What do blondes and beer bottles have in common? They're both empty from the neck up. Why haven't any women ever gone to the moon? It doesn't need cleaning yet.

Did you laugh? For many people, these are laugh-out-loud jokes, the kind to share with friends at parties. For others, they're remnants of an embarassingly sexist era, one we'd like to forget. Others fall somewhere in between.

I think everyone agrees these jokes are sexist, but what do they really say about our attitudes and prejudices? A fascinating study by Annie Kochersberger published last month by the International Journal of Humor Research might just answer this question. She asked over a hundred men and women to rate the funniness of several sexist jokes, as well as more neutral examples (What's the difference between an oral and rectal thermometer? The taste). Subjects also answered questions intended to uncover any potentially hostile sexist views—for example, agreeing with the statement, "Women seek to gain power by getting control over men." Lastly, subjects were asked how well they psychologically identified with women.

Results showed that liking sexist humor has nothing to do with gender, at least once views toward women are taken into consideration. Women are just as likely to enjoy sexist jokes as men, particularly when they hold sexist views themselves.

This is interesting because it suggests that anyone can be sexist, and that liking sexist humor may say something unfortunate about our deeper beliefs.

There's a long history of research pertaining to sexism and humor, though the most interesting finding—in my opinion, at least—belongs to Thomas Ford, who was also one of Kochersberger's co-authors. His study, titled "More Than Just a Joke," had subjects read sexist jokes immediately before deciding how much money to donate to a fictional women's organization. Subjects didn't even have to give actual money. They only had to imagine themselves doing so.

Those subjects rating high on hostile sexism contributed almost nothing to the women's organizations after reading sexist jokes, a drop of about 80% compared to donations following neutral jokes. But those who didn't rate high on sexism didn't show the effect. Instead they donated more, about twice as much compared to following the neutral jokes. So if we're not sexist to begin with, these jokes aren't so bad. They don't make us prejudiced. In fact, just the opposite.

What should we make of these findings? Maybe we should share sexist jokes after all, because it prods those who aren't sexist to help make the world a better place. Or, maybe sexism in the form of stupid jokes is its most dangerous form, because it subtly changes our behaviors in ways difficult to recognize.

Or, maybe, the problem isn't the jokes themselves, but the attitude that "a joke is just a joke." Jokes have great power. When our intent is to malign, a joke becomes more than an offhand remark.

It becomes a weapon.

Kochersberger, A., Ford, T. Woodzicka, J., Romero-Sanchez, M., and Carretero-Dios, H. (2014). The role of identification with women as a determinant of amusement with sexist humor. Humor, The International Journal of Humor Research, 27(3), 441-460.

Ford, T., Boxer, C., Armstrong, J., and Edel, J. (2008). More Than “Just a Joke”: The Prejudice-Releasing Function of Sexist Humor, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(2), 159-170.

Toxic relationships are ones where one party often feels wounded by the other. They exist in families, marriage and dating relationships, among friends, even longtime friends, and at work, among co-workers and bosses.

Toxic people hurt others with their worlds, often unintentionally and sometimes on purpose.  They feel bad of themselves, so they make other people around them feel bad too. Misery loves company seems to be their approach.  Toxic relationships are often dominated by hurtful remarks, constant sarcasm, belittling behaviors, or passive-aggressive interactions.  The hallmark of a toxic relationship is where you feel bad after being around the other person and don't always know why.   If you feel a sense of dread when you see the person's number appear on your Caller ID, or you feel uneasy when having to talk with a co-worker or meet with a boss because of the way they make you leave feeling fearful, angry, or frustrated, then that's a toxic person.  They lack empathy and can be narcissistically-entitled, meaning if you feel bad as a result of an encounter with them, it's your fault and not theirs.   

How do toxic people invade your life? Slowly at first, then all at once.  Some relationships degrade over time into toxicity because of an event or a falling out, but others are toxic at the start and people on the receiving end rationalize their poor treatment by the other person as just a personality quirk, or an eccentricity. They say things like, "I like this person, except when they do this and this," which actually happens quite regularly.  Folks around them say, "Why do you let him or her treat you that way or say those things?" and they don't have a good answer.

People are usually social creatures, especially in the workplace, where the need to fit in and have friends and colleagues you like or at least can tolerate is a necessity, since we spend so much time there and with them.  Most folks start out wanting to feel good about other people. They can misread their own intuitive signals about the possibility of toxicity in another person, in the interest of wanting to be friends or to co-exist.  Women tend to be more inclusive and may tolerate more toxicity in their friendships with other toxic women in the hopes that time will smooth things out or different ways of interacting will make things better.  In dating relationships, the old adage is always true: if it's bad in the beginning and bad in the middle, it's going to end badly.  It's so rare that people who couldn't stand each other at the start of their dating time get married and live happily ever after.

Toxic people are stress-makers. Whether it's from shouting or losing their temper inappropriately or by being mean and saying horrible things, which they often apologize for and say again anyway - they cause stress in others.  This manifests in people on the receiving end into headaches, neck aches, back pain, stomach problems, general anxiety, frequent nagging illnesses, or eating and sleeping problems.  When you say, "My horrible relatives are coming to town for the weekend.  I bet it's going to be a lousy time," it turns out to be just the lousy time you predicted.  We don't say this about positive, supportive, empowering people in our lives; we look forward to their visits. 

The mind-body connection between stress and the impact on our physical health is clear.  Stress on the inside causes stress to manifest on the outside.  People who are having trouble with stress hurt themselves with food, alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, prescription or illegal drugs. They can grind their teeth, become constantly sleep-deprived through worry, and develop autoimmune or digestive issues.  

Someone in a toxic  relationship is like a person in a small boat that's sinking; the more he or she tries to bail out the water, the faster the boat goes down. Waiting for the other person to change without consequences for their behavior, a therapy intervention, or actual signs they are willing to save the relationship by being better and different immediately, means there is little sense in hanging on.  All motivation is self-motivation.  If toxic people don't see why they need to change - loss of their job, spouse, kids, friends, family - they won't.    

For people dealing with toxic relationships at work, they have some choices, which can be difficult: accept the situation and the other person's behavior as toxic, rise above it, and don't let him or her grind you down; confront colleagues with direct feedback and ask them not to say or do certain specific things around you you find hurtful; or contact your boss's boss or HR and ask for a consultation about what to do to work more effectively with a toxic supervisor. Some people transfer or quit and feel better the moment they did.

Many organizations have EAP or Employee Assistance Program professionals to help with the personal and professional stressors that come from toxic home or work relationships.  Getting help from a licensed clinician can help people feel empowered and back in control of their lives. It helps to patience and perspective: I know I'm a good person and it's not about me, it's about the toxic person.

What’s the longterm impact when toxic people finally leave you alone or leave your life?  Longtime friendships or work relationships that have derailed because of toxic behaviors can be painful. Some people feel angry at themselves that they let them go on for too long, or that they rationalized bad behavior in the hopes that the other person would change.  Others feel sad that they wasted time, emotions, and bad feelings on someone who did not really treat them with respect.  But we always feel better when have the courage to get or let these people out of our lives. 

Dr. Steve Albrecht is internationally-known for his writing, speaking, and training on workplace violence and school violence prevention.  He manages a San Diego-based training and consulting firm specializing in high-risk HR, security, and work culture issues.  He holds a doctorate in Business Administration, an MA in Security Management, a BS in Psychology, and a BA in English.  He is board certified in HR, security, and employee coaching.  He has written 16 books, including Ticking Bombs: Defusing Violence in the Workplace (Irwin, 1994), one of the first books on this subject.  He worked for the San Diego Police Department for 15 years.  Download his podcast, “Crime Time with Steve Albrecht” or sign up for his newsletter at DrSteveAlbrecht.com 

He can be reached at DrSteve@DrSteveAlbrecht.com or on Twitter @DrSteveAlbrecht

Neither Nightmare nor Magic Wand

Once again I am revisiting the subject of weight loss surgery. How does it or does it not mesh with the goal of eating sanely? This question triggers strong reactions—beliefs persist that surgery is an “easy way out”, or a short-term “band-aid” that only masks deeper problems. On the other side, beliefs persist that surgery can solve problems all by itself. In short, the idea of surgery as a drastic solution seesaws with the idea that it’s a lazy solution. The reality is way more complex than this. And given the numbers now turning to surgical solutions, it makes sense to keep a clear focus on their very real pros and cons.

Mention weight loss surgery, and some will react as if you’ve suggested amputation for an sore joint. People just have to eat less, or deal with their emotions, is the thinking. At the opposite extreme, there are those who believe their bands or sleeves will solve problems effortlessly. “Now I can be like everyone else, not always thinking about food.” Both of these surprisingly common views distort reality and don’t help.

About two thirds of American adults qualify as obese (with children’s rates catching up). Over 220,000 people per year now opt for bariatric surgery, an increase of nearly 65% in the past decade. Increasingly, the overweight turn to surgery as procedures become safer, insurance-covered, and effective against illnesses like diabetes. Preparation for surgery involves doctor- and insurance-mandated nutrition counseling, dietary preparation, psychoeducation and evaluation. These are important requirements that help many adjust to a radically changed lifestyle, but they don’t necessarily pave the way solidly enough for everyone.

The Nightmare View Debunked

“If you can lose weight to prepare for surgery, why not just keep at it and do it yourself?” That’s one question people face when considering surgery. And the response is usually “If I could keep it up, I wouldn’t be thinking of surgery!” And that’s the problem in a nutshell. We live in a food environment that simply doesn’t work well with our bodies’ genetic programming. And while it’s not necessarily impossible for the long-term obese to lose those 75, 100, 200 pounds, it’s very, very difficult. Few succeed in the midst of an unsupportive environment, a body that constantly signals hunger, and a metabolism primed for weight holding and easy fat storage. The physical changes caused by long-term obesity make losing extremely difficult. The physical changes imposed by surgery, for some, supports the conditions for facing these challenges more successfully.

Emotional problems, it’s true, usually do factor into weight gain and diet failure. And surgery won’t eliminate them. For surgical solutions to last, these issues need to be addressed (see below). However, it’s also true that not all weight problems correspond to emotional problems. And weight won’t necessarily dissolve once problems are dealt with, anyway. Frequently, too, the restraint provided by the surgical procedure acts as a behavioral modification tool, with emotional changes following.

The Magic Wand View Debunked

If some think of surgery as a shockingly drastic option, others think struggles will disappear after surgery. In fact, procedures can usually be counted on to minimize hunger considerably, and to limit the amount that can be eaten at any one time. Most people will lose weight and see weight-related health conditions improve. However, surgical solutions don’t remove the need to think about how or what one eats—on the contrary.

