Post Election Stress Disorder

November 4, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

National elections are tough times for those of a bi-partisan nature, not to mention a blogger who comments on the negative effects of emotional pollution. I’d like to think that we are the silent majority, those of us who long for civility and respect in the discourse of decent people presenting their vision and plans for the nation. After all, poles say that the public is fed up with negative campaigning with its misleading and often downright false advertising. We’re appalled at the costs of this election cycle, which exceeds that of the Revolutionary War and the duration that nearly doubles our participation in World War I. This election has been so disappointing because it held out promise to be better. Both candidates really seemed above personal and negative attacks. The use of the military word, "campaign," to describe political contests is apt; the first casualty in war and politics is truth. The maelstrom of the election has been personal for me, as my dearest friends and closest relatives are at the extreme – though not radical or reactionary – ends of the political spectrum. My inbox is bombarded by negative points about the policies and characters of both candidates and their running mates. Passionate arguments that would not, to be kind, pass peer review on their merits are put forth by good and bright people. I understand that certainty is an emotional, not an intellectual state that requires limiting the amount of information considered and that political campaigns are designed to exploit bias rather than reveal it. Still, I wonder how they can be so certain about such enormously complex problems. But then I am probably confusing personal tastes and biases with an objective and informed analysis of problems. Political passions are closer to, "I don’t know anything about art, but I know what I don’t like." And I am no better for trusting those who are the most certain the least. Part of my post election stress disorder may be due to the fact that I’m vastly overworked. I specialize in couples living in resentment, anger, or emotional abuse. Two conditions greatly increase demand for my services: economic crises and national elections. When they occur together, it’s like a perfect storm of family contention. I have written previously in this blog about how so many people download and recycle the negativity in their environment and ultimately take it out on the closest people to them. A web of emotions connects us all, for better or worse. I long for a politician to realize that to make the country stronger, we must love the people closest to us, respect and tolerate the differences of everyone, and let compassion spread through the web of emotion that connects us all, for the better.

Continued here: 
Post Election Stress Disorder

Investing in Stress Reduction

October 9, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

The Dow Jones Industrial Average just took its biggest one week drop ever! The evening news scares us more each day. Expecting not to be stressed in such times is unrealistic. Yet stress is deadly; just a few of the conditions associated with high stress include heart disease, stroke, obesity, headaches and Alzheimer’s Disease. In fact, health care expenses are 50% greater for workers with high levels of stress. Stress can even make you a worse investor: Acting out of fear and stress is the very thing that can get us to sell low and buy high. Lessening your stress will improve your business smarts, and, more important, improve your life in ways no amount of money can. Yet few people bother. Below are just a few ways to apply some financial principles to the non-financial parts of your life. 1. List your assets . No, not your financial ones; your really important ones. Would you sell your eyes for a million dollars? Your arms? Your family and friends? Add up what you have and what it’s worth to you, then reassess whether you had a bad day or not. This may help put your life in perspective and decrease your stress. 2. Practice accurate accounting . The market plunges and you tell yourself, "This is a catastrophe." Simply replacing that phrase with "This is unfortunate" will decrease your stress. Given point #1, it is also probably more accurate. 3. Take the long view . At an art museum recently, I viewed some amazing sculptures made well over 2,000 years ago. As I marveled over this artwork, I pondered the generations after generations of people who have struggled with day-to-day hassles and emotions. The latest in a long line, my short-term hassles seemed less extraordinary and more manageable. 4. Take the short view . Tune into what is happening right now. What are the emotions, thoughts, and physical sensations that make up your current experience? Note them without judgment, then accept them for what they are. By doing this, you are less likely to get depressed about being depressed and stressed about being stressed. After this assessment, pay full attention to the task at hand. 5. Diversify . You probably know that it is safer to diversify your portfolio, but it is every bit as important to diversify your life. If you spend most of your time at work, and that becomes your self-identity, then, in essence, all your eggs are in one basket. Something goes wrong at work, and you are miserable. However, if your self-identity involves family, friends, and hobbies, then a bad day at work doesn’t leave you emotionally bankrupt. 6. Take advantage of non-taxing breaks . Finding tax breaks can save you money. But taking breaks from your taxing day can save you even more money by keeping your stress level low and your long-term health high. If you don’t know how to relax, try the free relaxation exercise at www.stressremedy.com/relax . 7. Do the research . You wouldn’t invest in a stock without knowing about its business fundamentals, yet too many of us are risking everything on the ultimate investment-our lives and well-being-without understanding the fundamentals of what creates well-being. Learning simple stress-reduction skills can make you happier and more fulfilled, while improving your relationships and work performance. (Shameless plug: Take the Stress Out of Your Life has a ton of important info packed into an easy-to-read book and two CDs for low price in these tough financial times.) There are great courses that teach these skills. (For instance, there are  Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction classes throughout the world). You may find spending your time on these endeavors to be the wisest investment you’ve ever made!

