Parents, maybe it's time to put away the Ritalin and Adderall, and start bicycling with your kids to school!

An article in today's Atlantic called"Exercise is ADHD Medication" reports on new research published this morning in Pediatrics. This research will come as no surprise to those who have been reading my many blogs on exercise as an alternative to stimulant drugs for ADHD-type symptoms.

The research found that kids who took part in a regular physical activity program showed "important enhancement of cognitive performance and brain function." The findings, according to University of Illinois professor Charles Hillman and colleagues, "demonstrate a causal effect of a physical program on executive control, and provide support for physical activity for improving childhood cognition and brain health."

Hillman said:"Physical activity is clearly a high, high-yield investment for all kids, but especially those attentive or hyperactive... The improvements in this case came in executive control, which consists of inhibition (resisting distraction, maintaining focus), working memory, and cognitive flexibility (switching between tasks)." Another study, earlier this month, at Michigan state University found: "Early studies suggest that physical activity can have a positive effect on children who suffer from ADHD."

John Ratey, an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard, suggests that people think of exercise as "medication for ADHD." Even very light physical activity, says Ratey, improves mood and cognitive performance by triggering the brain to release dopamine and serotonin, similar to the way that stimulant medications like Adderall do. Ratey posted an interesting video on this topic on You Tube. Titled "Run, Jump, Learn," it's well worth watching.

If you missed my previous posts on the topic of exercise and improving cognitive skills, you can catch them here:

Why Physical Education is Important for Academic Skills

Can Walking to School cure ADHD?

Is Free Play Essential for Learning?

This direction of research is promising because it brings to light alternatives to pharmaceutical treatment of ADHD. Hopefully, this line of research will extend to childhood depression as well.

Copyright © Marilyn Wedge, Ph.D.

Marilyn Wedge is the author of Why French Kids don't have ADHD and a forthcoming book on ADHD in the United States and abroad.

Childhood lasts a thousand years; the rest of life passes in a blink of time by comparison. Thus, an adaptation made to our particular circumstances long ago may live on in adulthood as cringing around conflict, a habit of self-reliance, barriers against intimacy, set ways of doing things, or any number of iterations and expressions of what happened during that thousand-year period. The key is the astonishing persistence of the past. Until we become aware of these adult manifestations of former experiences, they may keep re-playing in a kind of timeless ether.

Who is most aware of what we have carried forward with us from childhood? Our partners. Intimate relationships are the contexts where these old reflexes are most likely to emerge and even dominate our current experience.  In fact, what’s hardest for our partner to deal with is almost always something from this domain that we have not recognized or examined but have instead blamed on them.

Wounds from childhood often come disguised. For example, a man in his forties who was bothered by his inability to set limits with his young son nevertheless was often outraged at what he saw as his wife’s cold strictness with the boy. He insisted that his tender, flexible, and compassionate approach was the best way, while his wife accused him of being excessively indulgent and making her play the role of rule-setter, the “bad guy.” Then, while describing how his own father had left the family when he was seven years old, never to be seen again, he fell silent. “I’m trying to be my fantasy father,” he said, suddenly seeing how he had been enacting the old ache in his heart. From that point forward, he became more observant of the power of his own boyhood yearnings and began finding a middle ground with his wife on discipline issues with their son.

In contrast to this man’s fruitful introspection, many people put the past aside and make their way through their middle years as though the years spent with their family of origin simply have no bearing on the rest of their lives. To be in a relationship with someone who has taken this stance can be quite painful. A partner may see clearly that an old family pattern is being played out, but any attempt to name what is going on in this way is met with staunch denials and hurtful accusations.

Similarly, a parent who refuses to draw these connections to a troubled past might reach their sixties or seventies still shutting out adult children who are ready or even eager to hear the story of their parent’s early years. Usually, the more painful or traumatic the parent’s childhood, the less willing the person will be to re-visit these years and take stock of what has been unwittingly carried forward to the next generation. Parents who managed to harm their own children in the ways they themselves had been wounded may be especially fearful of embarking on such a reckoning, not realizing the profound relief that can come from doing so.

Here’s the great privilege – whether or not a partner or parent is willing to look back, anyone can seize this opportunity as an individual choice.  These kinds of growth-producing revelations can happen at any point in the lifespan. It is never too late or too early to take a look back and see which aspects of the past might have become operant in one’s adult relationships. Whether at age twenty-seven or sixty-seven, one need only be willing to accept the fundamental fact that childhood experiences have longstanding impact. Sometimes, doing this introspection in a concerted manner and taking responsibility for one’s own reactivity in certain situations can inspire a partner or parent to do the same, perhaps on a smaller scale.

Having compassion for the child we once were, the innocence and sensitivity, along with recalling how a year was an eternity and how dependent we were on what adults around us did and said, can help us see which components of ourselves were formed then that may still be contributing actively to our emotional reactions. For instance, it takes determination and sustained attention to notice that a flash of anger with plenty of justifiable causes in the present still contains elements that do not belong to the current situation. Such ongoing self-awareness then allows us, one occasion at a time, to veer away from re-enacting the past.

Copyright 2014 Wendy Lustbader. Adapted from Life Gets Better: The Unexpected Pleasures of Growing Older, published by Tarcher/Penguin, 2011.

Infrared cameras are moving from the domain of house inspectors and border guards into the hands of the general public. For $350 you can now buy one at the Apple Store. Like most technologies, we haven't fully considered the implications. But the bad guys have. They’re already snapping pictures of pin pads to steal your PIN number.

As explained by Mark Rober in an excellent video, the FLIR infrared (IR) camera attachment for the iPhone is good.  So good that it can pick up which buttons you just pushed on a plastic or rubber pin pad. He illustrates by waving his iPhone over the PIN reader at a supermarket checkout. The telltale heat signature on the keys reveals the previous customer’s “secret” PIN number.

Losing your PIN number to a thief can be much worse than having your password hacked online. Somebody who breaks into your victoriasecret.com account can learn about your taste in undies and perhaps steal your credit card information. A thug who just grabbed your pin number might follow you to the parking lot to snatch your purse or wallet.

An even worse scenario: a predator might dash up behind your latchkey child and read the combination of your digital door lock. According to a research paper, even after a whole minute had passed, there was a 50% success rate in reading the numbers.

There are also legal reasons to worry about PIN theft. As credit card companies move to “chip and pin” technology, they often sneak in a subtle shift in liability. Because this method is more secure than signature-based verification, some credit card issuers are taking the position that a customer is now liable for anything done with their card and PIN.

Illustrating this point is the high profile case of a Toronto, Ontario man who was billed over $80,000 on his CIBC Visa card for a custom-built race car!  Customer Jason Monaco denied making the purchase. 

He sued the bank, which insisted that fraudulent PIN transactions are “impossible”.  Maybe they’ll have to reconsider that position now that the IR camera hack is making the rounds. This will be an increasingly important issue in the future. In most of the world, chip and pin already prevails, and it will be coming to most US merchants by October 2015.

On a deeper level, the PIN-stealing hack illustrates some fundamental, and quite creepy, truths about technology. Just about anything can be used for good or evil, and people will put considerable effort into exploiting the dark side. Technologies almost always get cheaper, smaller, and less obtrusive.  As Rober points out in his video, bringing a full-scale IR camera into the Von’s supermarket would attract a lot of attention. The FLIR attachment looks like an iPhone case. Soon, we’ll see infrared capability in Google Glass or a contact lens.

Another fundamental principle is that vulnerabilities like this are often best addressed not by laws, but by technology. In Technocreep I suggest that the pernicious U.S. mugshot-posting industry will eventually be shut down not by legislators but by Google downgrading mugshots in search results, and by credit card companies refusing to process mugshot-related transactions.

The technological fix for the pin hack is actually quite simple. Just rest your non-typing fingers on some other keys while entering your numbers. This will obscure the actual keystrokes for your PIN. Or, you could use the “tap and pay” technology, but, you guessed it, that comes with its own vulnerabilities.

Did anyone see this coming? One might say the banks did, since their pin pads are usually made of metal, which is not susceptible to this technique. Then again, they probably just wanted to make their ATM machines stronger. The reality is that when you give somebody a new tool, they will find all sorts of ways to use it, limited only by the human imagination.

In Technocreep I report that some breast implants have embedded RFID chips, and suggest that a rogue doctor might take the reader down to the bar to do some extracurricular research. Now, we know he wouldn’t need to do that at all. Just fire up the iPhone, because silicon bags definitely look different on infrared than human breasts!

Read more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vc-69M-UWk

https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~kmowery/papers/thermal.pdf

Stress is one of the main killers of happiness. It comes in many forms — anger, anxiety, depression, and guilt. What most people don't understand, though, is that stress is not brought on by the challenges and difficulties one faces in life. Rather, people needlessly bring stress on themselves. Since they cause it, they can prevent it. Let me illustrate how with three patients who first came to my office just this past week.

Fifty-two year old David had recently separated from his wife of twenty years. An elementary school teacher with two young daughters, his wife threw him out of the house until he figured out how to conduct himself, as she said, “like a civilized human being.” He told me that what she found intolerable was his perpetual grumpiness, his being constantly on edge, and his intense way of interacting with her and the children from the moment he awoke to the second he dropped off to sleep. He admitted that he was “a bear to live with.”

Twenty-year old Emily wrote anxiety and depression in bold, capital letters as her presenting complaint on her intake sheet. Blonde, tall, and athletic, she shared that she had suffered severe depression some seven months before that almost caused her to drop out of the University of Virginia. She carried a full load this semester, along doing 10 hours per week of community service, and maintained a long distance relationship with a young man at a distant college. She felt her stress begin to rise again to alarming levels and wisely decided to do something about it before it got out of control.