For success following surgery, especially over the long-term, absolutely demands conscious thought and attention: to how and what and when and where one will be eating. The surgical change can make some aspects of this change easier. But it also introduces new challenges that require careful ongoing attention. Nutrition, exercise, choosing wisely—all of these things take on even greater importance when living on a post-surgical with a tiny stomach. Your health can suffer if you don’t, and you can regain weight.

Many long-term behaviors need to be well-understood, and curbed considerably, before surgery if those health problems and regains are to be avoided. These include: emotional overeating, stress eating, addictive eating (especially of sweets), nighttime grazing and snacking, meal-skipping with later gorging. The surgical restriction can actually help to some degree with curbing these behaviors, so change need not be 100 percent perfect. These habits do need to be mostly changed or eliminated, though, so the help of the changed stomach can support the changes continuing, and even improving over time.

Sane Eating?

In sum, the decision to seek weight loss surgery is not simple. It must consider a host of individual factors. It’s not a great solution for everyone, and it carries risks. At the same time, it does help many who’ve faced frustrating and demoralizing weight loss failures, and who want better health and mobility.

Those who do well put the time and energy into learning and practicing new skills and habits. They may use the support services offered by weight-loss and surgical practices or seek their own support systems. In my practice, I see many who see the decision for surgery, after years of diet struggles, as a chance to make real changes and to dedicate themselves to an attitude of self-care. That’s really what it takes to use a bariatric procedure as part of a committed and concerted effort to eat sanely for the long term.

Read more at www.eatsanely.com

Based on the assumption that everything you hear from mental health experts on television is wrong, bears no relationship to any data we have, and is based on media memes rather than on any desire to solve problems (see my piece here about how the media handles addiction), what I reveal next may not be surprising. 

USA Today maintains a data base of arrests of NFL players. It shows that,

over the nearly 15 years that the USA Today data goes back, . . . 2.53 percent of players have had a serious run-in with the law in an average year. That may sound bad, but the arrest rate is lower than the national average for men in that age range.

And, of course, many of these men are minorities who come from poor backgrounds.  Those groups ordinarily have higher arrest records than average.

Once again, the major media meme that football players beat up their spouses because they feel entitled and can get away with it, is wrong, dead wrong.  One commenter on my prior column on Janay Rice, who wants the media to leave her and the husband who knocked her out alone, mouths the typical bromide: "He is immature, manipulative and entitled like a man who gets millions for throwing a ball."

So, here's the actual news -- men of his age group and especially men in deprived communities with fewer social stabilizing forces and prospects for success in their lives -- are more, not less, likely to be violent towards women and others.  Football players are under more scrutiny, have more to lose, and are thus more likely to rein in their impulses and are rewarded more than inner city cohorts for doing so.

Why is that?  It's called psychology.  Having more social assets and accomplishments tends to modulate antisocial impulses, not to amplify them.

Sorry media experts -- but you're not worried about accuracy in any case, are you?!  And, anyhow, how would you know anything about sexual assaults in minority and deprived communities -- what would make you care about that?

Oh, while we're at it, "The peak year for reported arrests of professional football players was 2006, and 2014 is on track to have the fewest reported arrests since at least 2000."

Stanton Peele has been empowering people around addiction since writing, with Archie Brodsky, Love and Addiction in 1975. He has developed the on-line Life Process Program. His new book (written with Ilse Thompson) is Recover! Stop Thinking Like an Addict with The PERFECT Program. His website is peele.net.

The New Yorker's ever-readable Rebecca Mead has just published a snappy critique of the idea of "a bucket list." (Is it an expression of the "YOLOization" of our culture?) 

The items on these lists range from the mundane (organize the family photos) to the extreme (Everest). Some of the bloggers seem to tease readers with how wild the possibilities are. "I've just trained for and run a marathon in 8 weeks. What is next?" and a photo of some type of surfing is put up. (When the blogger lives in a land-locked state.) The impression is that nothing can stop the person from meeting her goals, as she tackles them, one by one. And that this, this my friend, is living. 

One of Mead's concerns is that the notion of the bucket list "legitimizes this diminished conception of the value of repeated exposure to art and culture. Rather, it privileges a restless consumption, a hungry appetite for the new. I’ve seen Stonehenge. Next?"

So maybe it is worth thinking through whether a bucket, or life list, is part of a strategy we ought to admire, draw inspiration from, or emulate.

The idea of a life list isn't ridiculous as far as positive psychology goes.

Here is a helpful post from Christopher Peterson that points out the potential upside to these lists. The goal-setting may motivate us, and we might create memories through these "extreme" experiences. 

But Peterson also raises a few worries. Life lists don't have to be about connecting with other people, and they also seem to suggest a "check off the boxes" approach to life. 

He also mentions that it might be pretty tedious to talk to a person who just rattles off his achievements.

I'm not sure about that last point, as the people who made these lists seem engaged and energetic to me. I'd rather have an adventurer at my dinner table than not.

But as I thought this I realized: these lists don't make for adventurers, not adventurers of the type I (count myself lucky enough to) know. Instead, these lists must be really great for the adventure tourism industry. The adventurers I know have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of just one of these things: like kayaking or skiing. Not kayaking AND skiing. I looked at some of the lists: learn to Hula dance, learn to Tango, kayak the Nile. You are pretty much committed to being a dilettante with such a list.

And, moral philosophers have, through the centuries, really, raised concerns about the "dilettante" and her plan for happiness. (Why such a long focus? I think philosophy was typically doled out to the very wealthy, with the time and money on their hands to dream up things to do.)

So I'd like to set Peterson's concerns alongside the concerns traditional virtue ethicists, some of the earliest writers on happiness, have had against a "life list" approach to living.

So here they are.

Traditional Theories of Happiness on Life Lists 

The traditional accounts of happiness I'm referring to (those of Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, the Epicureans, and their countless, more modern, students) take happiness to be our overall and all-encompassing goal. (For reading on them, see this post here.) The only path to happiness is the path of developing moral character, working on making it easier to do the right thing with no resentment, but with joy. 

1. A life list is not focused on developing the self that accompanies the person checking off each listed item.

Traditional virtue ethics won't think personal improvement comes by mere exposure to thrilling or meaningful things. We need to deliberately focus our energies on developing the manner in which we relate to other people, in order to be happy. Couldn't this just be a proviso to any life list? It could be, but traditional virtue ethicists worried thinking about life the wrong way (in a life list way) was likely to be a distraction from this hard work, necessary to happiness.

There have been plenty of examples of motivated bon vivants through the ages, and their misery when the novelty wore off was discernible. The idea was that they had been continually distracted from coming to like themselves. I noted hearing Charlie Sheen (who has some life list) say this same exact thing, much more recently. Of course the hard work virtue ethics says we all require is easily avoided when life is a series of excitements.

2. "Events" and "moments" are not sustaining.

Traditional virtue ethics worries about how predictable this is: you get big highs, you will have big lows. (The Stoics used to be so practical as to warn 20-somethings who partied a lot that they'll have more difficulty with aging!) This is why celebrities, with everything at their fingertips, are to be worried about more than counted on. If we expect accolades, events, moments- any of these thrilling things to sustain us- they can't. They just don't keep working on us the way they do at first.  

3. There is an emptiness to thinking of yourself as a bundle of unusual experiences.

Some of us would like to think that we are as interesting as the things we've done. We might want our biographies transformed into completed life lists, rather than the staid "where did you go to College?" I can't argue that this is a change for the worse. But I know traditional virtue ethicists would have some concerns nonetheless. They'd be worried these spiffed up self-descriptions might be taken to "mean more" and stand in for who we really are. ("It is not what has happened to you, but what you think of it" -- Epictetus.)

Traditional ethicists consistently argued that you cannot mistake your luck, life's happenstance, for the source of legitimate self-esteem (fill in their concept for that). You will always feel like a phony, or like you are hustling to keep up, if you identify yourself with, for example, the travelling you've done. You are always more than that, other than that-- and this is a good thing.

Other people have done what we have, and more. Always. The idea that once you get that law degree you'll be somebody and feel good about yourself is a big canard (people who say this forget they'll have new peers- other lawyers- to distinguish themselves from). But these life lists seem even worse, if they become how we think of ourselves. It isn't that practicing law is expected to become your identity, a set of much shorter activities is.

4. A final worry may be distinctive to traditional ethics, because positive psychologists could find this a fine strategy. But part of the boost people get from checking off their life list is likely comparative.

"I have rappelled down the mountains of Peru and those other poor suckers have not."

This type of effort would make a person, according to traditional virtue ethics, less happy in the end. Your character will suffer from the mistake of introducing, and coming to depend upon, this shaky basis for evaluating others. It might feel good in the short term to lord your exotic trips over others, but the hangover will come.

Maybe they are just for fun? Not happiness? 

So maybe life lists are not meant to be formulas for happiness. Maybe these life lists work for motivation and for creating memories- and that may be enough.

But I'd still have more confidence in the happiness of the person who falls into a routine she loves. In that kind of life, I'd feel more confident that everything done is done with no effort to escape one's self through the pursuit of one more blog-worthy thrill.

Here is a short life list, one that isn't too moralistic (like you may be thinking the ethicists are), one that promises no diminishing returns: work hard until you feel like you are doing exactly what you should be doing, as a matter of course.

I realize this is not nearly as charming as the other kinds of life lists now on offer. But that approach to life has been tried before, and found wanting. And, notice, this shortened list does nothing to rule out any type of dance class nor any appreciation of sunsets whatsoever. 

Amid the upheaval across many sectors of our world, from mass shootings in U.S. schools to the crises in the Middle East to the reckless striving for wealth and world domination, there is one overarching theme that almost never gets media coverage—the sense of insignificance that drives destructive acts.

As a depth psychologist with many years of experience, I can say emphatically that the sense of being crushed, humiliated, and existentially unimportant are the main factors behind so much that we call psychopathology.

Why would it not follow then that the very same factors are at play in social and cultural upheavals? Indeed I am not alone in my assessment. The emerging science of “terror management theory” shows convincingly that when people feel unimportant they equate those feelings with dying—and they will do everything they can, including becoming extreme and destructive themselves to avoid that sensibility.

The sense of insignificance and death anxiety have been shown to play a key role in everything from terrorism to mass shootings to extremist religious and political ideologies to obsessions with materialism and wealth. Just about all that is violent and corrupt in our world seems connected to it.