Read the rest here: 
Investing in Stress Reduction

The Power to Be Vulnerable (Part 1 of 3)

October 4, 2008 in Blogs by Psychology Today

Part 1–Denying Vulnerability: "You’re Really Making Me Angry!" To feel anxiety and not back away from whatever’s causing it requires marked self-control. Resisting the temptation to avoid anything we experience as threatening takes considerable courage. We humans are so wired that the slightest perception of danger leads to feelings of vulnerability, setting into motion the impulse to flee, freeze or dissociate. And that sudden flash of trepidation can be prompted by anything that threatens our sense of control. It could, for instance, relate to sharing ourselves personally in a way that exposes us to the other’s indifference, disapproval, or anger. When we confide our thoughts and feelings in another, we may also fear that our sharing won’t be reciprocated. Or that it could be used against us. Or that it won’t be empathized with, or validated. And our deepest sense of vulnerability arises when we find ourselves in situations that tap into primal fears of abandonment. Or evoke its opposite, engulfment–where our personal boundaries feel so threatened that we fear losing our very self. Finally, whether our self-protective impulse to escape such situations is blindly followed or consciously withstood depends on our ability to stay calm during periods of emotional imbalance. And such composure isn’t at all "natural." Rather, it’s a strength–or power –that we need to deliberately cultivate. Frequently, when we stand firm in menacing situations, we’re able to do so only through the anaesthetizing emotion of anger. Getting angry with people who provoke our distress enables us to blame and negate them, and thus neutralize the uncomfortable feelings they’re causing us. But reactively becoming angry isn’t about overcoming our anxiety so much as covering it up. All we’re really doing here is masking feelings of uneasiness or insecurity by summoning up a self-vindicating sense of righteousness. For example, when a person experienced as crucial to our welfare (say, our spouse) sharply criticizes us, we’re likely to feel threatened, our emotional equilibrium suddenly turned upside down. Very few of us can simply "sit" with the criticism, objectively evaluate its merits, and respond accordingly. On the contrary, unless we depressively slink away from our mate, we’re likely to experience a strong urge to react antagonistically–attempting to protect against the felt assault to our self-esteem by either strenuously defending ourselves or by attacking them right back. Thrown off balance by the criticism, desperate to restore a positive sense of self, we look for a way– any way–to discredit our "assailant." But the immediate sense of strength our defensive anger yields is finally much less like bravery than bravado. And beyond allaying our anxiety, it doesn’t solve a thing. We haven’t coped with the threatening situation by sharing honestly and directly about how it made us feel (i.e., vulnerable), but merely substituted a much less disturbing feeling to camouflage our distress. For the moment, we’ve successfully resorted to anger to quiet our fears, but this anxiety reduction has been achieved mostly at our partner’s expense. And when we get into the habit of alleviating uncomfortable feelings by getting mad at our spouse, we invariably end up creating more discord in our relationship–setting ourselves up for continuing conflict (and of course the need for more and more anger). Power struggles in relationships are in fact mostly efforts to get our dependency needs met without ever confessing to our mate the anxiety their refusal would cause us. And typically we’re not at all conscious of how much our deepest feelings of security hinge on our partner’s positive response. Yet even if we were aware of the primal source of our relational fears and frustrations, it’s unlikely we’d be willing to take the risk of straightforwardly admitting these unmet needs–whether for attention, reassurance, empathy, support, validation, or simple warmth. The readiness to honestly and unashamedly admit these needs simply calls for more psychological courage than most of us have available. To betray just how dependent on our spouse we were (with all the vulnerability such dependency implies) would likely only exacerbate our most secret fear that we couldn’t be sufficiently cared about–or that maybe we weren’t even worth being so cared about. And if we were actually to reveal just how much power our partner had over our feelings, how could we avoid further endangering our sense of personal safety in the relationship? Along with our fears, most of us also feel a certain shame about divulging our dependencies. After all, as adults it’s almost always considered a virtue to be autonomous and self-reliant, whereas the mere suggestion of neediness is generally associated with being weak. So even though all of us may have quite legitimate dependency needs left over from childhood, revealing our hurt feelings when they’re not being met would expose our susceptibility to a degree that hardly seems tenable. And so we’re far more likely to criticize our partners when they ignore or deny us–or angrily demand from them what they’ve already refused–than to openly confess feelings of deprivation. But by self-protectively reacting to them negatively and taking out our frustrations on them, we decrease yet further the chance that in the future they’ll be more inclined to provide us with the succor we may so desperately need from them. Anger is certainly one of the most common ways we protect against feeling vulnerable. But how do we counteract such feelings without defaulting to the pseudo-empowering reaction of anger? When we’re feeling accused, devalued, powerless, rejected, or unloved, how do we stay in touch with the anxiety these feelings typically generate and literally think ourselves out of anxiety–eventually getting to the other side where we’re able to feel safe and okay? How, in short, can we muster the strength to deal more openly with all the things that imperil our sense of well-being? Psychologically, accomplishing this feat of staying present and holding onto our emotional poise when it feels under siege may well be one of our greatest challenges in life. But if we can develop this ability, we’ll likely discover a sense of personal power greater than any we’ve ever experienced. And in learning how to share our hurts–and our fears of being hurt–we may at last realize our potential for emotional intimacy, one of the greatest rewards of a committed relationship. Cultivating such an invaluable personal resource–one that may well represent the ultimate in self-control–lies in our ability to (1) self-validate, and (2) self-soothe. NOTE: Part 2 of this post will center on how we can become more self-validating, while Part 3 will take up the various ways we can learn to better soothe ourselves.  