Thirty seven year old Gerald told me he felt like he was going to explode. A martial arts expert, he recently pushed a friend of his to the ground and in frustration punched a hole in his bedroom wall. He talked so fast I frequently had to ask him to slow down so I could understand what he said. He squirmed in his chair, interrupted me repeatedly, and darted from one subject to another. It did not take a genius to figure out that underlying this real estate agent’s trigger-happy anger outbursts was a perpetual state of anxiety and tension.

To be sure, the circumstances in each of these three peoples’ lives varied. But, David, Emily, and Gerald all shared one significant thing in common: they each approached life with a deeply endorsed, habitualized necessitizing mentality. Listen to a sample of what came out of their mouths during our first conversation.

David –    
“I have to get my kids to school on time.”
“I've got to get my classroom clean and  tidy before my students arrive.”
“I must keep my lesson plans up-to-date.”
 
Emily –  
“I need my boyfriend to love me.”
“I've got to do well in school."
“I have to be a responsible citizen and give back to community.”

Gerald –  
“I have to keep up with my paperwork.
“I’ve gotta keep my boss happy.”
“I have to meet my house selling quota each and every month.” 

There you have it. Each of these three people approached the challenges in their lives as if they were life and death matters. The fact was though, that nothing they dealt with even came close to being that dire. But, by framing them in that vein, they made it so to themselves. They literally drove themselves into stress and anxiety by their necessitizing.

 The Distinction Between Valuing vs. Necessitizing

Distinctions matter. Why? Because once we make a distinction, we have a choice. If I think only vanilla ice cream exists, then the only choice I have is vanilla; once I distinguish vanilla from chocolate, then I have the ability to choose either vanilla or chocolate. 

The power of distinction also holds true with regard to our mentality. Making the distinction between valuing something (I want, I prefer, I desire) and necessitizing it (I need, I have to, I’ve got to, I must) empowers a person to make a conscious choice about how he or she will mentally approach adversities. And, the choice between these two mentalities determines whether or not we respond with stress.

The Great American psychologist, Dr. Albert Ellis, illustrated the no-win ravages of the choice of necessitizing with what he called “the $4/$5 analogy.” It goes like this.

(1) Imagine that you value or desire to have $5.00 in your pocket at all times. You think, “I prefer      it, but I don't need it; it would be nice to have it just in case I want to buy a candy bar, catch a bus, or whatever.” Then you reach in your pocket to only find $4.00. What you’d feel in finding $4.00 would be disappointment and maybe frustration, but not despair or anxiety. After all, you’ve only framed the $5.00 as something desirable, not necessary. 

(2) Now, imagine yourself changing your thinking from merely preferring or wanting the $5.00 in your pocket to finding it necessary. You think, “I need, absolutely must have, can't bear to have anything less than $5.00 in my pocket.” Now you reach into your pocket and find only $4.00. What you would feel is destroyed – depressed, despairing, desolate. Why? Because you’re deprived of what you have convinced yourself is absolutely necessary.

Notice, dear reader, that you found the same $4.00 in holding each of these mentalities. The reason you responded with only frustration in the first case was because you only valued, but did not think it necessary, to have $5.00. In the second case, you reacted so strongly because you thought you absolutely needed or had to have it.

(3) Let's take this analogy one step further. Let's say you, still holding the belief that you absolutely have to have $5.00 in your pocket at all times, reach into your pocket and, lo and behold, find $6.00. Finding this, most people would be ecstatic. “Wow, lookee here, $6.00” Upon further probing, though, they admit that they'd quickly feel anxious. Why? Because they would realize that they had no guarantee that they would continue to have a minimum of $5.00, much less $6.00, at all times. They think: “Well, I might need to spend $2.00,” “I might lose $2.00,” ”I might have miscounted,” “I might get robbed.” They’d realize there always existed the possibility of finding less than $5.00 in their possession.

Get it? Whenever a person elevates a desire, any desire, into an absolute necessity, there is no possibility for peace of mind or happiness. For, if they think they absolutely have to succeed at something they want, they’d be destroyed if they fail; but, even if they do succeed in getting what they want, they're still anxious, because they still have no guarantee they will continue to get it.

This is exactly the logical error David, Emily, and Gerald made. They each held a rational value to do well and succeed in each of the challenges they faced – David with his kids and at work, Emily with regard to her boyfriend and her schooling, and Gerald with regard to his real estate job. But, what caused each of them to become so stressed when they converted their values or desires into dire, life-and-death necessities.

Sear This Into Your Mind 

     • All happiness-busting stress (anger, anxiety, depression, guilt) is created by a person believing that what is wanted must be. Whenever one takes a desire — for doing well and succeeding at something, for being liked or loved, and/or for having things be the way they wanted — into the realm of an absolute necessity, they cannot help but to be stressed over the outcome.

     • The cold hard fact is that there is nothing in life that is absolutely necessary. As much as one may want to do well, to be approved, and to have life be easy and likeable, it never has to be, needs to be, or must be that way. Hey, as much as most of us value living, we don't even need to continue to live.

     • To be happy in life, we would be wise to: (1) relentlessly strive to obtain what we value; but (2) never buy into the idea that we must have what we want. 

Live It 

I taught David, Emily, and Gerald the distinction between valuing and necessitizing in their first session and helped them to connect their necessitizing thinking to their stress. I will do my best to help them give up their necessitizing as they move forward. We will see how they each take to my efforts as time continues.

To help you experience more happiness in your life, I urge you to adopt the following practices. I can’t guarantee it, but I know there is an excellent chance you will reduce your stress and find more happiness if you do so.

1. Get clear about the distinction between the concepts of valuing and necessitizing. Then listen to the words you use. Whenever you hear yourself thinking in terms of “I need,” “I must have,” and “I've gotta,” realize that you've fallen into a necessitizing mindset and recognize you are bringing unnecessary stress on yourself. Ask yourself: Do I want to think this way and feel the way I do as a result?

2. Convince yourself that necessitizing thinking is both foolish and irrational. Think about it:

      • No matter how much you may want something or think you may be enriched by having it, it is not necessary for you to have it. As much as it might benefit you to do well on that test, or to get a good result on your MRI, or succeed in the stock market, it is only desirable, better, or valuable, not necessary. Never mix up valuing with necessitizing.

     • Virtually nothing in life is life and death. It is quite sloppy thinking to frame something as life-and-death when it is only desirable. You will not die if you run late or lose the love of a boyfriend.

    • There are no absolute necessities in the universe, except what is. If something is that way, then by necessity it must be that way until it is otherwise. What is, is; what isn’t, isn’t. Regardless, we go on.

    • It is narcissistic and self-centered to think in necessitizing terms. For, what you are telling yourself is that, just because you may want something to be a certain way, it must follow that it must be that way. But, the last time I checked, neither you nor I run the universe.

    • Necessitizing leads to other irrational ways of thinking that serve to further magnify stress — it’s awful, I can't stand it, self-damning. All of these serve to further stress a person.

3. Make a list of all the things you think you absolutely must have. Using the arguments against necessitizing I offered above, systematically convince yourself that, no matter how valuable it may be to have what you value, it is not necessary.

4. Focus on what you do have that gives you pleasure and satisfaction. Remember that, while you may be deprived of something of value, there are other things in your life also of value. Determine to enjoy 100% of the 90% you do have, while not thinking you can’t exist because you don't have the 10% that is missing.

5. Teach others the distinction between valuing and necessitizing. When we teach something to others, we learn it better ourselves. Teaching deepens both our understanding and our appreciation. 

Going Forward

Being happy with life in general is a significant part of your overall happiness. A cornerstone of happiness in life has to do with not getting caught up in thinking that something you value is absolutely necessary. No matter how much you may value something (and I encourage you to value what you do to the extent that you do), never think of it as a necessity.

I treasure this opportunity to share my Happiness on Purpose blogs with you. I hope this blog has stimulated your thinking and, hopefully, encouraged you to follow through in using its ideas. Please contact me by email if you should so desire.

In the meantime, live healthy, happy, and with passion.

Russell Grieger, Ph.D. is the author of several self-help books, all designed to empower people to create a life they love to live. These include: Unrelenting Drive; Marriage On Purpose, and The Happiness Handbook (in preparation). You may contact Dr. Grieger for more information at grieger@cstone.net

When people think about what makes life meaningful, they almost inevitably think of times shared with other people. In fact, we could almost argue that other people help give the most mundane events significance and meaning. Eating in public is transformed into a romantic dinner when spent with a caring partner. Traversing through the woods becomes a family nature walk when spent with loved ones. We tend to like spending memorable events with those we care about.

However, relationships aren't always easy. Relationships take work. Offenses inevitably occur, and feels are hurt. Sometimes, the ones we love the most are the ones who are capable of causing us the most emotional pain. How do we overcome these transgressions and make our relationships work? Research suggests that forgiveness might be a powerful response.

First, forgiveness is distinct from reconciliation. Forgiveness is when we replace the negative emotions we have toward an offender with positive, other-oriented emotions (Worthington, 2005). Forgiveness is an intrapersonal event--it happens within our own minds and bodies. We have the power to forgive. On the other hand, reconciliation is when we repair the relationship with our offender. Whereas research has suggested that forgiveness has many benefits (Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag, 2010), reconciliation might not always be advisable. For example, in situations of violence or abuse, reconciliation might not be a safe option. Remember that safety is important, and people need to make sure that they are safe in their relationships. Forgiveness though, even apart from reconciliation, helps improve our own well-being.