So before we rush to judgment about the bases of violence in our world, we would do well to heed the terror management theorists and consider missing pieces of the puzzle. Economic, ideological, and biological explanations take us only so far in unpacking the bewildering phenomenon of slaughtering people in cold blood, or playing recklessly with their health, safety, or livelihoods. Granted, some violence is defensive and perhaps necessary to protect the lives of sovereign individuals and states. But too often violence is provocative, and when it becomes so betrays a common thread of psychological destitution—the sense of insignificance, the sense of not counting, of helplessness, and of emotional devaluation. We have stories daily about both lone gunmen and soldiers who seek vengeance and “prestige” to cover over their cultural and emotional wounds. Correspondingly, such stories parallel the kind of psychopathy of some in the corporate sector who speculate, pollute, and militarize at will.

The question today then is how do we prevent such terrorizing cycles from continuing to arise? How do we transform people who feel so utterly estranged and stripped of value, that they are willing to do virtually anything to redress perceived injustices? One point strikes clear: that transformation is not likely to occur through political or military coercion (as is now being contemplated in Iraq); nor through the ingestion of pills nor anger management programs (as was the case with several mass shooters); nor through the usual hand-wringing about stricter gun laws and increased diplomacy--which are imperative, but don’t go far enough.

By contrast, what is needed is no less than a “moral equivalent of war,” to echo the philosopher William James, but at a fraction of the cost. What will such a mobilization look like? There are of course no simple answers to this question. However what is plain to this observer is that the rampant sense of insignificance needs to be addressed at its root, and not with simplistic bromides. This means for example that alongside of providing affordable short-term public mental health services, we also need to provide affordable long term, in depth mental health services. Such services would emphasize the transformative power of deeply supportive, subtly attuned relationships over short-term palliatives and would likely be life changing (as well as life saving) in their impact. We could (and should) also provide cadres of group facilitators to optimize encounters between people in power. These encounters could include heads of state, members of diplomatic corps, and legislators. Such facilitators could be schooled in well-established approaches to mediation, such as nonviolent communications, and would likely be pivotal in the settlement of here-to-fore intractable disputes. While the most hardened extremists may be unreachable through these (or any other) means, there are many others who in my view would surprise us and engage the opportunity.

Furthermore, there is no theoretical reason why such practices would not work with the appropriate adaptations; we see these practices work every day in our clinics and consulting rooms, and often with the most challenging personalities.

In sum, the range of violent upheaval in the world is alarming. The quick fix, militarist solutions to this problem are faltering. In fact, in many cases, they are making situations worse (as we have seen with recent military operations). The time for a change in societal consciousness is at hand. By focusing our resources on the root of the problem, the many people who feel they don’t count, we not only bolster individual and collective lives, we provide a model that others will find difficult to ignore.

Kirk Schneider, Ph.D. is president-elect of the Society for Humanistic Psychology of the American Psychological Association, and author of “The Polarized Mind: Why It’s Killing Us and What We Can Do About It.” For more info, see http://www.amazon.com/Polarized-Mind-Killing-What-About-ebook/dp/B00D60ZOXO/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=

Note: This article is a slight adaptation of an article published on Alternet called "Why are humans violent? The psychological reasons we hurt each other."

I am very glad to see all of the stories emerge about #whyistayed and #whyileft in the wake of the Janay and Ray Rice incident. Domestic violence is a complicated problem and "why didn't she leave" does not even scratch the surface. Any movement toward being less victim blaming is good and much needed.

However, there are many important realities about domestic violence that are still being missed in the recent media coverage. Huffington Post's recent series of stories on Why I Stayed is a very good example about what is wrong with the media coverage about domestic violence and how the same stereotypes are still dominating the conversation. Here's a brief rundown of some of the biggest misconceptions and stereotypes:

1) Victimized women look like other women.

Victimized women are, for one thing, flesh-toned. They come in the whole rainbow of flesh tones from fairest beige to darkest brown. They can also wear make-up if they want to. Why use blurry, black-and-white, almost x-ray type photos to portray victims? It would be better if we showed them going to work, taking care of their kids, and doing the other everyday things that they do and we all do. These women are all ones who got out of their relationship (not exactly #whyistayed) and so why not show them smiling?

2) The media focuses on extreme stories, not typical ones.

There are warnings all across the pages of recent coverage about graphic descriptions of violence. This does NOT represent most domestic violence. Data from the CDC and many other sources consistently shows that most domestic violence is limited to one or two incidents that do not lead to injury. Pushing, grabbing, and slapping are the most commonly reported items. These are still serious incidents not to be taken lightly. Focusing on the most extreme cases colors what we think are reasonable responses. It also can make it harder for other people to seek help because they do not think domestic violence services are for them if they have not been seriously beaten.

3) Most domestic violence is not a never-ending and worsening cycle of abuse.

There is almost no data in support of the so-called "cycle of violence" and what does exists is 30 years old and comes from a very different era. Newer data tell a different story. It is best to think of domestic violence like other crimes. One way that domestic violence is like other crime is that almost all of the perpetrators are adolescents and young adults. Most perpetrators stop offending by the time they are in their 30s or certainly their 40s, although there are a few who continue a life of crime even into old age. Research on domestic violence shows this same pattern. This is another misconception that results from focusing on the most horrific and extreme cases.

4) Treatment can help.

I find it so ironic that even psychologists and other social services professionals talk about domestic violence as if it is an incurable disease. Aside from the fact, as already mentioned, that it is not an incurable disease, it is a mystery why we treat it differently from addiction, depression, or PTSD. There are many other very difficult life problems that we believe can get better. Although treatment does not work for everyone—much like Alcoholics Anonymous does not help everyone get sober—it does work for some. There is hope. Hope is not a bad thing. 

5) There are other stories to tell.

Here are a few quotes from women who tell a different story about #whyistayed from my work:

“He was drunk. I hid the car keys and wouldn’t give them to him. Therefore, he shoved me around, then hit me with his fist. Then I bit him and he stopped and took the keys and left….The above instances [description of fight was earlier in the study] happened in the first 6 or 7 years of my marriage [she estimated a total of 6 to 10 incidents with the one described here being the worst]. I have now been married 15 years, the abuse is gone, and I feel closer to my husband than I did when we were first married.”

“One light slap because he thought I was hysterical and “that’s what they do on TV.” Married less than 6 months. It was 25 years ago. I was in school, lots of pressure, probably crying a lot. All in all our relationship has been pretty even keel.”

“I threw his dinner plate on [the] floor. He broke my radio. This was very early in marriage, we were having adjustment problems….Married 20 years, both of us different in many ways. Mutual respect for each other even though not as close as we used to be.”

“This [arguing, yelling, 1 slap] was a one-time incident; never occurred again; both remorseful; both of us shared some blame.” [Woman in 15-year long relationship]

“We tend to have “heated verbal disagreements” and in 10 years only one incidence of a violent argument with some pushing (I was pushed).”

“[Husband] hit wall, threw chair. I feel that we have grown a lot over the years, he is very different from 7 years ago.”

(quoted from Battered Women's Protective Strategies: Stronger Than You Know, Oxford University Press, 2014, pp 24-25).

We can do better. We can put aside the stereotypes and really listen. We have to do better if we truly want to help those who have been victimized by ones they love.

© 2014 Sherry Hamby

Dr. Hamby 's most recent book is Battered Women's Protective Strategies: Stronger Than You Know (Oxford University Press, 2014). To learn more about exploring options with people who have experienced domestic violence, visit http://thevigor.org. For other strengths-based approaches to resilience and overcoming violence and other adversity, visit http://lifepathsresearch.org.

The fact that humans survived in a world of more powerful predators is a huge tribute to the potency of our brain. Certainly our claws and jaws aren’t threatening to wolves and crocodiles, our strength is nothing but good entertainment to bears and elephants, and we are barely faster than a turtle to a puma.

But when it comes to the ability to strategize, plan and execute, no other creature compares, and that afforded us the lofty position we enjoy at the top of the food chain. Before we got here however, our predecessors have had to make countless life-saving decisions, often within a few seconds or less.

Over generations of survivors, humans developed thinking shortcuts which are still very pervasive today. Since they are so engrained and natural to us, we don't recognize we use them, nor do we realize the impact they can have on our choices and habits.

Here are five such shortcuts which can be detrimental to our health, and a suggestion for how to address each. While it is unlikely that we’ll ever break free of their influence, understanding how they work and being more mindful about them can alleviate their effects on our thought processes, choices, and wellness.

Sunk Costs

We hate failure. The more time, energy and money we’ve invested into something, the less we want to let go, explains Daniel Kahneman in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. So we watch a late night TV show until the end even if the episode isn't that great and we know we’ll suffer from sleep deprivation the next day, and we eat the whole Sumo-size portion the waiter placed under our nose even if doing so requires some belt loosening.

Ask yourself: When does your reluctance to let go of something hurt your health?

Loss Aversion

We hate to lose, or to miss out on something. Studies estimate that losses have about twice the psychological impact of equivalent gains. When faced with a choice, we therefore tend to place more weight on avoiding to miss something than on trying to gain something else. That’s why we pick the happy hour over the gym session, read Facebook posts past bedtime, and cheat on our eating plan when an opportunity arises.

Ask yourself: When are you consistently choosing against sound health behaviors, and is the gain really worth it?

Optimism Bias

We like to think that we are immune to disease and protected from dangers by some invisible guardian angel. “It won’t happen to me”, think people who have unprotected sex or who choose the drive-through more often than they should.

In my wellness workshops, I often ask my audience how many have below average driving skills. In a crowd of 200 people, I’ll typically see five or six hands go up – including mine (my husband has told me enough times, I know that my driving skills aren't the best!). Similarly, most of us think we need less good sleep, food, mood and exercise than others to stay healthy and function optimally.

Ask yourself: Do you think you’re doing just fine even if sleep deprived, malnourished, stressed and/or sedentary? How do your mood, relationships and performence differ when you take better care of your body?

Confirmation Bias

We love for our beliefs and opinions to be validated. So much so that we have an internal lawyer, working around the clock to make sure we give more weight to anything that agrees with us, and discredit sources that disagree. If you’re an avid runner, you’re likely to find and remember information showing that running doesn’t influence the likelihood of developing arthritis. If you’d rather go blind than go for a run, you’re more likely to find and remember the studies that explain the dangers of joint overuse.

Ask yourself: What topics is your internal lawyer serving his most active duty on, and does it serve or interfere with maintaining a healthy lifestyle?