Here is the original post:
The Power to Be Vulnerable (Part 1 of 3)

Avatar of PsyBlog

by PsyBlog

Why Loud Music in Bars Increases Alcohol Consumption

September 17, 2008 in Blogs by PsyBlog

When the music goes up, the beers go down. At some point during the evening, in bars across the land, two things happens: the lights go down and the music goes up. Lowering the lights signals the real beginning of night-time fun: with dimmed lights and alcohol beginning to work its magic the business of loosening up after the day’s exertions can truly begin. But turning the music up so loud that people are forced to shout at each other doesn’t have quite the same beneficial effect on social interactions. Because everyone is shouting, the bar becomes even noisier and soon people start to give up trying to communicate and focus on their drinking, meaning more trips to the bar, and more regrets in the morning. Of course this is exactly what bar owners are hoping for. People sitting around quietly nursing their drinks for hours are no good for profits. Talkers aren’t the best drinkers. At least that is the received wisdom in the industry. And this received wisdom turns out to be accurate according to field studies conducted in French bars by Professor Nicolas Guegen and colleagues. Drink up One study by Gueguen et al. (2004) ( PDF ) found that higher sound levels lead to people drinking more. In a new study published in Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research , Gueguen et al. (2008) visited a bar in the west of France to confirm their previous finding in a naturalistic setting. Here, they observed customers’ drinking habits across three Saturday nights, in two different bars in the city. The level of the music was randomly manipulated to create the conditions of a true experiment. It was either at its usual volume of 72dB or turned up to 88dB. For comparison: 72db is like the sound of traffic on a busy street while 88db is like standing next to a lawnmower. Sure enough when the music went up the beers went down, faster. On average bar-goers took 14.5 minutes to finish a 250ml (8 oz) glass of draught beer when the music was at its normal level. But this came down to just 11.5 minutes when the music was turned up. As a result, on average, during their time in the bar each participant ordered one more drink in the loud music condition than in the normal music condition. The observers even measured the number of gulps taken to finish each drink – the level of the music was found to have no effect on this. So the faster drinking was as a result of more gulps rather than bigger gulps. Drinking instead of talking? Since the volume of the music was randomly manipulated this experiment suggests that louder music causes more drinking, but what it doesn’t tell us is why. Some think that people drink instead of talking while others have argued that they drink more because the music creates greater levels of arousal, which then leads to more drinking. Evidence from a study carried out in pubs in Glasgow, Scotland by Forsyth and Cloonan (2008) does back up the idea that people do, at least partly, drink because they can’t talk to each other. Perhaps further studies comparing lone drinkers with dyads and bigger groups would confirm or disprove this idea. Whatever the real reason, or combination of reasons, this kind of study is very persuasive about the causal connection between louder music and more drinking because the experimenters have taken the time to go to a bar, set up the random experimental manipulation and then actually observe people to see what they do in a real live environment. On top of that, from the point of the view of the participant, I think it would definitely enhance your night-out to find out that you’d been inadvertently furthering psychological science by sinking a few cold ones. Or is that just the researcher (or beer-drinker) in me coming out? » This is part of a series on the psychology of the everyday . [Image credits: john and Thomas Hawk ] » Sponsor : Visit www.parinc.com for quality psychological assessment tools, great service, and fast shipping.