Second, forgiveness can release us from the negative emotions we experience and improve our relationships. Because relationships are a source of meaning, being in a relationship with a partner that offends us regularly can reduce how meaningful we perceive life to be. So, when we forgive, research has found, we're able to recapture some of that meaning; in fact, a six-month longitudinal research study found that consistently forgiving partners were found to report more meaning six months later (Van Tongeren et al., in press). So, forgiveness can actually make our lives more meaningful.

Finally, it is easier to forgive a humble partner than an arrogant one (Davis et al., 2013). Humble partners have the other partner's well-being in mind, so they are more likely to be forgiven. This suggests that working on cultivating humility might also help improve your relationship because it helps facilitate forgiveness.

Relationships are valuable and help give life meaning. When offenses occur, one response worth considering is forgiveness. Moreover, cultivating humility is another route to promoting harmony with one's romantic partner. In a world that seemingly promotes self-centeredness, recent research suggests that developing some of these virtues might help improve your relationships (and your own well-being).

What ways might you practice forgiveness or humility in your relationships?

References:

Davis, D. E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hook, J. N., Emmons, R. A., Hill, P. C., Bollinger, R. A., & Van Tongeren, D. R. (2013). Humility and the development and repair of social bonds: Two longitudinal studies. Self and Identity, 12, 58-77.

Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 894-914.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (Ed.) (2005). Handbook of forgiveness. New York: Brunner-Routledge.

You may have heard that the seven-year itch has been shortened to three years, or even just two. For many married couples, the so-called honeymoon period doesn’t extend very far beyond the actual honeymoon: what begins as passion and excitement soon fades into boredom and resentment.

In some cases, couples are just not compatible and probably shouldn’t have gotten together in the first place, or they grow apart and just don’t connect anymore, but in many others the problem is not the match, but rather the realities of being in a long-term relationship, paired with the nature of the human brain.

One of the biggest obstacles to sustaining relationship satisfaction is a phenomenon called hedonic adaptation. Hedonic adaptation refers to our tendency to adapt, or habituate, to things that we are exposed to repeatedly. For example, nothing tastes as good as that first bite of chocolate cake, and even the most exciting purchases tend to become less thrilling once we get used to them.

When it comes to negative experiences, hedonic adaptation is a gift: it helps us endure pain, cope with stress, and come to terms with loss. We may never fully recover from major negative life events, but our suffering tends to ease over time as we adjust to them.

When it comes to positive experiences, however, hedonic adaptation is not our friend. Research suggests that both passionate and companionate love tend to decline over time, and that although couples tend, on average, to experience a boost in happiness around the time of marriage, this happiness tends to return to baseline after only a few years. Major life events like buying a home together or becoming pregnant may also provide renewed boosts in happiness, but these boosts also tend to be temporary. In some cases, people actually feel less happy after they adapt to a positive event than they did before the event occurred.

Why might this be?

According to the Hedonic Adaptation Prevention (HAP) model, proposed by Kennon Sheldon and Sonja Lyubomirsky, hedonic adaptation produces declines in happiness for two main reasons.

First, major positive events, like starting a new relationship or getting married, tend to be associated with a multitude of other smaller positive events, like first kisses, deep conversations, and making new friends through your partner. These events are all associated with boosts in positive emotions. But as these positive events become less frequent, couples are likely to experience fewer boosts in happiness.

Second, as positive events become more expected and predictable (e.g., date night every Friday), they may begin to feel less special and exciting, and our standards for what constitutes quality time together may increase. Just like an addict needs more and more of a drug to get the same high, we may find that we need bigger and better activities to maintain satisfaction. As a result, we may fail to appreciate the little things that once were so thrilling, like holding hands or cooking a meal together.

This may all sound depressing, but there is hope.

First and foremost, just being aware of the power of hedonic adaptation can help you avoid blaming yourself for the lack of excitement (e.g., worrying you’re not as attractive anymore) or blaming your partner (e.g., “grass is greener” syndrome). People often mistakenly believe that the solution to their relationship problems is to trade in for a new and seemingly more exciting partner, not realizing that the same process of hedonic adaptation is likely to occur with the new partner as well.

Once you recognize that hedonic adaptation is just a part of human nature--not something you or your partner is doing wrong—you can take conscious steps to counteract it. Here are a few strategies that research suggests may be effective:

1. Intentionally cultivate positive experiences and positive emotions.

We often think of positive experiences, especially positive romantic experiences, as being beyond our control. Either the spark is there or it’s not, and there isn’t much we can do about it. While this may be true to a point, we usually have more leverage than we realize.

Before spending time with your partner, take a moment to consciously set your intention for the interaction to be a good one. Instead of letting your feelings guide your behavior, behave in the way you want to feel. Shower your partner with kisses when you first see them, and express affection and support even if inside you’re feeling tired and stressed and not really in the mood. You may be surprised by how quickly your feelings shift.

Another way to increase positive experiences (and reduce negative ones) is to replace criticism with validation of your partners’ best self. In addition to behaving the way you want to feel, you could try treating your partner as the person you want him or her to be—the “best self” that you know he or she is capable of being. Whereas harsh criticism tends to beat people down and make them feel hopeless about change, positive validation of your partners’ good qualities and potential may make them more likely to behave accordingly—and more likely to feel good about the relationship.

2. Add more variety and surprise to your routine.

It’s easy to fall into the same comfortable patterns in relationships, especially when we’re tired and have limited time, but research suggests that variety is an essential ingredient in counteracting relationship boredom. Adding variety can be as simple as trying new restaurants or recipes, or taking a class together. Research shows, for example, that couples who were randomly assigned to engage in new and exciting activities together subsequently experienced greater passionate love for their partner.

In addition to varying your activities, it can also be helpful to make enjoyable activities less expected and more spontaneous. You could surprise your partner with an impromptu weekend trip or give him or her a thoughtful gift on a non-birthday/anniversary/holiday.

Be careful, though, because variety itself can become addictive, and no matter how adventurous you are, there are only so many variations available to try. Eventually, even the most adventurous and surprising activities may start to feel a little routine. That’s where #3 comes in…

3. Appreciate the little things (and the big things).

At the end of the day, the reality is that a long-term relationship just isn’t going to have the same amount of novelty and spontaneity as a new relationship. But long-term relationships have many wonderful qualities that get lost in the background and are easy to overlook. Research suggests that taking the time to notice the things that we appreciate about our partner—and to let them know—is vital to relationship satisfaction.

One way to increase appreciation is to consider what life might have been like if you’d never met your partner (called “mentally subtracting”), or what life might be like now if something were to happen to him or her. If you are prone to anxiety, it may not be helpful to dwell too long in the what-ifs, but for many people a little bit of fear isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as it can help put things in perspective and keep you from taking your partner for granted. Another appreciation-building exercise that research has shown to be especially effective is to take the time every day to list three (or more) things that you’re grateful for in general, as well as specifically about your partner and your relationship. You can also build appreciation by making an effort to bring your attention to the present moment when you’re spending time with your partner, rather than allowing yourself to be distracted.

4. Take breaks.

Sometimes we assume that to improve our relationship we need to spend more time together, not less. But taking breaks is one of the more direct and effective ways to counteract hedonic adaptation. Long-distance relationships, although grueling, tend to naturally resist hedonic adaptation—the time apart leads partners to miss each other and appreciate their limited time together even more. You don’t have to be in a long-distance relationship to cultivate feelings of longing, though--even just a few days apart once in awhile can do the trick.

You can also take shorter breaks. Research shows that brief interruptions in pleasurable activities, such as getting a massage or listening to a pleasant song, can “reset” adaptation and increase overall pleasure. The same may be true for enjoyable relationship-specific activities.

5. Beware of unhealthy barriers to adaptation.

Unfortunately, dysfunctional or abusive relationships can also counteract adaptation. The ups and downs, uncertainty, and drama of these relationships can increase feelings of passion, but this type of passion is not healthy or sustainable, as it depends on continued negative experiences. People in these types of relationships may feel an inexplicable pull towards their partner that feels stronger than the feelings they experience in more stable relationships, and as a result they may mistakenly believe that the tumultuous relationship is superior, despite its faults. See my previous post, “How To End a Bad Relationship For Good,” for more on ending addictive, unhealthy relationships.

The bottom line: even the strongest, most genuine, most transcendent feelings of passion and love are subject to hedonic adaptation. If you feel the passion starting to fade over time, don’t jump to the conclusion that the relationship is the problem; more likely it’s just the way our brains are wired. And the good news is that simply being aware of this tendency goes a long way in keeping it from derailing our relationships and our happiness. If we take it one step further and try to trick our brains into not succumbing to adaptation, or at least to occasionally resetting it, we may find that the honeymoon period really can last forever. 

Further reading:

Jacobs Bao, K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). Making it last: Combating hedonic adaptation in romantic relationships. Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 196-206.

Copyright Juliana Breines, Ph.D.

Two weeks ago, an expert panel of the Food and Drug Administration voted overwhelmingly to impose strict new limits on physician prescribing of the male sex hormone testosterone.

The FDA is not required to follow the recommendations of its expert panels, but the agency usually does, especially when the vote is as lopsided as this was—19 to one.

Advocates of hormone replacement call testosterone a fountain of youth that restores older men’s flagging sex drive, firms their erections, and returns them to lean, muscled, youthful vigor. Perhaps. But personally, I hope the FDA tightens up on testosterone big time. Here’s why: 

• There’s good evidence that many men taking testosterone don’t need it and that serious safety issues remain unresolved. 