Fitting In

Our fundamental need to belong is a powerful behavior shaper. Just think of all the times you succumbed to regrettable choices due to peer pressure as a teenager - or just how difficult it was to resist - and you’ll agree that the desire to fit in impacts us deeply. In their book Connected: The Surprising Power of Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives, Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler review 30 years of data from one of the longest-running epidemiological studies. They found that change doesn’t happen in a vacuum; it happens in networks. When we live in a culture that glorifies sleep deprivation, promotes fast food, normalizes high stress and engineers movement out of every activity, our health clearly suffers.

Ask yourself: Who in your network twists your arm away from your health goals? Can you reverse that pressure?

Making Smarter Choices

I recommend working on one of these mental shortcuts at a time. As I always say, don't tackle the 500-pound gorilla first, but start by choosing something easier to work on. You'll later have the ability to build on your initial victories. Be mindful so you can catch yourself using the distracting shortcut, and ask a few close friends to keep you accountable too if you can. Then, be willing to admit when and how a shortcut is leading you astray, and make a smarter choice.

__________________________________________________________________________________

MJ Shaar, MAPP, CPT, is the Founder and Owner of Smarts and Stamina, a company devoted to helping wellness professionals thrive.  MJ is the author of Smarts and Stamina: The Busy Person’s Guide to Optimal Health and Performance. 

MJ is regularly featured in the media and in industry conferences. She isavailable for speaking engagements, training workshops, media commentary, and private wellness coaching. To learn more, contact MJ at mj@SmartsAndStamina.com, or visit www.SmartsAndStamina.com.

Connect with MJ on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Shortlist of References

Photography by Karola Riegler https://www.flickr.com/photos/karola/

Allen, J. & Shaar, M.-J. (2013). Wellness doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Positive Psychology News.

Christakis, N. A. & Fowler, J. H. (2009). Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives. New York: Little, Brown.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. London, Allen Lane.

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5 (1), 193-206.

Miller, R. H., Edwards, W. B., Brandon, S. C., Morton, A. M., & Deluzio, K. J. (2014). Why don’t most runners get knee osteoarthritis? A case for per-unit-distance loads. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 46(3): 572-9. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000135. Abstract.

PhysioRoom.com (no date). Knee Arthritis Explained.

Weinstein, N. & Klein, W. M. (1996). “Unrealistic Optimism: Present and Future”. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 15 (1): 1–8. doi:10.1521/jscp.1996.15.1.1.

Dear Dr. G.,

I want to leave my family. I have two boys ages 26 and 20. I love them dearly. I married for the first time in 2005 to a good guy. The only area we are not compatible in, and never was, is sex. I married him knowing that because I felt there were more important things than just sex. It was hard for me to get married because I had come a long way and was independent.

Over the past couple of years I have resented everything. I first became a mother at 19, so you see I never had any ME time. Yes that was my choice. Obviously one I knew nothing about. Now I resent responsibility. My husband and sons and 2 dogs do nothing but make messes. I am constantly cleaning. I get enraged over it. When everyone is at work I feel relieved and peaceful. I get anxious when they are all due back home at the end of the day.

I am constantly yelling at the dogs. They have ruined rugs and furniture and i cant stand the mess. I do love them. I didn't always feel this animosity towards them and now it’s a daily thing. I constantly day dream about running away and having my OWN place, to myself with NO ONE else. I hate it here. I hate my sex less marriage. I hate the cleaning. I don’t even feel like a woman anymore.

Recently I discovered that my husband is secretly into porn. he says its an addiction….? I don't get it. That’s not the shocker though, it’s the fact that he NEVER initiates sex with me (and never did). He is christian and used the ’God wants us to wait’ excuse before we got married. Then when we were married it was rare. I don't think we’ve had sex 10 times in the ten yrs we’ve been together. I resent him greatly for that. other than the sex he is a great person and respects me. I am losing feelings for him, and usually that signals the beginning of the end for me.

Right now i cannot financially afford to take care of myself and that makes me even angrier, because I am stuck here. I look around the house and feel like a useless maid. I am about to lose it. I am at a loss. I have no family. i do have a lot to be thankful for, and i know some people have it worse. I try to be happy but the resentment creeps back in. I don't know what to do. Sometimes I think about ending it all. Yes I am depressed.

A Distraught Wife & Mother

Dear Wife and Mom

I am very happy that you wrote to me. I can certainly understand why you are at your wit's end. You are exhausted and depleted and are clearly not feeling nurtured or appreciated. I have several suggestions for you.

1. You must talk to your husband and let him know that the lack of sex in the marriage is an issue for you. Sex can be a great connector in a marriage.It is unclear why your husband is getting his sexual gratification from porn rather than from his partner. Perhaps your husband has sexual anxiety and/or does not understand that you are feeling deprived and distressed.

2. I strongly suggest that you get into individual therapy. Of course you are depressed. You are feeling unacknowledged and trapped. Your thoughts about ending it all are concerning. I would like you to see a therapist who helps you find ways to modify old habits and patterns so that you feel more hopeful about your life and life choices. Suicide should not be on your list of problem-solving options.

3. You have many issues with your husband and describe feeling overwhelmed and deprived. I understand that. Get a recommendation for a good marital therapist and get started immediately. In marital therapy you and your husband should talk about what you both need from each other so that you don't simply feel like you are stuck in the house like a prisoner cleaning up messes.

4. Begin to work on sharing the household responsibilities. It is absolutely not fair that you are taking care of all of the household responsibilities when there are other adults in the household. Begin to delegate tasks.

AND

5. You are right. We all need ME time. Think about what you used to enjoy doing before you became a mother and a wife and try to resume these activities. We all need time to get refreshed and rejuvenated.

I wish you luck and love. Please write back to me during the next few months

Dr. G.

For more articles like this see my website:

http://drbarbaragreenberg.com/

A close friend of Angelina Jolie's late mother has told an interviewer that Angelina suffered from anorexia during her teen years.

"I carried her into the hospital. She was in that anorexic stage," Cis Rundle told Radar.

Rundle went on to say that Angelina enjoyed experiencing pain and that Beverly High School bullies called the future star "Ubangi Lips."

Reading this article, I realized that I'd clicked it only because its headline contained the word "anorexia." This realization embarrassed me. (And now let us chorus: But hey, everything does.) Because the reason I clicked on a story about Angelina allegedly being a teenage anorexic is that I was one too.

And see, who cares? You? In a sense, I hope not. And do I now imagine Angelina as my newfound sister-in-suffering? If so, please pour ice down my back.

Had the headline cited not anorexia but only other aspects of this star -- as countless headlines do, day after day -- I never would have clicked it. Because I don't care.

I clicked it only because, by mentioning anorexia, the article announced itself to me as being about me. 

That I would fall for this gambit depresses me. (Ack! There it goes again, the secret weapon that might be wrecking civilization as we speak: the pervasive, addictive pronoun which Dad warned against using in letters and conversations: me.) 

Yes, sometimes healing starts with solidarity: the discovery that one is not alone in one's particular valley of bygone suffering. Do I belong to the "anorexic demographic"? Sure. But how attached to that aspect of of my decades-ago past do I want to remain? Need I let the word "anorexia" lure me forever back and back into a comfort zone whose comfort is the revelation of discomfort? Countless articles appeared online today, and first and foremost I chose that one?

I'm not suggesting that we hide our past pain, deny it or be ashamed of it. In certain contexts, sharing what we've undergone can help others survive. But having shared more personal details more publicly than most, and having just now read (because it tricked me into thinking it was about me) an article about a famous stranger who otherwise interests me less than does, say, copper wire, I worry that our range of interests these days is becoming ever smaller, ever more focused on us. Not as us, that is, but as me and me and me.

Link-baitish headlines such as "Canadian Swap Meets You'll Love" and "The 10 Things You Miss Most About the '90s" abound, playing right into this.

How ironic. In an era whose technology allows instant access to all the facts, images, entertainments and individuals on earth, we increasingly seek to speak and hear and read only about ourselves. In an alternate reality, these exact same resources could be turning us all into scholars and virtual world explorers, expanding our horizons exponentially, effortlessly, perpetually and autodidactically. Instead, that vast spectrum of topics that could interest and absorb us is reduced to the instant, empty-eyed digital self-portrait.

My book Unworthy: How to Stop Hating Yourself is about self-absorption of a kind: the self-loathing that we could call "negative narcissism." One healing strategy suggested in this book is the adoption of outer-directed interests and activities. Study a foreign language, help animals, fix cars: To save yourself, think about something, anything, besides yourself. And yet...

In taking the it's-about-me bait, I'm part of that problem. But hey, there's that first-person-singular pronoun again.

Everyone knows that heart disease is the #1 killer of Americans and that cancer is #2.  But few people can tell you the third leading cause of death, which kills 400,000 of our loved ones, friends, and colleagues each year.  The #3 killer is not a disease.  And it’s 100% preventable.

The #3 killer is preventable medical errors.

Yep, it’s true.  Our healthcare system is stretched way too thin, and one result is prevetable medical errors that kill 400,000 of us each year.  It’s equivalent to 2,000 commercial jets taking off each day knowing that they don’t have enough fuel to complete their journeys.  Would you allow your spouse to board one of those planes?  Your friend?  A stranger?

It’s not just the staggering number of preventable deaths.  Each day, 10,000 of us suffer a preventable serious complication.  And preventable medical errors are not confined to hospitals.  A recent study revealed that 1 out of every 5 of us who visit our doctor’s office is the victim of an error in diagnosis or missed diagnosis.  That’s 12 million adults who are incorrectly diagnosed by their outpatient doctor every year.  Worse, half of these errors (affecting 6 million of us annually) have potentially serious consequences (such as a missed cancer diagnosis).

Listen, doctors and nurses help way, way, way more people than they unintentionally harm.  But the risk is yours, so you must own your health.  And while you don’t have advanced medical knowledge, you truly can significantly protect yourself from preventable medical injury or death.  Not surprisingly, your power comes from simply speaking up.

Even if you are in the hospital, by simply speaking up, you or your loved ones (if you are too ill) can protect yourself from a dangerous medical error.  An actual example: one day following knee surgery, a hospitalized woman saw that her orthopedic surgeon failed to wash his hands upon entering her room.  She knew he should (that’s why the sink is just inside the door) but was uncomfortable reminding him.  He proceeded to touch her surgical wound to evaluate her healing.  What he also did was transfer very aggressive bacteria from his previous patient into her new knee, requiring an additional two weeks of antibiotics in the hospital.

