The Governing Body maintain the delusions that they are on a sacred mission as the biblical F&DS by gigantic leaps in logic, brought on anecdotal evidence and cherry picking facts or comfirmation bias, and these things are major causes of depression for those who indulge in this type of reasonings
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-tsilimparis/stress-and-dualistic-mind_b_978230.html
""Throughout our lives, we often inspire undue stress and anxiety by viewing our existence with a "dualistic mind." We create a world of private duality, a world that is limited to fixed or black and white thinking. We do this because it gives us a (false) sense of security and control over life's uncertainties. The dualistic mind tricks us into thinking we have this "life" thing figured out, and we don't have to struggle and search anymore. And that feels good -- but only temporarily.
The truth is this all-or-nothing mentality actually narrows our vision and creates insecurity. For example, the dualistic mind impels us to judge ourselves as:
right or wrong
good or bad
strong or weak
smart or stupid
success or failure
This type of thinking colors all of our experiences and pressures us to live in the irrational realm of extremes. But the color that infrequently exists in the dualistic mind is the "gray." The unflinching dualistic mind has no balance in its thought process. It is all one-sided and usually very inflexible....."
Anecdotal Evidence or cherry picking facts motivated by confirmation bias are featured heavily in Governing Body statements and teachings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
See also: Confirmation bias and Cherry picking (fallacy)
The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes. Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a claim; it is accepted only in lieu of more solid evidence. This is true regardless of the veracity of individual claims. [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ]
The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a "typical" experience; in fact, human cognitive biases such as confirmation bias mean that exceptional or confirmatory anecdotes are much more likely to be remembered. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is "typical" requires statistical evidence. [ 6 ] [ 7 ]
Accounts of direct personal experience are commonly equated to anecdotal evidence where the evidence is anecdote, hearsay or represents a conclusion deduced from generalisation. Unlike anecdotal evidence, the reliability of accounts of personal experience is normally capable of assessment for legal proceedings. [citation needed]
When used in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea, anecdotal reports are often called a testimonial, which are banned in some jurisdictions. [citation needed] The term is