Read more:
Why Loud Music in Bars Increases Alcohol Consumption

The Path to Unconditional Self-Acceptance

September 9, 2008 in Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Self-Esteem vs. Self-Acceptance Though related, self-acceptance is not the same as self-esteem. Whereas self-esteem refers specifically to how valuable, or worthwhile, we see ourselves, self-acceptance alludes to a far more global affirmation of self. When we’re self-accepting, we’re able to embrace all facets of ourselves–not just the positive, more "esteem-able" parts. As such, self-acceptance is unconditional, free of all qualification. We can recognize our weaknesses, limitations and foibles, but this awareness doesn’t interfere with our ability to fully accept ourselves. I regularly tell my therapy clients that if they genuinely want to improve their self-esteem, they need to explore what parts of themselves they’re not yet able to accept. Ultimately, liking ourselves more (or getting on better terms with ourselves) has mostly to do with self-acceptance. And it’s only when we stop judging ourselves that we can secure a more positive sense of who we are. Which is why I believe our self-esteem rises naturally as soon as we stop being so hard on ourselves. And it’s precisely because self-acceptance involves far more than self-esteem that it’s generally seen (as self-esteem is not) to be crucial to our happiness and peace of mind. What Determines Our Self-Acceptance (or Lack of Same) in the First Place? Similar to our experiencing self-esteem, as children we’re able to accept ourselves only to the degree we feel accepted by our parents. Research has demonstrated that before the age of eight, we lack the ability to formulate a clear, separate sense of self–that is, other than what has been communicated to us by our caretakers. So if our parents are unable, or unwilling, to transmit the message that we’re totally okay and acceptable–independent, that is, of our hard-to-control, sometimes errant behaviors (which, understandably, may frustrate or disappoint them)– we’re primed to view ourselves with ambivalence. The positive regard we receive from our parents may depend almost totally on our behavior, and we unfortunately learn that a considerable number of these behaviors are parentally unacceptable. So, naturally identifying ourselves with these objectionable behaviors, we inevitably come to see ourselves as in many ways unacceptable. Additionally, adverse parental evaluation can, and frequently does, go far beyond individual behaviors. For example, parents may give us the more general message that we’re selfish-or that we’re not thin enough, smart enough, attractive enough, good enough, "nice" enough, and so on. As a result of what most mental health professionals would agree represents a subtle form of emotional abuse, almost all of us come to regard ourselves as only partially–or conditionally –acceptable. In consequence, we learn to regard many aspects of our self negatively, painfully internalizing the felt rejection we too often felt at the hands of over-critical parents. And this tendency toward self-criticism is at the heart of most of the problems we unwittingly create for ourselves as adults. That is, given how the human psyche operates, it’s almost impossible not to parent ourselves as we were parented originally. If our caretakers dealt with us in a hurtful manner, as adults we’ll find all sorts of ways to perpetuate that unresolved hurt onto ourselves. If we were frequently ignored, accused, berated, blamed, taunted, chastised, or physically punished, we’ll somehow contrive to carry on this indignity. So when (figuratively, at least) we "beat ourselves up," we’re typically just following our parents’ lead. Having to depend so much on our caretakers when we were young–and thus experiencing little authority to question their "mixed verdict" on us–we felt obliged to assume the basic validity of their appraisals. This is hardly to say that our parents constantly put us down. But, historically, it’s well-known that parents are far more likely to let us know when we do something that bothers them than to acknowledge us for our more positive, or pro-social behaviors. In fully comprehending the reservations we come to have about ourselves by the time we’re adults, we obviously need to add (besides all the negative parental feedback we received) the disapproval and criticism we were subject to by teachers, relatives–and, especially , our peers, who, struggling with their own parentally-induced self-doubts, could hardly resist making fun of our frailties whenever we innocently "exposed" them. At any rate, almost all of us enter adulthood afflicted with a certain negative bias. We share a common tendency to blame ourselves, to see ourselves as bad, wrong, or in some way defective. It’s as though we all, more or less, suffer from the same chronic "virus" of self-doubt. . . . So How Do We Become More Self-Accepting? Learning to be More Self-Compassionate Whereas accepting ourselves unconditionally (despite our deficiencies) would have been almost automatic had our parents transmitted a predominantly positive message about us-and, additionally, we grew up in a generally supportive environment-if that really wasn’t the case, we need on our own to learn how to "certify" ourselves, to validate our essential ok-ness. And I’m hardly suggesting here that independently confirming ourselves has anything to do with becoming complacent, only that we get over our habit of constantly judging ourselves. If deep within us we’re ever to feel–as our normal state of being–happy and fulfilled, we must first rise to the challenge of complete, unqualified self-acceptance. As Robert Holden puts it in his book Happiness Now! "Happiness and self-acceptance go hand in hand. In fact, your level of self-acceptance determines your level of happiness. The more self-acceptance you have, the more happiness you’ll allow yourself to accept, receive and enjoy. In other words, you enjoy as much happiness as you believe you’re worthy of [emphasis added]." Perhaps more than anything else, cultivating this capacity for self-acceptance requires that we learn how to be more compassionate toward ourselves. For only when we better understand and forgive ourselves for everything we’ve regarded as blameworthy can we obtain the relationship to self that till now may have eluded us. To adopt a more loving stance toward ourselves–perhaps the key prerequisite for self-acceptance–we must develop a detachment that allows us to see ourselves as representative of all human beings–endeavoring to fit in and somehow prove ourselves to others (just as, initially, we may have felt we needed to justify our existence to our caretakers). And, also like virtually everyone else, our behaviors–misguided or not–simply reflect our efforts to counteract the legacy of our parents’ conditional love. Undertaking such a heartfelt exploration of what I’d call our well-nigh "universal plight" almost inevitably generates increased self-compassion. And it’s through this compassion that we can learn to like ourselves more, to view ourselves as worthy of love and respect by virtue of our very willingness to confront, and struggle against, what we find most difficult to accept about ourselves. In a sense, we all bear scars from the past and are among the ranks of the "walking wounded." And the very recognition of our common humanity can inspire us with feelings of kindness and goodwill toward ourselves that we may have habitually withheld. Letting Go of Guilt and Learning to Forgive Ourselves To become more self-accepting, we must start by telling ourselves (repeatedly–and hopefully, with ever-increasing conviction) that given all our negative self-referencing beliefs and biases, we’ve done the best we could. In this light, we need to re-examine residual feelings of guilt, as well as our many self-criticisms and put-downs. We must ask ourselves specifically what it is we don’t accept about ourselves and–as agents of our own healing–bring compassion and understanding to each point of self-rejection. By doing so, we can begin to dissolve exaggerated feelings of guilt based on standards and expectations that