Would you eat a meal that you saw your waiter sneeze into? So if you are uncertain whether your doctor or nurse has washed their hands before touching you, own your health and respectfully ask!  Remind the nurse that you are allergic to penicillin as she prepares to give you an antibiotic.  Remind the surgeon just before surgery to repair your left, not your right, hip.  Ask the nurse if the blood you are about to receive is a match for your blood type.  I have seen all of these preventable errors (and so many more!) hurt (even kill) people just like you and me and our loved ones.  And I have seen patients who own their health and speak up protect themselves from such serious harm.  And here’s the truth:  whether or not an error is prevented, doctors and nurse are grateful for patients who care enough to speak up.  And when harm is prevented, we providers are truly humbled (and thankful) at having “dodged a bullet,” and we become even more committed to providing safe care.

Many patients visit their doctor’s office when something new worries them.  Here again, speaking up can protect you.  If your physician’s plan doesn’t make sense or feel right to you, ask questions.  Ask why your doctor is recommending the X-ray, blood test, or simply “doing nothing for now.”  Once you clearly understand your doctor’s recommendations, you may feel comfortable and agree.  Or you may not.  You may feel that your doctor seems less concerned with your physical complaint than you are.  Another real-world example:  a man visits his doctor because he has recently seen a little bright red blood on some of his stools.  His doctor says, “You probably have hemorrhoids.  It will clear up.”  The man is worried that he may actually have something more serious, but he is uncomfortable challenging his physician.  Four months later, he is diagnosed with rectal cancer.  I have partnered with many such patients whose discomfort with speaking up to their doctor outweighed their fear, delaying their cancer diagnosis by many, many months.

If you don’t feel that your doctor is concerned enough about your health problem, SPEAK UP!  It is your health and your risk.  Furthermore, good doctors (which represent the vast majority) are not offended by patients who take such ownership of their health (we prefer them).  Simply saying, “Doc, I’m worried it could be something worse than hemorrhoids” will most likely lead to, “O.K.  Let’s schedule a colonoscopy to check.”  The result?  Earlier cancer detection with a greater likelihood of cure.  And if your doc truly says, “No.  It’s hemorrhoids,” seek a second opinion (see my blog on Second Opinions).  This example holds true for all ailments.

Finally, patients themselves are a major source of preventable harm.  Up to 30% of people with serious, chronic conditions do not take their medications as prescribed.  More than a quarter of us fail to fill new prescriptions.  There are many reasons why.  Some chronic illnesses don’t cause symptoms, so people just don’t want to take any drugs.  For others, the drug’s side-effects are worse than the disease symptoms.  And still others simply cannot afford their medicines and either don’t take them as prescribed or at all.  But while there are numerous reasons for medication “non-compliance,” there is one common consequence:  preventable, often significant harm to you.

If you aren’t correctly taking your prescribed drugs, own your health, swallow your embarrassment, and speak with your doctor.  Too costly?  Your physician may be able to prescribe an affordable generic drug.  Or help you work with the drug company to significantly reduce your costs through their customer aid plans (offered for many of their higher cost medicines, such as cancer drugs).  Don’t like the side effects?  Many times there are other equally effective drugs that for you may have more tolerable, fewer, or no side effects.  Don’t take your meds because you don’t have any symptoms (such as patients with high blood pressure)?  Your doctor will understand your feelings but will share the reality that if untreated, the first symptom of many chronic conditions is serious or even lift-threatening (the first “symptom” of untreated high blood pressure may be a heart attack).

You can reduce your risk from the third leading cause of death, as well as from preventable medical injuries and harm caused by medication non-compliance.  Own your health, speak up, and be safe!

It seems that every day the news is filled with information about the spread of Ebola, which is short for Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever. This is a deadly viral infection with a fatality rate that ranges from 50 to 90 percent. As those of you who regularly read my blog know, my major interests has to do with how dogs think and act as well as our human-canine bond rather than veterinary issues. However over the past several weeks my mailbox has filled up with messages from people are worried about whether or not their dogs are susceptible to the Ebola virus, and if so, whether they can spread it to others. Given the stress and confusion that was obvious in the emails that I received I thought that providing some information on this topic might be useful.

To start with some good news, the Ebola outbreak is confined to several African nations at the moment, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have concluded that the outbreak does not pose a significant risk to North America or Europe at the moment. The bad news is that the WHO predicts that before the Ebola outbreak is contained they expect that 20,000 people will have been infected and it will cost about $600 million to fight this outbreak. At this time there is no known cure, but there are some promising new treatments and vaccines that are being developed.

In humans who have been infected by Ebola symptoms may appear anywhere from 2 to 21 days after exposure to the virus. The first signs are usually headaches, muscle and joint pain, fever, sore throat, diarrhea, and vomiting. The disease then progresses, ultimately causing kidney failure and finally to the hemorrhagic stage which is where the victim begins to bleed internally and externally.

Several comprehensive studies have suggested that Ebola originated in central Africa, possibly in birds. The main reservoir of the virus is thought to be African fruit bats.

Now to get closer to the answer to our question we must ask which creatures are at risk for the Ebola infection? It is important to know that Ebola is a zoonotic disease, which means that it is not confined to one species but can be passed to different types of animals including humans. In fact it appears that primates, including gorillas, chimpanzees, monkeys, and of course humans, are the most adversely affected. Ebola infection has been found, in addition to African fruit bats, in antelopes, porcupines, rodents, pigs, and unfortunately also in dogs. To date there have been no documented infections in felines, meaning that our domestic cats are probably safe from it.

There are a number of ways in which Ebola is spread. A major study done by CDC following the 2001-2002 Ebola outbreak suggested that consumption of infected meat was one important means of transmission. Animals, including gorillas and other primates, kill and eat infected animals. There is a lucrative trade in "bush meat" in Africa, and this meat often comes from monkeys and other primates. It has been shown that people who consume bush meat can become infected. Humans spread the disease by direct contact with body fluids such as saliva, urine, vomit, feces, semen, and blood from infected people. In Africa dogs may be kept as pets and to assist in hunting, but they are not typically fed. That means that they scavenge and may eat infected meat or other forms of residue from infected people.

Although dogs are susceptible to Ebola, the CDC concluded that "infected dogs are asymptomatic", meaning that they do not develop symptoms. During the early phase of their infection, however, they can spread the disease to humans and other animals through licking, biting, urine, and feces. However, the good news is that once the virus is cleared from the dog it is no longer contagious. Dogs do not die from Ebola infections.

Now to answer the question "Can my dog get Ebola?" The possibility certainly exists, but in North America, Europe, and other areas of the world which are not adjacent to the affected countries in central Africa, the chances of actually contracting the disease is extremely low. The virus is being spread mainly in central African countries including Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal and Sierra Leone where the lifestyle is far different from that of found in the Americas and Europe. The good news is that there is no known source of Ebola infection outside of the affected areas in Africa. In the developed world, most countries have more stringent rules concerning food production and sanitation, which means that, in the same way that humans are protected from this deadly disease, so are our dogs.

I hope that this serves to lower the stress level of my readers and the many people who have written to me about their fears for their pets during this Ebola outbreak.

Stanley Coren is the author of many books including: The Wisdom of Dogs; Do Dogs Dream? Born to Bark; The Modern Dog; Why Do Dogs Have Wet Noses? The Pawprints of History; How Dogs Think; How To Speak Dog; Why We Love the Dogs We Do; What Do Dogs Know? The Intelligence of Dogs; Why Does My Dog Act That Way? Understanding Dogs for Dummies; Sleep Thieves; The Left-hander Syndrome

 Copyright SC Psychological Enterprises Ltd. May not be reprinted or reposted without permission

This is Part IX of an ongoing series of posts. Before reading this one, particularly if you are going to try this at home with a real adult family member with borderline personality disorder, or BPD (which is not recommended without the help of a therapist), please read Part I, Part II, and Part III.

I will continue to run down specific countermeasures for use on those occasions when they are trying to distance and/or invalidate you, or to make you feel anxiously helpless, anxiously guilty, or hostile.

Keep in mind that if you are someone who continually tries to fix someone with the disorder, or who keeps reacting to them out of guilt, anger, or helplessness, then they are just giving you what you seem to need. They are doing you a favor. You may need psychotherapy yourself at least as much as they do.

Also, the behaviors under discussion usually draw negativity back to the patient with BPD, so ultimately they are self-destructive.

In the last post in the series, Part VIII, I discussed how to handle those times when other people seem to start fighting with each other over how to respond to the person with the disorder. Today I discuss statements made by individuals which sound hostile or critical but which may or may not actually be as critical or hostile as they sound. 

A lot of psychotherapists recommend responding more to an individual's tone of voice and body language than to the content of what that person actually says. We all have a tendency to do that anyway - most likely because voice tone and body language preceded verbal language in the evolutionary development of the brains of primates like ourselves. Chimps, for example, know how to determine whether another chimp is coming to fight with them or mate with them throught the approaching chimp's posturing and the noises it makes. (And if you injure a certain part of the chimp's brains called the amygdala, they completely lose the ability to make this call).

Nonetheless, I recommend precisely the opposite: listen to the words (the lexical content) and more or less ignore the tone and posturing, as well as any seeming insinuations implied by what is said that are not clearly and overtly stated.

If you respond only to the words, the individual with BPD will usually change to a friendlier tone. 

For example, a client I diagnosed with panic disorder responded to my recommendation for anti-depressant medication for her panic attacks with the sarcastic-sounding remark, "Oh, so you want to mess with my brain chemistry?" It sounded as though she was accusing me of being a devious, malicious mad scientist. Some anti-psychiatry types might agree with that interpretation of my recommendation, but I digress.

We don't exactly know how antidpressants work, but guess what? They do in fact alter brain chemistry. So I nonchalantly responded, "Yes, anti-depressants do alter brain chemistry, although we don't know exactly how they work," and I went on to describe what symptoms they seem to to work on just as one might do with any other patient. She then agreed to the drug trial. (Of course she went off the meds the very next day, but that's another issue altogether).

The structure of all human language is such that ambiguity is extremely easy to generate. Any sentence in any language can refer to a multiple of unclear attributes or objects, or can be interpreted in exactly opposite (antithetical) ways. Negative judgments can come out sounding positive and vice versa through changes in body language, tone of voice, or even choice of synonym. 

For example, almost any adjective with a positive or a negative connotation has a synonym with precisely the opposite valence. An optimist, for instance, can be called a Pollyanna. People can be described as stubborn or tenacious, loyal or as being lap dogs, and so forth. A complete discussion of the antithetical nature of language is beyond the scope of this post, but can be found in my book, Deciphering Motivation in Psychotherapy.