• Since the millennium, the number of men taking the hormone has quadrupled to more than 2 million. But audits show that many received the hormone without sufficient blood testing to see if they really have what’s become known as Low T. 

• Verifiable testosterone deficiency is rare in men under 65, but currently men 45 to 64 account for 60 percent of testosterone prescriptions. 

• The debate over testosterone replacement feels eerily similar to the controversy decades ago surrounding hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in older women—also initially touted as youth restorer and later shown to increase risk of heart disease and breast cancer.

Background

Testosterone is produced in the testicles. For decades, scientists have known that an unusually low blood level causes fatigue, depression, libido loss, erectile dysfunction, weight gain, and reduced muscle mass. All these problems can be cured with supplementation that returns blood levels to the normal range.

But supplemental testosterone also causes thickening of the blood, a risk factor for heart disease and stroke, and the hormone may spur the growth of prostate cancer, which is as common—and deadly—in men as breast cancer in women. Until recently, concerns about the hormone’s potentially serious downsides have prevented most doctors from prescribing it.

But at the end of the 20th century, a few researchers, notably Harvard’s Abraham Merganthaler, M.D., demonstrated that testosterone does not increase risk of prostate cancer, at least in short-term studies, and other researchers showed that supplementation may not be as closely associated with cardiovascular disease risk as was previously believed. As a result, increasing numbers of physicians have been prescribing it to an increasing number of men complaining of vague symptoms like fatigue.

Over-Prescribed?

The Endocrine Society, the medical organization that publishes authoritative guidelines for supplemental hormone therapy, recommends testosterone supplementation only for men who have unequivocally low levels, a finding that requires several blood tests. Multiple tests are necessary because testosterone levels fluctuate considerably during the day. Men who appear to have low levels in one test often show normal levels in another.

Meanwhile, a recent report by researchers at the University of Texas (UT) Medical Branch in Galveston shows that 25 percent of the men taking testosterone had just one blood test prior to receiving prescriptions, which suggests that doctors have prescribed it carelessly.

In addition, even if blood tests show a deficiency, the Endocrine Society insist that testosterone should not be prescribed unless men also report clear symptoms, notably libido collapse. There is no evidence that the number of men reporting this has quadrupled since 2001, another suggestion that doctors are over-prescribing the hormone.

Finally, the UT study shows that men in their 40s are the fastest growing group of men taking testosterone. But clear, symptomatic hormone deficiency is unusual before age 60, another indication that doctors are over-prescribing.

Rerun of the HRT Debacle in Women?

The testosterone story looks like a rerun of what happened with estrogen replacement (HRT) for women thirty years ago. Doctors initially touted HRT as a sure way to preserve youthfulness, femininity, and sexual function while reducing risk of heart disease. Short-term studies showed that HRT reduced heart disease risk without increasing risk of breast cancer. But longer-term studies showed the opposite—a clear increase in heart disease and breast cancer risk. We have no long-term studies of testosterone supplementation, just short-term reports that all is well. But is it?

We may find out next year when researchers with the National Institutes of Health are scheduled to release the results of the T Trial, an extended effort to determine the long-term effects—and side effects—of taking the hormone. Until then, we just don’t know.

Maybe testosterone is a godsend for older men. Maybe it doesn’t cause potentially life-threatening side effects. But the quadrupling of prescriptions over the past dozen years to many men who were inadequately tested suggests it’s being over-prescribed—which is why the FDA’s expert panel has exhorted to agency to limit prescriptions.

My advice:

• If you take testosterone, be aware that you’re a guinea pig in a vast uncontrolled experiment that may one day repay your current vitality with potentially serious consequences. 

• If you didn’t have multiple blood tests and clear deficiency symptoms before you received your prescription, you might want to rethink use of the hormone. 

• And if you’re considering supplementation because of breathless claims about stronger libido, firmer erections, and boosted vitality, I suggest you think twice.

By a vote of 19 to one, the FDA expert panel shares my opinion.

References:

Tavernise, S. “FDA Panel Backs Limits on Testosterone Drugs,” New York Times, 9-18-2014.

Rabin, R.C. “A High Price for Vigor,” New York Times, 2-4-2014.

LaPuma, J. “Don’t Ask Your Doctor About ‘Low T’,” New York Times, 2-4-2014.

O’Connor, A. “Study Adds Concerns About Cardiac Risks for Older Men Taking Testosterone,” New York Times, 1-30-2014.

Singer, N. “Selling That ‘New Man’ Feeling” New York Times, 11-24-2013.

I am thinking a lot about time. It happens every fall. I can’t help it. Time presses in upon me so hard, squeezing me so tightly, that I can barely breathe. Everything around me is changing so rapidly, so decisively, so finally. Everywhere I turn, plants are shriveling. Leaves are turning. Brown and brittle; twisted and fixed—once vibrant field flowers stand still in their tracks. Done.

Sure, time thrusts itself upon me with similar abandon in the spring as the earth presses out of itself, like clay through an extruder, manifesting in myriad green growths. Yet spring-time does not hit me in the same way as fall-time. Every emerging sprout, noted and not, is a herald crying out, announcing the advent of more. More fruit! More food! More life! Coming now!

The irrepressibly rapid changes of fall, however, herald death—and more death. Death to our cucumbers, corn, basil, and beans. Death to our tomatoes and broccoli, peppers and pears. Then death to our kale, carrots, potatoes, and beets. And death to the fields that feed our animals. One by one the plant cycles end. All my arcs of work and anticipation and fruition and joy—all that time spent preparing the soil, sinking the seed, watering and weeding—gone. All of its fruits, finished.

In the fall, I cannot help but feel the downward pull of life—down into the earth, where it draws in, curls up and hides. 

Moving me, as it does, fall also reminds me why we moved here to the farm over nine years ago, and why we have stayed.

We moved to the farm so that I could dance. There were other reasons too, but I needed to be in a place that called me to move—an outdoor place that would awaken my senses and entice me to explore it. I needed to live in such a place—not just visit—so that this dance would be integral to my life, at the center, source of the rest. I did not want my dancing removed to a remote studio; I wanted it immersed in the hubbub of home. I wanted whatever I created in dance to be fully informed by and accountable to the rhythms of raising humans and realizing dreams.

From the beginning, I danced everywhere—in the house and out of the house; by the barns, in the woods, and around the fields. But it wasn’t easier, as I thought it would be, to find the time to dance. I thought that our separation from the rush and tumble of urban life would leave large dance-shaped holes in my life. Pressing against the rush and tumble of rural life was just as hard.

Even so, immersing my dancing self in rural life did help me to understand better than I had why dancing—as vital and beautiful and fun as it is to do—is so challenging a practice to sustain. Not only (as I have written elsewhere), does the act of dancing press every button in the matrix of western values, dance exercises a significantly different sensory orientation than the virtual worlds in which so many people—urban or rural—live. Dancing calls us to attend to the rhythms of our bodily selves—the rhythms of the earth, in us and around us. Often it is easier not to do so. 

Virtual worlds are addictive, and not only because they offer speedy pleasures. They are addictive because they still our senses and protect us from feeling pain. Our screens screen us from the tumultuous changes at hand in every moment. Plugged in, transfixed by images that appear to move, we need not feel the rhythms of the natural world. We need not feel the incoming rush of fall or suffer the losses it foretells. The seeming dynamism of our virtual words is an illusion that grants us a sense of stability in the face of the greater changes around us and within us.  

To be open to dance—to allow oneself be moved within and without—is to confront loss. It is to know, from the outset, that all the work you do, all the efforts you spend, all the beautiful shapes you inhabit and realize, are blossoms in the wind—present for a moment, before being blown away by the next. To dance is to know that fall is always right around the corner. 

So what should I do? Just give up? Stop dancing? Wouldn’t it be more rational and expedient to create some mark that lasts? Something more stable and enduring? Something I can hold or count on or at least read?

I ask these questions all the time. It is not just dancing that raises them. Here on the farm I spend so much time creating things that do not and will not last—things that are intended to be consumed, used, or will otherwise grow up and be given away, or move out on their own.

It is true of food. While I do not consider myself a “cook” (I dislike recipes), I am daily transforming the natural resources produced by our farm—milk and eggs, vegetables and fruit—into tasty, nourishing basics. The loaf of bread just lifted from the oven; the mozzarella stretching through space; the ice cream dripping off the paddle; the butter clotting in the jar; the kale sautéed with onions, carrots, and tomatoes fresh from the garden—are each intensely beautiful. I gawk in amazement as they appear before me through the action of my own hands. I feel blessed to participate in their appearance. They give great pleasure. But soon, they disappear--bitten, chewed, and swallowed, or else grow crusty, moldy, and stale.

Is all that effort worth it? Why not just get it all at the grocery store?

So too, I have spent the past seven weeks raising six kittens, orphaned at one week old by a speeding car. For three weeks I bottle-fed them every four to six hours with pricey milk replacer, wiped their bottoms and changed their bed. I made them a bigger box, then a bigger box, and added a litter box; I cleaned them and weaned them. I cuddled them and delighted in them. And then, with a hanging heart, gave four away. 

Was all that effort worth it? Only to let them go--for free?

I wonder if nature asks such questions too. Why so much attention to vibrant displays that burst into view and fade away? Why such extravagant expenditure on ephemeral ends? Their blasts of beauty--the pleasure they bring--do not seem enough of a reason.

Then, as I ponder these questions, the fall, even as it takes everything away, brings me back an answer. Seeds. In our ghost of a garden, our fading fields, there is abundant life if you know where to look. There are an abundance of seeds. Small and large. Tufted and smooth. Air-born and soil-bound. There are seeds, shedding, popping, proliferating forth, pure pods of potential. There are seeds that promise to multiply, beyond all measure, the pleasures that have come before.