simply don’t mirror what was possible for us at the time. The famous French expression, Tout comprendre, c’est tout excuser (literally, "to understand all is to pardon all") is a dictum that we ought to apply at least as much to ourselves as others. For the more we can grasp just why in the past we were compelled to act in a particular way, the more likely we’ll be able both to forgive ourselves for this behavior and avoid repeating it in the future. Becoming more self-accepting necessitates that we begin to appreciate that, ultimately, we’re really not to blame for anything–whether it’s our looks, our intelligence, or any of our more questionable behaviors. Our actions have all been compelled by some combination of background and biology. Going forward, we certainly can–and in most cases, should –take responsibility for ways we’ve hurt or mistreated others. But if we’re to productively work on becoming more self-accepting, we must do so with compassion and forgiveness in our hearts. We need to realize that given our internal programming up to that point we could hardly have behaved differently. To gradually evolve into a position of unconditional self-acceptance, it’s crucial we adopt an attitude of "self-pardon" for our real, or perceived, transgressions. In the end, we may even come to realize that there’s actually nothing to forgive. Regardless of what we may have already concluded, we were, in a sense, always innocent–doing the best we could, given what was innate in us, how compelling our needs (and feelings) were at the time, and what (however unconsciously) we happened to believe about ourselves. That which, finally, determines most problematic behavior is linked to common psychological defenses. And it almost borders on the cruel to blame ourselves–or hold ourselves in contempt–for acting in ways that at the time we thought would help protect us from anxiety, or emotional distress generally. Embracing Our Shadow Self Tied to the above, self-acceptance also involves being willing to recognize, retrieve and make peace with parts of the self that till now may have been abandoned, shunned, or repudiated. I’m referring here to our illicit or anti-social impulses–our shadow self , which, though it may have confused, frightened, or even sabotaged us in the past, still represents an essential part of our nature and must be fully integrated if we are to become whole. As long as we refuse to accept-or in some way accommodate-these split-off aspects of self, unconditional self-acceptance will remain forever out of reach. When we’re able to sympathetically understand the origin of these darker, recessive fragments in us, any self-evaluation based on them begins to feel not only uncaring or uncharitable, but unfair as well. Accepting ourselves without conditions, we can view ourselves benignly, as we acknowledge to ourselves that we all harbor forbidden (and quite possibly, outrageous) impulses and fantasies–whether they entail brutally injuring someone we find obnoxious, exercising unbridled power over others, or (indeed!) running naked through the streets. We can learn to view all these "aberrations" as okay, realizing that however bizarre or egregious our imaginings might be, they’re probably nothing more than fantasized compensations for hurts or deprivations we’ve suffered in the past. Further, even as we come to accept our shadow parts as somehow inherent in us, we can yet maintain voluntary control over their expression. We might even discover ways to permit them some form of representation–but, of course, only in ways that would ensure safety both to ourselves and others. As long as we’re connected to our deepest, truest self, we’ll be coming from love and compassion. As such, it really isn’t in us to do anything that would violate our natural compassion and identification with all humanity. Owning and integrating our various facets is a transcendent experience-and when we (or, really, our egos ) no longer feel separate from others, the motive to do them harm literally disappears. Self-Acceptance vs. Self-Improvement It should be fairly obvious at this point that self-acceptance has very little to do with self-improvement, that it really isn’t about "fixing" ourselves, or moving toward some sort of personal perfection. With self-acceptance we’re simply affirming– non-judgmentally –that we are who we are, with whatever strengths and weaknesses we possess in the moment. The problem with our focusing on self-improvement is that such an orientation inevitably makes self-acceptance conditional. After all, we can never feel totally secure or whole as long as our self-regard depends on constantly bettering ourselves. Self-acceptance is here-and-now oriented-not future oriented, as in: "I’ll be okay when . . ." Or, "As soon as I accomplish _____, I’ll be okay." Self-acceptance is about already being okay, about seeing ourselves as "good enough" now- -with no qualifications of any kind. We don’t ignore or deny our frailties, we just see them as not relevant to our basic acceptability. Finally, it’s we–and we alone–that can set the standards for our self-acceptance. And once we decide to stop grading ourselves, or "keeping score with" ourselves, we can adopt an attitude of non-judging forgiveness. In fact, once we refrain from our lifelong habit of continually evaluating ourselves–striving rather to compassionately understand our past behaviors–we’ll find that there’s really nothing to forgive (remember, " Tout comprendre . . ." ). Personal flaws or shortcomings don’t need to get in our way. Certainly, we can vow to do better in the future, but we can nonetheless accept ourselves exactly as we are today. And here I can’t stress enough that it’s possible to accept and love ourselves and still be committed to a lifetime of personal growth. Accepting ourselves exactly as we are doesn’t mean we’ll be without the motivation to make changes or improvements that could enrich our lives or make us more effective. It’s just that our self-acceptance is in no way tied to such alterations. We don’t have to do anything to secure our self-acceptance: we have only to change the way we view ourselves. So altering our behaviors becomes a matter of personal preference, not a prerequisite for greater self-regard. It’s all a matter of coming from a radically different position. If self-acceptance is to be "earned," a result of working hard on ourselves, then it’s conditional and always at risk. The "job" of accepting ourselves can never be done, never completed. Even scoring an A+ in whatever endeavor we’re using to rate ourselves can offer us only temporary satisfaction. For the message we’re giving ourselves is that we’re only as worthwhile as our latest achievement. We can never finally "arrive" at a place of self-acceptance because we’ve inadvertently defined our journey as everlasting. In holding ourselves to such self-imposed standards, we may in fact be validating the way our own conditionally-loving parents dealt with us. But we’re certainly not validating ourselves–or treating ourselves with the kindness and consideration our parents may have failed to adequately provide us.   To conclude, only when we’re able to give ourselves unqualified approval–by developing greater self-compassion and focusing more on our positives than negatives–can we at last forgive ourselves for our faults, as well as relinquish our need for others’ approval. No doubt we’ve made mistakes. But then, so has everybody else–and in any case our identity is hardly equal to our mistakes. For sure, such a linkage would represent a bad case of "mistaken identity." There’s no reason we can’t decide right now to transform our fundamental sense of who we are. And we can remind ourselves that our various weaknesses are only part of what makes us human. If all our failings and flaws were suddenly to disappear, my pet theory is that we’d instantly turn into white light and disappear from the face of the planet. So in pursuing the challenge of unconditional self-acceptance, we might even want to take a certain pride in our imperfections. After all, were we beyond criticism in the first place, we’d never have the opportunity to rise to this uniquely human challenge.