Another trick that people with BPD are especially adept at employing is to create ambiguity through the use of unvoiced implications, as I alluded to earlier. Individuals imply something without stating it explicitly, thusly creating opportunities for plausible deniability of having made those implications at a later date. 

For example, a mother may admire or even envy her daughter in some way, but make it sound as if she were critical about the very behavior that she really admires. 

A good illustration of this process occurred in a conversation between a nurse and her mother. The mother was discussing the daughter’s rather assertive (some might say even aggressive) stance towards the mostly male physicians with whom the daughter worked. The mother said, “I can’t believe you talk to doctors that way!” 

The patient took this to mean that the mother believed that she should not engage in this behavior. In one sense this was an accurate assessment of the mother’s view, but it was only part of the whole truth. The mother indeed was worried that the daughter might get fired. Such would have been the case during earlier times, when the mother was younger.

As it turned out, however, the mother was also expressing covert admiration for the nurse’s bravery, assertiveness, and feminist leanings. What Mom had difficulty "believing" was that the patient had the audacious nerve that the mother lacked. 

Her critical tone of voice obscured the admiration. The actual lexical content of the comment has no positive or negative valence at all!  It merely expressed surprise. The nurse perhaps should have responded, "Well, is that a good thing or a bad thing?"

In the next and final installment of this series, I will discuss what to do in cases in which, no matter what you say, the family member with BPD continues to escalate with more and more outrageous accusations or oppositionalism, as well as what to do when on infrequent occasions you find yourself having fallen back into old, counterproductive response habits.

A couple of weeks ago, in response to the savage killing of American journalist Tom Foley, President Obama held a press conference in order to condemn -- solemnly and strongly -- the heinous murder carried out by Islamic State. At one point in the speech, the president criticized the Muslim terrorists who decapitated Foley, dismissing any notion that such barbarism might be religiously justified. As Obama stated, “no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just god would stand for what they did yesterday and what they do every single day.”

I respect Obama for speaking out against these medieval murderers, and I hope his promised efforts to damage, deter, and hopefully destroy Islamic State will be successful.

But I must quibble with his theology.

There are two problems with Obama’s recent statements concerning faith and God. One is that he is sorely incorrect: many religious faiths do support and/or condone violence, and the very God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam most certainly commands and condones wanton slaughter.

Furthermore -- and this issue is more deeply theological/philosophical -- by inserting the adjective “just” before the word “god,” Obama has perhaps unwittingly cracked open a serious theological conundrum -- one first broached by Plato in his famous dialogue of Euthyphro -- in which justice and morality exist outside or independent of God, rather than being created by or embodied by God. Why this is a thorny issue I’ll explain below.

But let’s start with the first issue.

Obama seems to think that murdering people is not something that God likes or supports. But the Bible speaks otherwise. For example, God regularly commands his followers to kill. Consider this, from Ezekiel 9: "Kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.” Yep. That’s God speaking. This same god supports the genocide of the Amalek people (I Samuel 15). God also supports the genocides of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites – all of whom are to be “wiped out.” (Exodus 23). Additionally, God aided and abetted Joshua in exterminating every man, woman, and child of the city of Jericho; God even stopped the sun in its place so Joshua’s army could have more daylight by which to kill all the inhabitants by “the edge of the sword.” God further exhorts Joshua to kill all the people of Ai.

Elsewhere in the Bible, God commands that his human followers kill people who won’t listen to priests (Deuteronomy 17), people who have different religions (Deuteronomy 17), witches (Exodus 22), homosexuals (Leviticus 20), fortunetellers (Leviticus 20), people who commit adultery (Leviticus 20), atheists (2 Chronicles 15), etc., etc. God himself commits genocide: he drowns every man, woman, and child on earth – sparing only Noah and his family. And God also kills the first-born sons of all the Egyptians. OK, you get the picture.

My point is that when Obama says that no faith supports the kind of violence the Islamic State is carrying out, one has to wonder: either Obama has actually not read the Bible, or he has read it bust simply glosses over or denies the parts where God exhorts and commits murder, or he just says incorrect things about religion and faith that he thinks people want to hear.

Most Jews, Christians, and Muslims abhor violence. They are against genocide. They hate murder. But they do so in spite of their God’s own Biblical and Qu’ranic actions and commands, not because of them.

And now for the deeper, more philosophical issue: Obama said that no “just” god would support the decapitating of people by Islamic State.

But what exactly does Obama imply when he puts the adjective “just” in from of the word “god”? Is it possible for God to be unjust? Isn’t God – by virtue of being God – automatically just by default? Or does justice exist as an ideal or construct independently of God, and then God might or might not be in line with it? What if, for example, God did support the beheading of Tim Foley? Would we then need to support it as well, and see such an act as just? Or would we be in the position of having to rebel against God, and say: “God, you may command and want this, but it is not just. So I don’t want to follow or worship you.”

I hope the dilemma is clear: either God is just by virtue of being God – in which case, anything he does or commands is intrinsically just, even the wanton slaughter of entire cities. Or, on the other hand, there is this ideal that we call justice, which has to do with being fair, humane, egalitarian, etc., and it exists independently of God or of God’s commandments, and thus, if God were to command his followers to do something unjust (like behead a journalist, or cut the throat of one’s own son, or stone to death an adulterer, or exterminate an entire people), then we humans would be acting morally by disregarding such unjust divine dictates.

I doubt that Obama thought through his “just god” comment too deeply, but the implications it raises are important, for they cut to the very bone marrow of theism. And its inherent contradictions.

There’s no shortage of buzzwords or phrases to assist us all to meet the challenge of living in a world that seems to be moving at warp speed most of the time. The problem is that embodying those suggestions is, in case you haven’t noticed, easier said than done; much easier. Ask any ten people if they feel that they have enough time in their lives to handle their commitments, responsibilities, and needs, and chances are that at least nine will say “No”.

It’s not for lack of awareness that most of us feel that our lives are on overload most of the time, but rather it’s about feeling like we’re caught up in a whirlwind created by forces beyond our control. Feeling breathless, playing catch up, and feeling stressed out much of the time takes its toll on us. It affects our health, our moods, our relationships, and our general sense of well being.

Our sense of insufficiency (there’s not enough time, money, energy, etc.) generates a sense of personal inadequacy, (“I’m not enough”–smart enough, beautiful enough, wealthy enough, lovable enough, successful enough, good enough”, etc.). While the source of these feelings of inadequacy and insufficiency doesn’t lay entirely upon social and cultural forces, there’s no question that our perpetual “need for speed” and lust for more is amplified by technological innovations that condition us to increasingly expect immediate fulfillment of our desires and intensify our tendencies towards impatience and frustration.

Since there’s little chance that things are likely to slow down in the immediate or near future, does this mean that we’re doomed to a future of living in a state of overwhelm? Not necessarily. It depends upon whether we view yourself as a helpless victim in world spinning at warp speed, or as an active agent who has the power to influence the course, direction and pace of his or her own life. Making the choice is the easy part. Embodying the principles and practices of such a life is the challenging part. It’s difficult but not impossible.

A key factor in the process of taking charge of the rhythm of your life has to do with having at least one person in your life with whom you share a desire to move through life at a rhythm set by you rather than one that is set by others. Taking control over the quantity of content and the rate of movement of one’s life in the face of job, family, social, and other commitments can seem like an overwhelming prospect, but when you share that intention on with a partner it becomes much less daunting.                           

Here are a few suggestions that you might want to try that could make the process a whole lot easier:

1. Check in. Most of us spend a lot more of our time attending to our thoughts, phones, screens, and countless other distractions than we do being aware of our current experience. This way of being amplifies the tendency to feel anxious and rushed in our lives.  Like the sign in the casino says, “You must be present to win”. Checking in is about directing our attention inward and bringing a non-judging awareness to what shows up in our field of experience, which includes thoughts, physical sensations, and emotions. When we bring this quality of mindfulness into our experience and simply note what we are experiencing without reacting to it, clinging to it, resisting it or judging it, the world seems to slow down and feels less out of control. The simple act of bringing awareness to the moment and acknowledging what’s going on within us is sufficient to slow things down as we relate to our experience, rather than from it.

1. Checking in with others. When we’re caught up in trying to catch up with everything on our to-do list, we generally have little motivation or energy to check with others, particularly those with whom we have the closest relationships, to inquire into their well being. Our primary relationships can be the greatest source of support for us and paradoxically, they can be the ones that we are most likely to neglect or take for granted. The act of checking in with our partner or close friend needn’t take a long time but merely inquiring about how they are doing (with a genuine interest in actually hearing their answer) is an expression of sincere interest and concern that is itself beneficial to both of you.  
2. Breathe. Yes, I know we're all always doing this naturally, but 99.99% of the time we're not aware that we're breathing, or more accurately, that our body is breathing itself. Simply bringing consciousness to our breath, even for a moment or two is enough to center ourselves in the present and disengage from the chatter that fills our mind most of the time and activates anxiety and distressing thoughts with which we can easily become preoccupied. Becoming conscious of our breathing is an effortless and nearly instantaneous means of interrupting the grip of negative thought cycles.
3. Turn off the TV, laptop, tablet, cell phone and all electronic devices.
   Create an inner sanctuary. Make your internal world a place that offers a respite from the external visual, auditory, and other sensory stimuli that are so prevalent in our world. Choose to focus only upon the kinds of thoughts or mental images that promote feelings of peace and well being. This doesn't mean that we go into denial or ignore legitimate and actual concerns that need to be tended to, but that we set boundaries around chosen times in which certain activities are off limits.
4. Practice humility. We can remind ourselves that we are more than this bundle of desires and beliefs encapsulated in a body. We can remember that although we have a physical presence we are much more than that. Remembering our true nature and affirming our relationship with all of the other beings with whom we share this wondrous planet is a powerful antidote to the state of forgetfulness that we fall into when we lose sight of our interconnected relationship with the cosmos.  
5. Report out what you are experiencing to your partner or companion, emphasizing what you are feeling in the moment. It’s a good idea to do this on a regular and frequent basis, although it needn’t take a much time when you focus primarily on the nature of your experience rather than explanations or other forms of commentary. Sharing your experience with another who can receive it without judgment or unwanted advice often helps to validate and legitimatize it. It also deepens the experience of emotional intimacy between the two of you. 
6. Have fun! No, this isn't a excuse to be irresponsible, only a reminder that it's not only O.K. to experience pleasure and fun, but it's as important as anything else in your life when it comes to restoring balance and well-being. If your experience of life generally feels grim or oppressive, you not only won't have much fun, but you’ll find it difficult to manage the commitments that you have chosen to take on. People who feel victimized by their obligations rather than at choice about them tend to burn out much faster than those who know that they have not only chosen their commitments but they have the power to choose how they feel about fulfilling them. 
7. Practice gratitude. No matter what is going on in our lives, no matter what the circumstances or conditions are, there are always things for which we can be grateful. Choosing to focus upon what we are grateful for rather than what we wish were different can have a profound impact upon our mood and our sense of inner peace. This doesn't mean that we ignore or choose not to attend to legitimate concerns, but only that we don't allow ourselves to become consumed in feelings of resentment, self-pity or resignation. It's simply a matter of where we choose to direct our attention at any given moment.

