I had a concept in mind, since taking my first philosophy course at City College: deleterious cognition. I knew what it meant, knowledge that can only hurt you with no possibility of helping. I like deleterious cognition as a phrase, but I always had a devilishly hard time defining it (just like ‘catastrophizing pain’, a potentially revolutionary modality for pain management, but for the lack of an agreed on definition). The chairman of the philosophy department, KD Irani, after listening with a furrowed brow to my struggle to define my term, suggested that I might be referring to cognitive dissonance. I wasn’t, but, at nineteen, I couldn’t explain exactly why.

The other day, after an alarmed, alarming call from a kidney specialist about things that showed up on a recent CT scan, I had a moment of insight.

Deleterious cognition is a rumination on actual known facts with no hope of coming to anything but more fear, anxiety and other psychic harm.

In other words, had I taken up any of the numerous email invitations to see the full results of these worrisome scans, I would only open the door to deleterious cognition. I’d be looking at cold scientific facts, context free, with no option but to worry more. Hence, any cognition based on a scary report I have no intelligent way to interpret would be deleterious. Better to wait for a medical consult with someone who can put the scary facts into perspective and offer the best options.

A stickler would quibble about ‘cognition’ in that phrase, since the word means “mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses”. Can a terrified worst case scenario reading of scary medical information, without context, be called ‘cognition’? Who the fuck knows?

All I can say is that pondering the worst facts presented to you, fully considering each terrible piece of information and all of the inevitable extensions, reasonable or not, without the proper training and experience, can only lead to deleterious cognition.