Read the original here: 
The Path to Unconditional Self-Acceptance

Avatar of PsyBlog

by PsyBlog

Men’s Health Boost from Marriage Disappearing

September 8, 2008 in PsyBlog by PsyBlog

Time was that the persistently single male was seen as an unhealthy lump, prone to nightly feastings on pizza and beer – probably destined for an early grave because of his unhealthy lifestyle and poor social integration. Marriage or cohabitation, though, would soon give this slob an ordered life with plentiful social and psychological support and therefore a longer lifespan. Or so the story goes. New research by Hui Liu and Debra Umberson published in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior , suggests this story may be changing. Liu and Umberson looked at self-reported health data obtained as part of a huge US survey from over 1 million participants. They were interested in seeing how the relationship between marital status and health had changed between 1972 and 2003. What they found was that the health gap between married men and men who had never been married narrowed in this 30-year period. By 2003 there was very little difference in health status between unmarried and married men. It seems that marriage no longer confers the same health benefits on men that it once did. Women and cohabiters For women no such narrowing in the health gap was seen, mainly because there was little gap to narrow in the first place. In 1972 unmarried women were only slightly less healthy, on average, than married women. In health terms, in 1972, it was only men who were the major beneficiaries of marriage, but this difference is now substantially reduced. Cohabiters were excluded from the main study, but Liu and Umberson do find that in health terms cohabiting is much the same as being married. Data wasn’t collected for cohabiters before 1997 so it wasn’t possible to make any comparisons over time about men and women. Reduced stigma of singledom? Liu and Umberson offer a partial economic explanation for these changes with the dataset they were using. They find that in the 31 years of the study there had been a relative decline in family income for whites (but not for African Americans) in US. This ties in with the modern idea that the economic benefits of marriage are now much less pronounced than they once were. Of course economics can’t fully explain the change. Liu and Umberson suggest that single men are now able to obtain emotional and social support outside marriage, support that presumably wasn’t available in 1972. Perhaps also being a single man is now more socially acceptable, less of an aberration or a sign of implicit deviance to society’s core values. As a result single men may see themselves in a more positive light, which is reflected in better health. That explanation, though, suggests being a single women was more socially acceptable than being a single man in 1972, and I’m not so sure that’s true. What do you think about this or other explanations? [Image credit: striatic ] » Sponsor : Visit www.parinc.com for quality psychological assessment tools, great service, and fast shipping.

Original post:
Men’s Health Boost from Marriage Disappearing

Avatar of PsyBlog

by PsyBlog

Do You Challenge Queue-Jumpers and Line-Cutters?