This list is by no means complete, but it's a good starter kit. Remember that the greatest gift that you can give to your loved ones is your own happiness and you won’t have much of that to give if you’re feeling stressed out. Give yourself the gift of peace of mind and practice self-care by checking in. Often. Do it for yourself. Do it for your loved ones. Just do it!

Yes means yes. That’s the shorthand for the new legislation poised to become law in California.

California is on the verge of becoming the first state to mandate that all colleges receiving state funds strengthen their policies on sexual assault. These new policies would require that students give active consent to one another before all sexual activity, either by saying “yes” to a spoken question or by signalling agreement in a nonverbal way.

 In the wake of this legislation’s passage, we’ve heard the usual objections - It’s not the job of universities to micromanage sex. The standard of consent is confusing. What is this actually going to look like? Do I have to ask if everything I do is okay? This is going to ruin the mood.

 What these questions and negative reactions signal, in addition to some still ingrained patriarchal assumptions about sex, is our collective discomfort with talking in an affirmative way about sex. When both partners feel comfortable talking about sex, some pretty sexy things can happen. “I like it when you do this.” “Touch me like that.” “Can I touch you there?” “Yes. Yes. Yes.”

 But when we’re uncomfortable talking about sex, lots of unsexy things can happen. Sexual assault chief among them. The CDC recently released statistics showing that one in five women in the US has been raped. And we know that by the time a woman graduates from college, nearly one in four will be a survivor or rape or attempted rape.

 Of course talk about sex alone will not solve the problem of sexual assault. But it can go a long way, particularly in the college years of early sexual exploration and experimentation, towards changing the way that young men and women interact with one another when it comes to sex.

 I applaud the California state legislature for taking the lead on an issue that as recently as the 1990’s drew guffaws of derision from the cast of Saturday Night Live, which mercilessly parodied Antioch College’s “Yes means Yes” code of conduct for their students. For California college students today and in the future, “yes” is an erotic word, a turn on, and an invitation to a lifetime of healthy sex.

If you like this post, check out my book, Hard to Get, follow me on Twitter, or like me on Facebook.

Given recent gruesome events in the Middle East--the unanticipated taking of territory in Iraq by ISIS and now the videotaped barbaric beheadings of two Americans and one British citizen described by Prime Minister David Cameron as acts of "pure evil"--I can't help but recall something I wrote on this subject back in 2006 in the Preface to my book Anger, Madness, and the Daimonic: "Indeed, there are those savvy political and military observers who argue that World War 111, an inexorable global clash between radical Islam and Judeo-Christian or secular western culture, each side perceiving the other as evil incarnate, is already afoot." This would, of course, be the nightmare scenario should the unstable situation in Iraq and Syria and the escalating battle against ISIS spark such an apocalyptic cataclysm. Hopefully, it will never come to that. But I was also reminded of my previous postings here about Al-Qaeda several years ago, in which I discussed the psychology of terrorists and their motivations, both conscious and unconscious. It seems appropriate and timely to revisit these posts (Parts 1 and 2) today, with an eye toward how they might apply to the phenomenon of ISIS, an even more virulent and violent strain of Al-Qaeda:

"Yesterday, Christmas Day, 2009, a twenty-three-year-old Nigerian with purported Al-Qaeda connections, apparently tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines jet carrying almost three-hundred-passengers-plus-crew as it prepared to land in Detroit, Michigan. Miraculously, as with the infamous "shoe-bomber" Richard Reid in 2001, the allegedly "sophisticated" device he attempted to detonate did not work as planned, and disaster was once again averted.

But authorities, who are officially calling it an act of terrorism, are concerned that this could be part of a concerted effort by other similarly armed individuals intending to bring down passenger planes. In 2006, British police broke up a plot to blow half-a-dozen commercial airliners out of the sky on their way to the U.S., using a chemical explosive that may have been similar to the one employed yesterday. Eight men were arrested in that investigation. Hopefully, this is not the case for now, and we Americans have dodged yet another terrorist bullet. But where will it all end?

Whether politically motivated, as apparently in this case and possibly that of the recent Fort Hood massacre, or personally motivated, as in so many of the other recent mass murders I've been writing about here, terrorism is itself a type of madness. Perpetrators of terrorism express their rage and indignation at the world destructively, violently, in a desperate, last-ditch and sometimes suicidal attempt to gain recognition, fame or glory for themselves and their cause. And, ultimately, to provide some shred of meaning to their otherwise meaningless lives. Terrorism is typically an infantile and narcissistic act of violence stemming from profound feelings of impotence, frustration and insignificance. In their own ways, the vengeful shootings at Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois University, the Omaha mall and Pittsburg fitness center were, like the mad bombings of Ted Kaczynski (the "Unabomber"), all evil acts of terrorism.

Terrorists try to force the world to meet their own narcissistic, grandiose demands, and, when this doesn't happen, they lash out violently. Terrorism is a failure to find a creative solution to life, to finding and fulfilling one's true destiny. Terrorism is, in most cases, the madness of frustration and resentment. Terrorists harbor a wicked rage for recognition, both personally and politically. While we know next to nothing about yesterday's would-be terrorist (see Part Two for more about him), it seems safe to surmise that he was seeking some kind of attention for his cause, in this case, the very negative attention of downing an airplane and killing as many people as possible to make a political point and to psychologically weaken the perceived enemy, America.

Such violent actions are intended to sow the seeds of terror among the American people, and to negatively impact the U.S. infrastructure and economy. To this end, the events of 9-11 did, I suspect, succeed to some extent, and are not totally unrelated to the current critical condition of our economy. If people become too fearful to fly on commercial airlines and avoid doing so for any significant duration, this could bankrupt the vulnerable airline industry and seriously impact the already crippled economic engine of this country. While it is still unknown whether Friday's wanna-be terrorist was working alone or operating on orders from Al-Qaeda or some other radical Muslim group, the problem is that, though evidently still fairly inept, if they keep trying, terrorists will eventually succeed in destroying passenger planes on U.S. soil. The stakes here are terribly high.

Terrorists are fanatics willing to both kill and die for their cause. In this case, that cause is radical Islam and jihad. But what are the psychological factors that render such terrorists so susceptible to extremist ideology? Osama bin Laden was born in 1957, seventeenth of fifty-two children. His billionaire father died in an airplane crash when Osama was 12, leaving a vast fortune to his numerous offspring. Osama, possibly bored with his cushy lifestyle, became radicalized around the age of twenty-two when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, financially supporting and physically fighting with the mujahideen (freedom fighters) in this eventually victorious David and Goliath contest. This success presumably inflated his ego and provided a sense of purpose and meaning that may have been previously lacking despite of, or due to, his economically and socially privileged position. He likely bitterly blamed materialism and Western values for his former existential vacuum, and continues angrily lashing out against it today. Radical Islam and violent terrorism (jihad) against the West and all it symbolizes--including perhaps his wealthy, thoroughly Westernized father--became bin Laden's raison d'etre. (See my prior posts.)

Yesterday's attempted terrorist attack was reportedly perpetrated by a deeply religious young Muslim man, who, much like Osama bin Laden, hails from a wealthy and privileged family. He had been a mechanical engineering student, residing in a ritzy central London flat prior to this suicidally terrorist act. While he supposedly claims to be an operative for Al-Qaeda, one wonders whether his underlying motivation may have been more about violently rebelling against his own family and materialistic upbringing than hatred for the United States per se. The problem, of course, is that the United States makes a perfect target for the unconscious  transference--and I am using this term in the classic psychoanalytic sense--of anger, rage, resentment and embitterment toward parents and other authority figures onto the ultimate symbol of Western materialism, power, wealth and capitalism: America, "the great Satan," as radical Muslims hatefully refer to it.

So long as there are angry young men like bin Laden, the 9-11 hijackers, Richard Reid, and perhaps yesterday's alleged would-be terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Al-Qaeda and other political and religious cults will continue to find it easy to recruit and provide confused, embittered, disillusioned, frustrated, rebellious, alienated individuals with a rationale, purpose, and means to violently act out their personal rage toward their parents' values and society at large."

As C.G. Jung said more than half-a-century ago, "Today we need psychology for reasons that involve our very existence. . . . We stand face to face with the terrible question of evil and do not even know what is before us, let alone what to pit against it." (See my prior post on the "shadow.") Indeed, we are confronted today with a very real existential crisis. ISIS is stronger, more rabid, and better equipped than Al-Qaeda ever was. They are recruiting fighters from all around the world, including the U.S. and U.K. Right now the civilized world is trying to decide exactly how to respond to their primitive aggression and brutality, eerily reminiscent of the Nazi movement in Europe seventy-five years ago. All we can do is hold our collective breath and wait to see exactly how the evil deeds of ISIS will be answered.

Most people like happiness. In an international survey participants rated happiness, on average, as being more desirable than falling in love, being good looking, making money or getting into heaven. This is no surprise: happiness not only feels good, it is associated with a whole host of real-world benefits. Studies on the benefits of happiness have pointed to better health, better relationships, more productive and higher paying work, increased generosity and other desirable outcomes. 

It is a mistake, however, to believe that happiness is only good or that people should feel happy all the time. Emerging research suggests that life's shiniest emotion has a few downsides:

1. Happy people are lazy thinkers. Happy people are more likely to use cognitive shortcuts and approximations when thinking about the world. In one study, for instance, researchers employed a classic paradigm: they presented people with a list of 15 words related to a theme (eg. tired, bed, rest, etc) and then asked participants to recall the list as best they could by looking at a seperate list and identifying the original words. The tricky researchers include some false items related to the theme such as "sleep" that never appeared on the first list. Happy people were 50% more likely than their counterparts to mistakenly identify such words. 