The same is true of movements I make--dancing, feeding, caring--whose fruits seem so ephemeral, so short-lived. In every dance that I do, every cheese that I stir, every infant animal I tend, I am also making seeds. These seeds gather in me. They take shape in the form of movement patterns--patterns of attention and coordination, of sensation and response, of care and compassion, that dwell in me, as me, yet to unfold. 

It is especially true of dance. In every dance that dies, there is abundant life. When I dance, I not only make moves, I practice making moves. I practice opening and inviting new moves that will release me into new ranges of experience--moves that will express the care and attention I am spending. Dancing, I become the movements I make, and these patterns pulse within—as seeds of awareness, pods of perception, capable of giving rise to new sprouts of inspiration, when blown by something that sings of spring.

We moved to the farm so we could root ourselves in a place where we could not help being moved by the rhythms of the natural world to create the seeds of a life we wanted to live. A life we could imagine. A life in which love for each other and the earth is the most important thing.

That is why I dance—and why I am here—tending kale and kittens and kids, so deeply moved by the falling away of fall. And celebrating the seeds--and spring--to come. 

I'm not a huge fan of Stephen Pinker's psychology, but he is a solid writer, and I respect his perspective on many subjects. So when he wore a Chronicle article on "Why Academics Stink at Writing" I took notice. The article starts by considering, and reecting several suggestions for why academic writing is so bad:

• Bad writing is there deliberatly, to stop normal people from realizing scholars are talking about nothing.
• Bad writing cannot be avoided, because the topics of discussion are so complex.
• Bad writing is virtually required by reviewers and editors, who will not accept papers written in more straightforward manners.

These things happen, but apply to a very small percentage of published work, Pinker claims. Instead, Pinker suggests that academic writing is bad because it tries to mix writing styles, and authors become muddled about the audience and its desires. As he puts it:

Most academic writing, in contrast, is a blend of two styles. The first is practical style, in which the writer’s goal is to satisfy a reader’s need for a particular kind of information, and the form of the communication falls into a fixed template, such as the five-paragraph student essay or the standardized structure of a scientific article. The second is a style that Thomas and Turner call self-conscious, relativistic, ironic, or postmodern, in which "the writer’s chief, if unstated, concern is to escape being convicted of philosophical naïveté about his own enterprise."

With this perspective in mind, Pinker argues that much bad writing in academia is the result of "agonizing self-consciousness". This leads to too much meta-discussion, and leads academics to lose the balance between their role as communicators of knowledge vs. their role as members of a profession with its own internal norms and mores. There are many good criticisms of common phrases used by academics, which weaken their writing, and bad habits, such as the misuse of scare quotes. He goes on to talk about how certain cognitive processes (chunking, functional fixity, and the curse of knowledge) make it hard for authors to realize what will make sense to their readers. And he ends with a discussion about how few obivous incentives their are for acadimecis to write well. For the most part I nodded in agreement, and thought about making some minor tweaks to a few papers that are in the pipeline. However, there were two points that made me uneasy.

First, Pinker criticizes "appologizing", such as when authors say that the topics they are about to write on are "extremely complex." I can see how this can be inappropriate in some circumstances, but I think the audience needs to be considered. Many of the things I write about are not subjects that others think about much, and when others do think about the subjects, they tend to think things are very simple. In that context, when I use the language Pinker is criticizing, it is because I am informing the reader that their initial views might be mistaken. For example, the types of psychological questions you can ask using a rat in a box, with a level and a few lights, are quite complex. Many psychology students and even many psychology professors (nevertheless members of the general public) do not believe that assertion until they have learned quite a bit about the amazing studies that people have done.

Second, Pinker criticizes authors who "hedge" their statements, rather than relying on the reader to be charitable. This criticism baffled me. Certainly it is possible to over-hedge, but Pinker lives in a world full of non-charitable readers. I cannot understand his position except as a weird statement of elitism: He is too influential to be taken down by minor nit-picking, so he assumes all academics have the luxury of ignoring it as well. In my world, there is a big difference between making a claim such as "Perception is accurate" and saying "For the most part, perception is accurate." Depending on the context, a paper could easily get rejected for the hedged sentence, or get rejected for the non-hedged sentence. --- In fairness, Pinker awnowledges that some hedging may be necessary, but aruges that skilled writes use it cautiously, rather than as a "tick." Alas, I'm not sure that hedge is sufficent to conevy the reality that many authors face extremely ungenerous gatekeepers.

It is also interesting to note how often Pinker cannot resist the urge to be clever, inserting semi-jokes, at the expense of clarity. I do that too, but I am not sure I would do it so much in a piece specifically about clear writing. It is half way between something amazingly clear, like Elements of Style and self-aware rule lists with entries such as "Preposition are not things to end a sentence with."

Overall, however, very good, and recommended reading.

Welcome back to The Attraction Doctor

In previous articles, I have explored the science behind "the game" and pick-up (here), discussed who might find pick-up techniques appealing or off-putting (here), and even spoke with a pick-up artist (PUA) about his views (here). More generally, I have also shared how to attract women by displaying unique features (here) and how to impress a girl with personality (here). I have even explained how to flirt with a girl (here) and how to ask a girl out (here and here).

Now, I would like to put all of those concepts together and share the science behind pick-up lines themselves. As it turns out, the funny, dirty, corny, and even cheesy pick-up lines might sometimes be quite effective too. Not every pick-up line is appealing though. Furthermore, different lines may impress or attract different types of women. Therefore, the type of pick-up line a man chooses may tell a woman a lot about him—and it may influence his success with her as well.

Researching the Worst and Best Pick-Up Lines

Pick-up lines (also known as chat-up lines) were first scientifically evaluated by Bale, Morrison, and Caryl (2006). The researchers collected 40 pick-up lines from various movie, TV, book, and Internet sources. They then asked male and female participants to rate the effectiveness of each pick-up line for beginning a conversation with a woman. The participants responses indicated that pick-up lines highlighting a man's athleticism, culture, wealth, and generosity would most likely lead to further conversation. In contrast, lines that were simply empty complements or overtly sexual were judged to be least effective by participants.

This line of research was further explored by Cooper and associates (Cooper, O'Donnell, Caryl, Morrison, & Bale, 2007). These researchers used the same pick-up lines and again had male and female participants rate them. This time, however, they gave personality tests to the participants too.

The initial results supported those found by Bale (2006) above. Generally, pick-up lines that showed off some aspect of a man's positive attributes and value as a mate were seen as most effective. These types of pick-up lines were especially appealing to women who were self-conscious, shy, or anxious, and looking for a friendly and considerate man. In contrast, women who were more outgoing and energetic preferred humorous and direct lines from men, as they desired leadership characteristics in their mate. Finally, women who were aggressive, impulsive, and risk-takers tended to especially like the bad boy type—and preferred generic compliments and overtly sexual lines.

Therefore, the authors concluded that pick-up lines serve as a sort of advertisement, filter, and screening device. The type of line a man chooses says something about his personality and attributes. Whether a woman finds a particular type of line appealing says something about her personality and attributes as well.

How to Use Pick-Up Lines

Given the research, when in doubt, it will usually benefit a man to use a pick-up line that highlights something about his value as a mate—usually his athleticism, culture, wealth, and generosity. This will immediately allow him to highlight his uniquely attractive features (here) and his personality (here). It will also allow the woman to see why he is appealing, especially if she is shy or nervous herself. This approach will also let a man to follow-up with conversation to build more of a connection (here), and even ask the woman out in a comfortable, indirect manner (here).

Guys who like to take the lead and enjoy more outgoing women, however, may benefit from adding a bit of humor and being more direct with their pick-up lines. The type of women they desire will appreciate a man who breaks the ice more overtly (here) and asks for what he wants directly (here and here). Such boldness will signal his confidence and leadership. Although it may turn some shy women off, it will be more likely to excite extroverted women and pique their interest—especially when the man is persuasive too (here).

Finally, for men looking for short-term flings with aggressive and adventurous women, an overtly sexual pick-up line might be the preferred approach. This tactic seems to turn on sexual and risk-taking women, while turning off everyone else. Other research on pick-up techniques shows similar results, with bold and sexual behaviors looking sexy to these types of women – and appearing insulting to others (here). Thus, a man might just find a passionate match with this approach, especially when he directly asks for what he wants (here and here), is sexual in his communication (here), and appeals to a woman's short-term sexual interest (here).

Conclusion

Given the research, it appears that pick-up lines can work to attract women, impress them, and start a conversation. Different pick-up lines are used by various types of men, however, and are appealing to different kinds of women. Shy and self-conscious women may go for a line about a guy's positive features. More outgoing women prefer some humor from a confident man. A risk-taking and adventurous women might be piqued by the sexual line from a bad boy. Therefore, it pays to know what type of partner you are after when you use a particular type of line...or when you respond to one too.

Go to www.AttractionDoctor.com for more dating and relationship advice (in helpful categories)!

Make sure you get the next article too! Click here to sign up to my Facebook page, Email, and RSS. I keep my friends informed :)

Finally, remember to share, like, tweet, and comment below.

Until next time...happy dating and relating!

Dr. Jeremy Nicholson
The Attraction Doctor

Previous Articles from The Attraction Doctor

• How and Where to Meet Women or Men
• Husband Tracks Sex on Spreadsheet: Does Wife Owe Him More?
• Can Your Unique Features Make You More Appealing Over Time?