September 4, 2008 in Blogs by PsyBlog

Queuing (or ‘standing in line’ for Americans) is time wasted, part of our lives flushed down the toilet. Just like other everyday activities – grocery shopping, teeth brushing and washing-up – queuing is necessary but tedious, hard to take pleasure in. This is a shame because over a lifetime we spend about four years queuing (hopefully not all in one go). That’s more, on average, than we spend shopping, exercising, cooking or driving. What we need is a way of coping with queuing, a distraction of some kind. One answer comes from psychologist Stanley Milgram, famous for his work on obedience in social psychology : study the queue itself. Excuse me, I’d like to get in here Milgram considered the queue a classic example of how groups of people automatically create social order out of chaos. But this social order can be fragile when faced with chaotic threats, like that of the queue-jumper. Suddenly we have a social psychology experiment on our hands: how fragile is this spontaneous social order and what will people do to protect it? In the answer to this seemingly mundane question may lie an important truth about our behaviour in groups. Early research found that people were strangely reluctant to challenge queue-jumpers, suggesting our spontaneous social order is fairly week. But this wasn’t a properly designed experiment and so Milgram set about testing people’s reactions to queue-jumpers using a real-life experimental study . Milgram had assistants travel around New York to 129 different queues in betting shops, railway stations and elsewhere. At each one his experimental assistant followed a strict protocol laid down in advance: Enter queue at between the third and fourth person. Say in a neutral tone: “Excuse me, I’d like to get in here.” Step into line and face forward. Only leave the queue when someone admonished them or after 1 minute, whichever was sooner. People’s responses were quite meek. On only 10% of occasions were queue-jumpers physically ejected from the line. And on only about half the occasions did anybody in the line do anything at all. Anything at all included, in this case, dirty looks or gestures as well as actual verbal objections. This seems remarkably low. Hey, there’s a line here you know! Milgram also used two variations to find out under what conditions people would protest at queue-jumpers. The first variation was the number of intruders. Milgram found that doubling the number of jumpers almost doubled the rate of objections, which then rocketed up to 91%. A second variation involved introducing a ‘buffer’ person. This was another experimental confederate who was already stood in the queue legitimately. The queue-jumper did their jumping in front of them. The introduction of a buffer was to examine what people would do when they were two or three places back in the queue behind the jumper. The results showed that increasing the buffer decreased the number of objections. When there were two people between them and the queue-jumper, objections dropped to just 5%. Too scared to question the queue-jumper? Milgram’s most interesting insights are his attempts to explain why people don’t intervene. Are people just too scared? Not necessarily: Group formation is difficult when people are stood one behind the other, all facing in the same direction. Consequently social order is weak. Challenging queue-jumpers could mean losing your own place in the line. Social systems have to tolerate some deviance otherwise they may quickly break down, i.e. a fight may start and everyone is delayed while it is sorted out. The line is co-opting those who threaten it by tacitly accepting them so that they gain an interest in the queue and the queue becomes stronger. Milgram thought queue-jumping is tolerated as long as it doesn’t threaten the line too much. People want to avoid social disorder because their own interests (getting served) are tied up in an orderly queue. Coping with queuing So the next time you’re in a queue or spot a queue-jumper think about Milgram’s study and how the queue might reflect society at large. If that fails it’s fun to imagine the look on people’s faces as Milgram’s brave assistants pushed in to queues all over New York, while another watched and recorded people’s reactions. Over to you: what strange behaviour have you spotted in queues and do you ever queue-jump or challenge queue-jumpers? [Image credit: butterflysha ] » Sponsor : Visit www.parinc.com for quality psychological assessment tools, great service, and fast shipping.

Read more from the original source: 
Do You Challenge Queue-Jumpers and Line-Cutters?

Avatar of PsyBlog

by PsyBlog

Happiness Could Add 10 Years to Your Life

September 3, 2008 in PsyBlog by PsyBlog

It seems only common sense that happiness should be good for our physical health, but psychological research has sent mixed signals in recent years. Some studies have found it is, while others have found no effect, and some even a negative effect. In a new article published in the Journal of Happiness Studies , Professor Ruut Veenhoven of Erasmus University offers a possible solution to this question. In reviewing 30 studies, he finds that the neutral and negative findings for the effects of happiness on health are in studies on people who were ill at the time. In comparison, studies on people who were in good health do find a strong positive effect for happiness on health. Professor Veenhoven suggests that happiness may not have a beneficial effect on the physical health of those who are ill, but it does help prevent people falling ill in the first place. A particularly spectacular study on nuns found that those who were happiest in early life lived 10 years longer than those who were unhappy. Another study of 660 inhabitants of Ohio found that higher levels of happiness translated, on average, into 7.5 years more life. How to be happy What happiness is and where it comes from are very personal, but there are some general principles starting to emerge from the area of positive psychology. Here are a few previous articles on happiness from PsyBlog: Why sustainable happiness is all about the day-to-day. What Confucius had to say about how to be happy . The dangers of materialism . Here are the rest of my articles on the new science of happiness . [Image credit: eef ] » Sponsor : Visit www.parinc.com for quality psychological assessment tools, great service, and fast shipping.

Read the original here: 
Happiness Could Add 10 Years to Your Life

Avatar of PsyBlog

by PsyBlog

Think Yourself Healthy by Appreciating the Exercise You Already Do

September 1, 2008 in PsyBlog by PsyBlog

How strong do you think the link is between mind and body? For example, is it possible to think yourself fitter without doing any additional exercise, but by simply better appreciating how much exercise you already do? A recent experiment by Alia Crum and Professor Ellen Langer of Harvard University suggests the incredible answer is yes. Dr Ben Goldacre at Bad Science (although this is good science!) describes the study which was carried out on hotel attendants who were informed how much exercise they were already doing as a regular part of their job. Here’s Ben’s conclusion: “…amazingly, despite no change in actual exercise levels, in the intervention group, simply being told about the value of what they were already doing caused a significant change for the better on every single one of the objective health measures recorded: weight, body fat, body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio and blood pressure.” To illustrate with just one of the outcomes they measured, the average weight of those in the intervention group reduced from 145.5 lbs to 143.72 lbs. Over the same period the control group showed no significant change. For those of you working metric-style that’s 66.14 kg down to 65.33 kg. That’s like dropping a bag of sugar. In four weeks. With no additional exercise. Now that’s the power of the mind-body link right there, measured in pounds and ounces. [Image credit: eef ] » Sponsor : Visit www.parinc.com for quality psychological assessment tools, great service, and fast shipping.

