture, a central explanatory mechanism for why insight often fails under stress (Cornwall, 2018; LeDoux, 1996).

Faces and the Earliest Commitment

The face plays a central role in mask activation because it is one of the earliest sites where prediction becomes bodily commitment.

Facial musculature is tightly linked to autonomic regulation through cranial nerve pathways, including trigeminal afferents, which directly influence arousal and readiness for action (Critchley & Harrison, 2013). Changes in facial posture do not merely express emotion; they help organize it.

In predictive processing terms, facial configuration increases the precision weighting of threat or safety predictions (Friston, 2010). In Mask Theory terms, the face marks the moment the organism stops evaluating and starts preparing (Cornwall, 2018).

Fear Masks and Calm Masks

Mask Theory distinguishes between fear masks and calm masks, not as emotional opposites but as different predictive organizations of the same organism.

Fear masks prioritize survival. They mobilize vigilance, urgency, and action readiness. Calm masks prioritize learning, exploration, and social engagement. Both are adaptive. Difficulty arises only when a mask persists beyond its usefulness.

Critically, learning does not occur in fear masks. Fear masks conserve existing predictions. Calm masks allow prediction revision. This distinction explains why therapeutic insight, cognitive disputation, and emotional learning require physiological regulation before they can succeed (Cornwall, 2014, 2018; Friston, 2010).

Regulation and Transition

Because masks are organized preverbally, regulation must also begin preverbally.

Bottom-up regulation—through breath, posture, facial softening, and grounding—introduces new sensory evidence that the predicted danger is not unfolding (Porges, 2011). As bodily evidence accumulates, the confidence of the threat prediction decreases. Only then does cognition regain flexibility.

Mask Theory does not reject language-based or cognitive approaches. It sequences them. Cognitive and belief-based work becomes effective only after the organism exits survival organization (Cornwall, 2018; LeDoux, 1996).

Mask Theory and Emotional Intelligence

Within Mask Theory, emotional intelligence is not emotional mastery, positivity, or suppression. It is timing.

Emotionally intelligent functioning involves recognizing when the nervous system is operating in a preverbal survival mode and resisting the urge to reason prematurely. It involves allowing the body to complete its protective function before asking the mind to explain, interpret, or reframe.

In this way, Mask Theory reframes emotional intelligence as respect for evolutionary sequence rather than control over internal experience (Cornwall, 2014, 2018).

Summary of the Mask Theory Model

Mask Theory proposes that:
• emotion is a whole-organism state organized around prediction rather than a subjective feeling,
• masks are temporary, adaptive configurations rather than traits or pathologies,
• cognition becomes constrained under fear due to state capture,
• learning and belief revision occur primarily in calm states,
• regulation must proceed bottom-up before top-down strategies can succeed, and
• emotional intelligence is best understood as state literacy and sequencing awareness.

Positioning Mask Theory

Mask Theory is not a therapy and does not prescribe technique. It is a foundational explanatory model that clarifies why many therapeutic and educational approaches succeed or fail depending on timing and state.

It complements:
• CBT and REBT by explaining when cognitive disputation is biologically possible (Ellis, 1994),
• ACT by clarifying when acceptance becomes feasible rather than forced,
• somatic approaches by integrating prediction and learning into regulation.

At its core, Mask Theory restores emotional experience to its evolutionary context. It explains why, under stress, words lose authority and the body takes the lead—not because humans are irrational, but because we are thinking the way we did before language existed.

References

Bar, M. (2007). The proactive brain: Using analogies and associations to generate predictions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(7), 280–289.

Cornwall, M. R. (2014). Go suck a lemon: Strategies for improving your emotional intelligence. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Cornwall, M. R. (2018). Grow a pear: A guide to improved emotional intelligence. Independently published.

Critchley, H. D., & Harrison, N. A. (2013). Visceral influences on brain and behavior. Neuron, 77(4), 624–638.

Damasio, A. R. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. Harcourt Brace.

Ellis, A. (1994). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy (Rev. ed.). Birch Lane Press.

Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138.

James, W. (1884). What is an emotion? Mind, 9(34), 188–205.

LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. Simon & Schuster.

Porges, S. W. (2011). The polyvagal theory: Neurophysiological foundations of emotions, attachment, communication, and self-regulation. W. W. Norton.