References

• Bale, C., Morrison, R., & Caryl, P. G. (2006). Chat-up lines as male sexual displays. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 655-664.
• Cooper, M., O'Donnell, D., Caryl, P. G., Morrison, R., & Bale, C. (2007). Chat-up lines as male displays: Effects of content, sex, and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1075-1085.

 © 2014 by Jeremy S. Nicholson, M.A., M.S.W., Ph.D. All rights reserved.

I recently attended a comprehensive review course on medical toxicology. The topics covered went from soup to nuts, assuming that the soup was made from hemlock and the nuts were actually pellets of rat poison. Among other things, the meeting included a session on chemical warfare agents. This covered poisons that had their heyday in World War One and others that, unfortunately, have continued to see use. It was well established litany of toxicants. There was one substance, however, that I was unfamiliar with. Called “perfluoroisbutylene” but also going by the header PFIB, I thought I had misheard something when the lecturer mentioned it was also a potential byproduct of the common no-stick surface agent, Teflon.®   

When I got a chance, I did a bit more research on PFIB. Indeed, PFIB can be released by Teflon® if it is heated to the right breakdown temperature but the documentation for this is not so easy to find. Teflon is a polymer whose long chain carbon backbone is studded with fluorine atoms, making it quite different from plastics that lack this component. Fluorine is in the halogen group of elements. This also includes chlorine, a far more common player in polymers, for example PVC. Teflon® has been on the market since the 1940s when it was introduced by DuPont; in Britain, Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. followed suit with its own fluoropolymer, Fluon® soon after. By 1951, the first reports began to appear of a flu-like illness when fumes from these fluoropolymers were inhaled. The authors of these reports emphasized that this was a benign condition. This became a more sensitive issue in the early 1960s when fluoropolymer-coated no-stick pans first began to be marketed to the general consumer public.

DuPont, the U.S. manufacturer of the fluoropolymer is aware of consumer angst on the subject of its product. Its website, under the header of “Key Safety Questions About Teflon® Nonstick Coatings” enumerates a number of reassurances, including “5. Are fumes from overheated nonstick coated cookware harmful to people?  The fumes that are released by overheated polymer can produce symptoms referred to as ‘polymer fume fever’ — flu-like symptoms that are relatively quickly reversed in humans. Over the past 40 years, there have been only a few reported accounts of polymer fume fever as a result of severely overheating nonstick cookware.” (http://www2.dupont.com/Teflon/en_US/products/safety/key_questions.html). There’s no mention there of PFIB, although a full search of the DuPont web site does lead to a 2008 DuPont workplace environmental monitoring report in Dutch   (http://www2.dupont.com/Dordrecht_Plant_Site/nl_NL/assets/downloads/milieuverslag.pdf).

If there wasn’t much on the corporate web site, I wondered what I might find on the National Library of Medicine (Medline) data base. It showed 26 entries for PFIB, but it was only the very last one on the list, from back in 1965, that seem to touch on human illness: “Clinical aspects of acute poisoning with perfluoroisobutylene” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5870682). Unfortunately, the original article was in a Russian and the journal issue it appeared in was not in my university’s library.

Luckily, I came across an English language synopsis of that Russian report. It turns out that it describes five patients (2 men and 3 women) accidently exposed to PFIB at work in a chemical factory. They each had been exposed briefly – most for only a few breaths. Yes all suffered severe lung injury, with two to eight week hospital stays among the survivors – one death occurred after two days.  This summary was contained in a 2010 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report of PFIB trying to determine what a safe exposure level for the poison would be were it to be released to the public (http://www.epa.gov/oppt/aegl/pubs/perfluoroisobutylene_interim_sept_2010.pdf).

In 1964, the year before the Russian report, a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine described a case of a worker who also developed lung injury, albeit not as severe, when he spot welded too close to Teflon® blocks that were part of the item he was fabricating.  The authors of the report did not have technical measurements but suggested that “octafluorisobutylene,” which is another synonym for PFIB, might have been released (http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM196408132710708).

The 2010 EPA document does not mention this case. Nor does it allude to a 1997 report of another death in factory worker in Taiwan when a Teflon® extruding machine overheated. In fact, other than the Russian paper from the following year it refers to only one other outbreak. It seems that in the mid-1970s, five other workers were briefly exposed to PFIB with resultant lung damage which was fatal for two of them. This experience has never been documented in the open medical literature as far as I am aware. The source of the EPA data was “a personal communication” from the DuPont Company dating back to 1976.

Resilience and integrity might well be the subtitle to “The Folk Art of Cape Cod,” by Jeanne Marie Carley.  Through folk art we see how our ancestors brought to this new country their ideas, creativity, and inventiveness.  Carley says that the hard-working people of the 1700s and 1800s, though often facing harsh times, “left us a legacy of treasures including schoolgirl samplers, wooden decoys, whirligigs, weathervanes and many portraits of sea captains, their wives and children done by itinerant artisan-painters.”

What started out as a course to learn about their new community in Chatham, Mass., has become a coffee-table book of over 550 color plates. Folk Art of Cape Cod and the Islands - Schiffer Publishing.

Through her research, Carley became intrigued by early religious art done by a drifter who was said to have been disowned by a wealthy family. His simplicity of style showed somber images of the Virgin and Child, perhaps reflective of the faces he saw in his travels.

“We should remember that the people portrayed in the book often led tragic lives with frequent death at sea for men and often during childbirth for young women. Many of their children had a brief lifespan,” Carley said.  Heirloom quilts often revealed stories of family history.

Upligting spirits on the Merry-Go-Round 

If colorful quilts of the era had any visual competition, it was in the form of fanciful hand-carved, hand-painted horses designed for merry-go-rounds.

“Opinions vary about whether carousel animals are actually folk art since many of these carvers had trained as wood sculpture apprentices and their animals were primarily made for commercial use,” says Carley. “Nonetheless, the lively Victorian-age carousel contributed to the roots of our national heritage aesthetically and culturally, whether in an amusement park or city park, a seashore resort, a circus, a country fair or traveling carnival.”

Carley noted that “carousels combined the immigrant experience, European-born skilled wood-carvers, and organ-builders, popular entertainment, creation of a new national enterprise. All of these elements merged to create a memorable American epoch centered on the shared and simple joy of whirling around on the flying horses.”

By the 1800s the tiny state of Rhode Island could boast of two prize carousels that brought magical moments to young and old alike. While only about 275 of the more than 3,000 antique carousels still exist, “The Flying Horse Carousel” in Watch Hill is considered one of the oldest designed by Charles Dane.

Children and adults alike are mesmerized by merry-go-round magic. Even today we can tangibly connect with our past by hugging the stallions, listening to the organ, and feeling the wind against our faces. Riding the carousel, our ancestors were transported to moments bordering on a whirling spiritual high.  Sitting on a carousel today we come in touch with those who found laughter on the painted stallions despite their daily toil.

Copyright 2014 Rita Watson/ All Rights Reserved

Have you ever felt like you’re the only one who’s different? Growing up as the one Japanese boy anyone had ever seen I often felt like I was the only one and in that way I was the only one. This sense of difference led to isolation and was the breeding ground of alienation.

But fortunately, I began to see that other kids felt different for their own reasons. Some of their reasons were visible, like a physical disability, while others were harder to see, like having an abusive parent. Some children feel like they're the only one a lot because other kids notice the difference and point it out, often in ways that are hurtful. Others live privately with their secret difference. Either way a feeling of difference can make children feel isolated and alienated and they can become lost in an illusion of separateness from others. Feeling that no one understands you is terribly lonely. 

I’ve realized how important it is to overcome this awful sense of estrangement from life and am always looking for ways. I found one in an unexpected source—numbers. In Yoko Ogawa’s touching novel The Housekeeper and the Professor, the elderly math professor presents the housekeeper's son with a list of all the primary numbers up to one hundred and asks him what he sees. 

2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97

The boy, Root, who always feels different and notices the one who’s different, points out, “2 is the only one that’s even."

The professor says, “You’re right. Two is the only even prime. It’s the leadoff batter for the infinite team of prime numbers after it."

“That must be awfully lonely,” the boy says. 

“Don't worry,” says the professor, “if it gets lonely it has lots of company with the other even numbers."

Many children might understand Root's feelings when he sees that 2 is the only even number and assumes it is lonely. They have felt like the number 2, as if they are the only one, with the difference glaringly, uncomfortably, or even painfully obvious. We all desperately want to be like others. But a challenge that we all face is to recognize and accept our uniqueness. Though others may tell us that this is bad we have to accept that it is who we are and therefore it is good. We can assert our right to be there, and may find that others accept us for who we are, one of them but different. 

We could discover that there are others in the group who also feel that they are the only one, for completely different reasons, like the number 3 right next to 2, who is the only one who follows an even primary number. This common feeling of difference can bond us. The discovery of unanticipated and unexpected connections can be a liberating experience as we see how borders between us and others can sometimes be self constructed and an illusion.

The one who is "different" can even fill a special role in the group as 2 does by being the "leadoff batter." The group may come to see that the uniqueness of all of its members can allow each to fulfill a special role. 

I know that it’s not easy for children when they feel that they are the only one who is different. I think that many children are like the boy Root in the novel and almost always notice the odd man out. They too would feel that 2 was the loneliest number—its difference is striking. But if they use their imagination they can see that all children feel different in some way because we are all unique. 

And if they try hard they will find that there are multiple connections with others. They can realize that while it might look lonely there, 2 is not helpless, why it’s even out front as the leader of the pack. And as the professor tells Root, if 2 is too lonely, he can look outside the group and he'll find lots of company.