2. Happy people can be too trusting. Happy people are more likely to project their own rosy view of the world onto others. In one study, researchers video recorded a first group of people either taking something of value from an envelop or leaving it intact. Next, the second group of people-- the research participants-- watched the videos in which all of the original folks denied taking the contents of the envelop. They were able to detect liars about 50% of the time. When the researchers artifically induced a negative mood, however, people were able to spot deciet above chance levels (62% of the time). 

3. Happy people are less persuasive. Years ago researcher Bob Cialdini identified concepts associated with persuasion: scarcity, expertise, and so forth. One element of persuasive communication is clear, concrete, detailed arguments. Exactly the stuff happy folks are inclined to gloss over. In three studies, judges rated the arguments about everyday issues such as allocating tax money. Happy people were rated as about 25% less impressive and 20% less detailed than were their more negative counterparts.

Does this mean we should all swap out smiles for frowns? Of course not. Happiness still confers many terrific benefits and it feels good. The trick is to recognize that happiness is not the only legitimate emotion and that other emotional states are more approrpiate for certain situations. Psychologists call this "psychological flexibility" and it is a fundamental feature of psychological health and success. 

Dr. Robert Biswas-Diener is a research and trainer. He is fascinated not only byhappiness but also by the difficult aspects of human psychology and has written about these topics in his forthcoming book, co-authored with Dr. Todd Kashdan: The Upside of Your Dark Side: Why being your whole self—not just your “good” self—drives success and fulfillment is available from Amazon , Barnes & Noble , Booksamillion , Powell's or Indie Bound.

I was facilitating the two-day executive offsite of a mid-sized technology company. The goal of the meeting was to solve major issues and identify potential opportunities that would guide their efforts, as a company, for the next year.

We were halfway through the first day and, while everything was going according to plan, I couldn’t shake this nagging feeling that something wasn’t right. I struggled to put my finger on it.

I took in the scene. The CEO and all his direct reports were sitting around the board room table and everyone was engaged. People were being respectful, listening to each other without interrupting, asking clarifying questions, and moving efficiently from one presentation to the next. Everyone seemed satisfied; the presentations and conversations were useful and clear.

Because everyone seemed satisfied, I was hesitant to intervene. Still, something was off. I walked around the room to try to get different perspectives, to see the meeting through the eyes of each person. Finally, when I got to the CEO, and imagined the meeting from his vantage point, it clicked.

Taken one by one, each presentation was tight, well thought out, and deftly delivered. But if you took a bird’s eye view, you’d see utter chaos.

Each person, representing a different part of the company, had his or her own priorities, concerns, agenda, and goals which weren’t aligned with – or in some cases were directly opposed to – the next person’s. No one had the whole company perspective in mind. No one was working within a single, overarching, companywide strategy.

If I were to graphically depict this meeting, with each person’s objectives, projects, and priorities symbolized by little arrows, it would look like this:

Each leader was thinking about his or her arrows – their piece of the company – but no one was focused on the company as a whole.

If each leader were running an independent company, it would be fine. But they weren’t. A decision in R & D affects Engineering, Manufacturing, Marketing, and Sales. And if Sales decides to focus on different customers, that affects Support as well as Marketing and even HR – whom you hire and how you manage and pay them might be different.

Here’s the thing: these were all smart, competent, highly educated, experienced leaders. It’s not that they didn’t understand the importance of a solid unified strategy. It’s not even that they didn’t have one. It’s just that, amid all the day-to-day challenges and tempting opportunities, they were neglecting it.

What they needed was a reminder.

After the next presentation was complete, I asked to pause the meeting and I drew the random set of small arrows on a flip chart. Then I drew a single, big arrow in the middle of them, so the drawing looked like this:

“All these presentations make perfect sense and represent sound strategies if taken independently,” I said, “But they’re not aligned as an integrated whole with the strategy that we articulated so carefully many months ago.”

“I want to remind us of our big arrow: the direction we deliberately chose to move as a company. Our overarching strategy. The big arrow represents where the company is going. It contains our priorities, our brand, and the definition of our success. We need to review the decisions we’re making from that perspective, so the little arrows align with the big arrow. We need to identify what’s distracting and what’s strategic.”

I started crossing out some arrows and redirecting others. “The implications of this are real; some projects will be stopped, others changed drastically, and some, possibly, moved a bit.”

It got so messy that I just ripped off that page and drew a new, clean image on the flip chart:

“This is how we should be moving forward as a senior leadership team, together, supporting each other and the larger company.”

They agreed to review the basic tenets of their strategy. We discussed their brand, the kind of customers they wanted to serve and acquire, the products they were optimally positioned to engineer and manufacture, and the outcomes they wanted to produce over the next year.

The entire conversation took 15 minutes.

It went so quickly because they weren’t designing a new strategy, they were just reminding themselves of the well-thought-out strategy they had already developed.

Then we got to the most challenging work: Making decisions. It’s challenging because it demands courageous choices about priorities. Which opportunities are we willing to forgo? Which problems could we not afford to ignore?

They nudged and shifted their little arrows in light of the big arrow. A few projects got cancelled as distractions. Some of the conversations were heated and some people got defensive. But the conversation was tremendously productive, always respectful, and clearly focused on the big arrow.

As Lewis Carroll wrote in Alice in Wonderland, “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.” The challenge for leaders is that, while we often know where we’re going, it’s easy to get distracted. Two things are helpful to stay on track:

The big arrow. Every time you meet to discuss opportunities, address challenges, solve problems, or think through a particular decision, spend a few minutes revisiting the big arrow first. Start every strategy meeting with your big arrow. Remind yourself of the overarching priorities, direction, and boundaries of the company as a whole.

The big arrow sets the direction — and forms the boundaries — to answer the critical question: Where should we spend our time? And it serves as a decision making filter to assess the viability and productivity of each decision: Does this solution help us move forward in the overarching focus of the organization?

Emotional courage. Making the hard, sometimes painful, decisions required to align your little arrows with the company’s big arrow is one of the most important jobs of a leader. It’s also the most emotionally challenging. Can you say no to that tempting opportunity – you know, the one that your customers will love and will clearly be profitable – if it doesn’t align with your big arrow? Can you give up something that’s clearly in your best interests — it might even increase your bonus at the end of the year – if it’s not in the best interests of the company?

This is hard, but that’s what leadership calls us to do. And , ultimately, is what will make everyone – you, your colleagues, and the company as a whole – most successful.

This article was originally published at Harvard Business Review.

By Adi Jaffe, Ph.D. and Marc F. Kern, Ph.D.

This article was originally posted on rehabs.com (find it here)

As you may recall, the first part of this series focused on the introduction of a number of myths that are the main cause, according to us, behind the paucity of non-abstinence treatment program in the United States (Europe and Australia don't have such an obvious gap).

To review, the reasons we had named in the last piece were:

1. The notion that moderation programs give permission to “true alcoholics” to continue drinking. 
2. The fear is that people who are currently abstinent will decide to try drinking again thinking they should be able to moderate.
3. The belief that use of a mind altering substance,especially by individuals who have previously struggled with them, is a means of escape and therefore unhealthy even if it is currently non-problematic.

We tackled the first of these last time so we're ready to move on to #2 on the list…

Abstinent alcoholics everywhere will try to return to drinking

Firstly, I have to say that this specific argument is troubling in that it suggests a real paranoia, in certain circles, about the very light grip members of the recovery community have on their life. Indeed, this is nothing but a Red Herring. That is to say - if you truly believe that the mere availability of drinking options will cause an abstinent individual to throw away their current program. you are also suggesting that such an individual is not at all satisfied with their present experience. That would seem to support the view that there is a problem with the current system that specifically requires new thinking!

Now sure, I'm positive diabetics would jump at the chance to stop injecting insulin, but the freedom to take on such an experiment is always available to them regardless of our recommendations. The same is true for abstinent individuals in recovery - they can always decide to drink again, and many in fact do. This is why success rates for complete abstinence 12-months post-treatment are in the 5%-15% range.

Additionally, this particular fear is one that can easily be handled by ethically-sound admission principles. For instance, Alternatives simply does not accept abstinent clients who are seeking to find out if they can drink again. As I have personally told the 2-3 callers we have had who expressed interest in this, "We treat individuals with current drug and alcohol problems." If a person wants to try their hand at drinking after an extended abstinence period they are welcome to attend some self-help and peer-support meetings that are specifically meant for that (such as Moderation Management). Since less than 0.5% of our phone calls have even proposed such a course for treatment, I'm not too worried about this problem on a large scale.

The truth is that many people who have been successfully abstinent are very satisfied with their new life and are not at all interested in reintroducing alcohol into their lives. This is barely the issue at all. Instead, the problem is that most people who struggle with substance use (90% to be exact) never even enter treatment (SAMHSA, 2010; Center for Substance Abuse Research, 2012) and that a tiny proportion of those who do enter treatment find successful recovery. We are dealing with approximately 1% of substance use problems being successfully handled now - The goal is to introduce treatment option that increase the reach of treatment and abstinence-only approaches are simply not doing it.

And research suggests that introducing non-abstinence options would open up treatment to millions more! The Center for Substance Abuse Research found that 40% of individuals who did not enter treatment cited “Not ready to stop using” as a major reason. My own UCLA and NIDA research (Jaffe, 2013) supports that finding in a group on people seeking treatment online. All of this suggests that rather than serving as an excuse, offering non-abstinence methods is a necessary step to open up solutions for the tens-of-millions of Americans struggling with substance use problems. Their struggles with depression, anxiety and other co-occurring conditions (Jaffe, 2007) will be considerably eased if we stop sticking to outdated dogma that simply isn’t enough.

Head out of sand now please.

Citations:

CESAR (2012). Lack of motivation to quit and health coverage: Top reasons for not receiving needed alcohol or drug treatment.

Jaffe A., Colman A., & Strahl W. (2014, August). Not ashamed but still too poor: Longitudinal changes in barriers to treatment entry for online treatment seekers. Paper presented at the 3rd Annual Addiction Research and Therapy Conference, Chicago, IL.

Jaffe, A., Shoptaw, S., Stein, J. A., Reback, C. J., & Rotheram-Fuller, E. (2007). Depression ratings, reported sexual risk behaviors, and methamphetamine use: Latent-growth-curve models of positive change among gay and bisexual men in an outpatient treatment program. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 15, 301-307.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Results from the 2007-2010 National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings, 2010

© 2014 Adi Jaffe, All Rights Reserved

Look for Rehab with the A3 Rehab-Finder

Adi's Mailing List | Adi's eMail | Follow Adi on Twitter

Become a Fan on Facebook | Connect with Adi at LinkedIn