View original post here: 
Think Yourself Healthy by Appreciating the Exercise You Already Do

Verbal Abuse and the Mirror of Love

August 29, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Verbal abuse is the use of words or tone of voice to demean, devalue, or otherwise hurt someone’s feelings. Though rampant in distressed families, all those who love each other are susceptible to verbal abuse. The culprit is the Mirror of Love . Attachment relationships – those held together by strong emotional bonds – serve as mirrors of the inner self. We learn how lovable we are and how valuable our love is to others only by interacting with the people we love. Young children never question the impressions of themselves they get from their parents. They do not think that their critical, stressed-out mothers or their raging fathers are just having a bad time or trying to recover from their own difficult childhoods. Young children attribute negative reflections of themselves from their parents to their own inadequacy and unworthiness. Suppose you had internalized your body image based on reflections from a fun house mirror, which made your hips look a mile wide. You would think you were in deep trouble and that no diet could help. Once you’ve internalized a negative self-image, you distrust even accurate mirrors – people who are gaunt from eating disorders see themselves as fat when they look in a mirror that reflects little more than skin and bones. Even those who do not have eating disorders but who were told repeatedly as children that they were too thin are likely to see themselves as thin adults, despite mirror reflections that show a few extra pounds. When it comes to physical appearance, at least we have lots of other mirrors to compare to the distorted funhouse reflection; this gives us a good chance to overcome an internalized negative image of the body. But there are no reflections of love other than those we get from the people we love. If you judge how lovable you are based on reflections from someone who cannot love without hurt, you will have a necessarily distorted and inaccurate view of yourself. The instinct to believe the information about the self that loved ones reflect weakens somewhat as we grow older, but it remains active throughout life. You would probably laugh — or at least not get angry — at someone who implied that you have green hair, but if your husband or wife says it, you’re likely to run to a mirror. The default assumption is, if your partner is displeased, there must be something wrong with you, and you need anger or resentment for protection. No matter how much we argue with loved ones about their criticisms and put-downs, we are likely to believe them, at least unconsciously. We might not agree with the particular flaw pointed out, but on some deep level, we’ll perceive a defect that must be defended. Some part of us buys into the "blemishes" reflected in the mirror of love, even when we know intellectually that our loved one is distorting who we are. This hidden pressure from the mirror of love is why successful and powerful people are just as vulnerable as anyone to verbal abuse and to walking on eggshells in their love relationships. Of course the mirror of love also reflects good news. If you learn how lovable you are and how valuable your love is from compassionate caretakers, you will naturally have a more realistic view of yourself in love relationships. You’ll be disappointed and saddened sometimes, but you will hardly ever feel inadequate, unworthy, or unlovable. Just as important, when you feel sad or disappointed, you will know that you can do something to improve your emotional state, if not your situation. Your sadness will be short-lived – you’ll feel bad for a while, then regroup and do something that will make you feel valuable once again. The mirror of love generates energy when it reflects value, and depletes energy when it doesn’t. In verbally abusive relationships, the mirror of love reflects mostly flaws and defects, in the form of criticism, sarcasm, resentment, and anger. Everyone in the family begins to confuse "function" with value and "task-performance" with love. The pain is never about the facts or specific behavior — no matter how your loved one puts it, no matter how much he or she claims to be talking "facts" or "logic" or "tasks," the message reflected in the mirror or love is: "If you don’t do what I want, I can’t value you. And if I can’t value you, you are not worth loving." Why We Hurt the Ones We Love: Blaming the Mirror A distressed or misbehaving child can make us feel like failures as parents and thoroughly inadequate. A raging or rejecting parent can make a child feel powerless, inadequate, and unlovable. A distracted, demanding, or hostile lover can make us feel disregarded, devalued, and rejected. After working for many thousands of hours with people trying to overcome painful relationship problems, I’m convinced that we use resentment and anger to punish loved ones, not so much for their behavior as for our painful reflections in the mirror of love. We want to attack the mirror because we don’t like the reflection. The only way out of this morass is to stop viewing emotional pain as a punishment inflicted by someone else and learn to act on it as an internal motivation to heal, correct, and improve. This will lead to a deeper self-compassion and put us more in touch with our deepest values, which will, in turn, inspire more compassion for one another. You can love without hurt, but only if you use pain as a signal to heal and improve rather than punish. CompassionPower

More here:
Verbal Abuse and the Mirror of Love