Stephen Murphy-Shigematsu teaches human development at Stanford University, mentors at Fielding Graduate University and is the author of When Half is Whole, Multicultural Encounters, and Synergy, Healing and Empowerment.

Follow Stephen Murphy-Shigematsu at Finding Meaning in Life's Struggles, Twitter, Facebook

© 2014 Stephen Murphy-Shigematsu. All rights reserved. Please contact for permission to reprint

An advisor (sometimes referred to as a “major professor”) is a faculty member who directs the research and training of a Ph.D. student. When applying to a Ph.D. program, you are usually expected to name a potential advisor based on interest in his/her research and the desire to become an apprentice to this person. An advisor will serve as the head of your dissertation committee and train you to become an expert in his/her area of research. Emailing potential future advisors has become a crucial step in the process of applying to Ph.D. programs. 

In this blog post, we will cover why emailing a potential advisor is important and how best to do it. Please note: emailing advisors is not necessary when applying to Psy.D. or Masters programs because these programs do not run on an apprenticeship model like Ph.D. programs.

What is the purpose of emailing a potential advisor before applying?

Making initial contact with professors you would like to work with as a Ph.D. student is extremely important for two reasons. First, it is your chance to make a positive impression even before your application is submitted. Unless you know this professor from your undergraduate education or you have met him/her at a conference, the email exchange will be the first impression you make and, as psychologists, we know how influential first impressions can be on subsequent attitudes about people.

The second reason the initial email is important is because it will play a significant role in determining whether or not you will actually submit an application to that professor’s program. In the email, you will seek to find out if he/she will be accepting at least one new Ph.D. student the year you will be applying.

Research faculty members are not likely to take new Ph.D. students each and every year. This could be for a variety of reasons, including, for example, a professor might be going on sabbatical, taking on an administrative role, or phasing out for retirement. It is also possible that the faculty members in a program take turns admitting students each year due to funding constraints, a limited number of openings, or lack of office/laboratory space.

Ph.D. programs are very selective and, therefore, applicants should focus their efforts primarily on those advisors who are actually seeking new students. Spending energy on applying to work with faculty members who are not accepting new students is not well spent and reduces one’s chances for admission.

Truth be told, when I applied to Ph.D. programs, I was unaware that I should email advisors before applying to work with them. I applied to 11 programs and later found out that only roughly half of the professors who I named as possible advisors in my personal statements were actually accepting new Ph.D. students. Fortunately, admission still worked out for me that year, but knowing better now, I advise others not to cut their chances for admission by neglecting this important step in the process.

What should the email be like?

Keep the initial email to a potential advisor short, to the point, and professional. It should be no longer than three brief paragraphs with a closing statement (see suggested structure below). Ideally, in this small amount of space, you want to show that you are a competent student coming from a good educational background and that you are involved with research that is related to that of your reader. Importantly, you also want to ask if this person is planning to at least consider applications for a new Ph.D. student or two.

Send emails to potential advisors in August – October before applications are due in November – January. At this time of year, faculty member’s minds begin to shift to the upcoming round of applications and whether or not they are seeking a new student will become clearer.

Contact only one faculty member per department. It will not appear that you are uniquely excited to become a part of his/her lab if he/she discovers that you have emailed one or more other faculty members in the same program.

Here is the structure I suggest my clients use when emailing potential advisors: 

Subject line: Ph.D. applicant -Or- Your Research on XYZ

Dear Dr. So-and-so,

Paragraph 1: Briefly introduce yourself and your research experience.

I am beginning my senior year at the University of [Somewhere]. During my time as an undergraduate, I have become involved with research on [XYZ] under the direction of Dr. [Someone]. I am in the process of conducting my own study examining the effects of [A] on [B] and expect to find [hypothesis]. 

Paragraph 2: Connect your research to that of the potential advisor.

I have read your research about [XYZ] and find it interesting. I am especially interested in how X from your studies relates to Y from my study. This is one area I could see myself exploring in research as a graduate student.

-Or-

Paragraph 2: Alternatively, instead of connecting your two areas of research, make an intelligent observation or ask a great question about the reader’s research.

I have read your research about [XYZ] and find it interesting. I was wondering how W would affect your finding about XYZ. Did your study or another one find that W is also related to XYZ? This is one area I could see myself exploring further in research as a graduate student. 

Paragraph 3: Ask if he/she is accepting graduate students.

I will be applying to Ph.D. programs this fall and would very much like the opportunity to join your lab group. Will you be accepting applications for new graduate students for entry in [year]?

Closing

Thanks very much for your time. I hope we have the chance to speak about research in the future.

Sincerely,

You

If your CV is in good shape, you could attach it to the email for the recipient’s perusal.

If you work closely with a current Ph.D. student or know one of your current or past professors in the field to which you are applying well, I recommend asking this person to read over your email before sending it. Ask for feedback and it is always good to have a second set of eyes check for typos. I am also available to review these emails as a consultant.

What should I expect in a reply?

First off, you should not necessarily expect a timely reply or any reply at all. Professors are inundated daily with emails from their current students, other faculty and administrators at the university, collaborators all over the world, journalists, and others. With all of this inbox traffic, your email may not very well be on the top of his/her reply-to list. 

Let’s start by discussing the worst-case scenario: you receive a reply that indicates the professor will not be considering applications this year. At this point, it is safe to either remove the program from the list of those you will be applying to and replace it with another program or make contact with another professor in the first program whose research interests you. Do not email more than two people per program though.

In the best-case scenario, you receive a reply that indicates he/she will be considering applications. By all means, keep this program on the list of those to which you will be applying. The faculty member who you corresponded with will likely recognize your name when it comes time to review applications and this could work to your advantage. Refrain from reading too much into a warm or overly positive reply though. It does not mean much about your chances for admission. Admission will largely depend on the quality of the other applicants and on performance during an interview – both of which faculty members cannot assess based on your email exchange.

Finally, if you do not receive a reply at all, you can still apply to the program and name the faculty member as the person who you would like to be your advisor, but consider it a more “risky” program on your list with a lower chance of admission.

Laura E. Buffardi, Ph.D. is a graduate school admission consultant in psychology and related fields. Visit www.gradadmissionsconsulting.com to learn more about working with Laura to improve your application. Follow her on Twitter for current grad school admissions news.

Ask yourself, when in conflict: Does your pulse race and your heart pound? Do you talk over the other person? Do you turn trivial things into causes for battle? Is winning your ultimate goal? If your answer to some of these questions was, "Yes, that sounds just like me!" you're probably a reactive person.

When you feel threatened, your body's fight-or-flight response is triggered. You become flooded with stress hormones and the reasoning part of your brain, the neocortex, shuts down. This reactivity was incredibly useful to your ancestors, who needed to run from wild animals and protect their caves from aggressive neighbors. It's not so useful to you when the threat is your angry wife or passive-aggressive boyfriend.

Your partner says something critical and instead of responding rationally or thoughtfully, you attack. By responding to conflict reactively, you leap to an emotional conclusion. You let the other person determine your response and behavior. Being triggered can stop your ability to regulate yourself and being unable to regulate yourself is the end of communication and intimacy.

When you're reactive, you enter "automatic pilot" mode. You stop being conscious of your words, tone of voice, or body language. Instead of recognizing that the other person is someone you loved and cared for just an hour ago, you want to shut him or her down, you want to make him or her the problem. You want to win.

If you're a reactive person, your partner may begin to think of you as a time bomb of rage just ready to explode and he or she has to walk on eggshells around you or risk getting hit by shrapnel. If both you and your partner are reactive, conversations easily turn into shouting matches. Either way, your relationship becomes a war zone and communication stops. Without communication, conflict will never be resolved and the situation will never improve.

Safely assuming you don't live in a cave and need to run from lions, it's time you turn your reactive responses into mindful ones. When you're mindful, you're anchored in the present and you're aware of what you're saying, how you're feeling, and how your words and actions are affecting your partner. With reactive behavior, you look at what the other person is doing to you. But with mindfulness, you go into yourself to understand what you are doing to you. This self-awareness lets you slow down your responses and gain conscious control of what in the past felt like pure reflex.

So, what does being mindful look like? Think of mindfulness like an adult time-out. When you were a kid, your parents made you sit in a corner or go to your room when you were upset. The time-out gave you a chance to calm down and regain control. Just because you now have a career and a mortgage and kids of your own doesn't mean you don't still need time-outs.

Next time you feel yourself getting enraged, mentally send yourself to your room. Take a minute to breathe and drop down beyond your thoughts to understand the meaning of what you're feeling. Create a space between what triggered you and your response to it.

Mindfulness can transform a relationship torn apart by reactiveness. It helps you overcome negative emotional habits like blaming and defensiveness. It lets you express your anger rationally. It helps you consciously choose language and actions to deescalate conflicts. It helps you listen to what the other person is really saying, not just your interpretation of it. And, it puts powerful tools like assertiveness, gentle humor, self-deprecation, compassion, empathy, and respect back on the table.

For more information on Dr. Andrea Brandt, please visit her website: www.abrantherapy.com. You can also connect on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/abrandtherapy or twitter: https://twitter.com/AndreaBrandtPhD.

“Know Thyself” is an ancient Greek maxim, yet it is certainly relevant to our modern-day struggles to understand who we are -- and where we are going. According to Erik Erikson (1985), the primary task of adolescence is to resolve the Identity-Role Confusion crisis. In other words, we may begin to explore our answer to the ‘Who Am I?’ question during the teen years. Contrary to Erikson’s theory though, a good deal of contemporary research indicates that identity crises continue through early, middle, and late adulthood (Anthis, 2011; Kroger, 2006; Newton & Stewart, 2010; 2013).

So how can we best answer this question of who we are, no matter our age? My own work (Anthis, 2014) indicates that doing so may be a product of how well we have resolved prior stages’ crises, such as whether or not we left infancy with more hope than withdrawal, after struggling with the Trust-Mistrust crisis of that stage. That is, if we experienced more trusting behaviors than distrustful behaviors from our caregivers as a baby, we will possess buoyancy in the face of minor difficulties or major reversals of fortune; if we experienced more distrustful behaviors than trusting behaviors from our caregivers as a baby, we will be riddled with a sense of surrender in the face of minor difficulties or major reversals of fortune.

So according to Erikson (1985), “hope” or optimism is the ego strength or virtue we derive from resolving successfully the Trust-Mistrust crisis of infancy, and “withdrawal” or depression is the core pathology we are left with after not resolving successfully the Trust-Mistrust crisis of infancy. The ego strength we derive from resolving the Identity-Role Confusion crisis of adolescence is “fidelity” or being true and consistent to both oneself and to others, and the core pathology we are left with after not resolving the Identity-Role Confusion crisis of adolescence is “role repudiation” or the inability to integrate and synthesize our different selves in a whole personality. This is what Carl Jung (1957) would refer to as the “Self” rather than merely that of which we are conscious, i.e., the “Ego.”

The hierarchical principle in Erikson’s (1985) theory posits that acquiring the ego strengths of prior life stages makes resolution of later stages easier. For example, possessing the ego strength of hope after experiencing more trust than mistrust certainly makes resolution of the Intimacy-Isolation crisis during the early adulthood stage, and acquisition of its corresponding ego strength of “love,” easier. This is not to say that one cannot love or be loved if s/he experienced more distrust than trust during infancy, but the imbalance certainly makes later crises more difficult to resolve.

So ego strengths serve, in a way, as lower-level college courses that are prerequisites for upper-level courses. By analogy, failure to really comprehend Statistics Methods in Psychology may make understanding Experimental Research Methods much more difficult than it need be. And indeed, this is what my own research has shown, at least in terms of our career identity (Anthis, 2014).

That is, my research data show that the greater an individual’s possession of all the ego strengths prior to adolescence, the greater his/her resolution of career identity concerns, such as exploring a range of career options in-breath, exploring the details of one particular career in-depth, and making a commitment to a career (Anthis, 2014).

Exploring one’s career options in breadth, or learning about as wide a range of careers as possible, is best predicted by achieving the ego strength of “competence” that is associated with the Industry-Inferiority crisis of late childhood. In other words, “Know Thyself”, i.e., when we make the effort to discover where our talents lie and use the skills and abilities at which we are most adept, we will be better able to explore which career suits us best.

References

Anthis, K. (2014). Hope, will, purpose, competence, and fidelity: Ego strengths as precursors to career identity. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 14(2), 153-162. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15283488.2014.892001#preview

Anthis, K. (2011). The role of conflict in continuity and change: Life events associated with identity development in racially/ethnically diverse women. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 11(4), 333-347. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15283488.2011.613588

Erikson, E. (1985). The life cycle completed. New York, NY: Norton. http://books.wwnorton.com/books/The-Life-Cycle-Completed/

Jung, C. G. (1957). The undiscovered self. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9508.html

Kroger, J. (2006). Identity Development: Adolescence through adulthood. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. http://www.sagepub.com/books/Book226125/reviews

Newton, N. & Stewart, A. J. (2010). The middle ages: Change in women’s personalities and social roles. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1, 75-84. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01543.x/abstract

Newton, N. & Stewart, A. J. (2013). The road not taken: Women’s life paths and gender-linked personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(4), 306-316. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009265661300024X

When my kids were little, I tried to sell them on the notion that school was their job. As in, “I know, Monday is the worst, but see how Mom and Dad go to work anyway? School is just your office. And when you get there and get busy, it’s not so bad after all.”

I have probably committed more offenses against the Gospel of Good Parenting than you can count on all four of your digit-bearing extremities. Way more. And the ol’ “school is your job, so you have to go even if you hate it” rule might be among my worst insults to my own children’s intelligence and well-being.

Here’s why I’ve changed my tune about the school-as-work argument: when Lars or I have had an unbearable, soul-crushing, stomach-churning job, we have either quit (me) or hung on by the skin of our teeth while doggedly looking for another one (Lars). Which means that the command to just suck it up because it’s a job is an attitude we have modeled most of the time--but not when things at work reach crisis proportions.

Like, when the boss is a bully. Or the company is unethical. Or we are being horribly, terribly exploited.

What I know now but didn’t then is that a child, with or without any disabilities can feel as wretched, as unable to succeed, and as demoralized in school as an adult can at work. Amplify that misery by a thousand if a child has anxiety or other mental health concerns.

Whether the issue is bullying, a high-stress environment, sensory overload (e.g. loud, crowded spaces with nowhere to catch a break), or a one-size-fits-all teaching model, sometimes a school is simply not a good fit.

When your kid is struggling with a mental illness, a bad fit can have a very bad outcome.

I have always been a proponent of public education--which for some students, even those with mental health disorders, works just fine. If someone had told me when my kids became of school age that both would eventually end up in private schools, I’d have politely nodded, then gone home and emailed Lars to inform him that someone was nuts.

(Saskia’s story is less pertinent here, but I will just throw out these few words of advice: Financial aid; it’s a real thing, and worth asking about.)

Since having children, we have lived on the edge of the financial abyss (Hello, medical bills and lost income!), and private school looked to us like the place where rich kids congregated. Plus, both Lars and I are graduates of public schools (mine here, his in Germany). Private school was just not on our radar screen.

And then, this happened. 

Benjy’s mental health declined. Between first and fifth grade, most of which were spent in public schools, he became more and more anxious and depressed. Isolated. Ostracized. The fear took root an hour after he returned home, and continued until the end of the next school day, when he was gifted another hour or two of respite before re-assuming his fetal position in bed.

The other thing that happened--or didn’t happen--was education. He was so anxious, so sad, and so overwhelmed in a stimulating classroom of 20-30 confident kids, that no learning took place in school whatsoever.

He did learn, don’t get me wrong. Just not at school. He spent a lot of time on Google, on Netflix, on YouTube, inquiring deeply into the stuff that interested him. Whereas at school, he spent his time with his head on his desk, mutilating his fingers, or sleeping in the nurse’s office.

For Pete’s sake, why did you let it go so long? I’m pretty sure you are wondering at this point. For the sake of Petes everywhere, I will tell you why.

First of all, what parent doesn’t want their kid to be successful in school--private or public? We’d clung to our hope that Ben would find success in an integrated classroom--meaning, some kids with special needs, some without.

Also, we didn’t really know we had options. And even though Ben’s special education team were all wonderful people, and really cared about his welfare, I’ve learned that school districts will not always be proactive in suggesting it’s time for an out-of-district placement (by which I mean a private or public special education school).

Those placements, day or residential, can cost a school district a boatload of money.

But here is what I’ve learned in the trenches of disability parenting--especially parenting a child with severe anxiety, depression, and suicidality:

Setting is everything. If a school is too loud/colorful/overwhelming, and your kid has sensory integration issues, that school will be for your kid what a job that overwhelmed you to the point that you could not understand what you’re supposed to do, and could never quite catch up, would be to you.

I’ve had that job. Just thinking about the approaching work day made me sick to my stomach.

If your child is isolated or bullied? That school is a hell to your child. Feeling like part of a safe and welcoming community means as much to a child or teen as it does to most adults. Your local school district might be a prize-winning one, but if it is crushing your kid’s spirit, who cares about prizes?

If your child or teen has a particular learning style that her public OR private school does not accommodate, then chances are she is not learning. In special education lingo that’s called “not accessing the curriculum.” If your kid isn’t learning at school, and a lot of honest attempts have been made to address the issue, then what use is going to school every day? Maybe the thing to do is start looking at other options.

So: how do you do this if you’re not wealthy?

Well, if your kid is on an individualized education plan (IEP), which he or she ought to be if psychiatric disorder impacts everyday learning and life, then theoretically your school district is obligated to foot the bill for an out-of-district placement if you can prove your child is not accessing learning (or is not safe in the setting), and no sincerely attempted remediation has worked.

I say “theoretically” because this is often not as easy as it sounds (that, readers, is a different post--and I promise to write it soon).

An educational advocate can help with the process of figuring all this out--and sometimes they can even be found pro bono!--but the most important thing you can do is to take notes on what is and is not happening at school, and if need be, stand up for your kid and fight the good fight.

In our case, because we collaborated with our school district to make every effort to keep Ben successfully in-district, enlisted his doctors and therapists and hospital case managers as allies, and kept going back to the table when all else failed, eventually we found the best school environment for him, one in which he has a strong community of peers who accept and respect him, and in which he is able to learn academics and life skills like never before. I only wish we'd figured it all out six years earlier--but I try to give myself the gift of dwelling in the present whenever possible.

At his current school--which is small, structured, filled with appropriate peers, plenty of outdoor activities,  therapeutic animals, and leadership opportunities among lots of other good stuff--Benjy is successful. He is liked and admired. Consequently, he has gained the desire to live. He is thinking about his life way in the future, rather than as a misery that will end as soon as he can find the means to end it. 

I think that speaks for itself. It's the setting that did it. Well, the setting plus a lot of effort from a lot of people, not just Lars and me.  

My son is a living, thriving example that educational setting is hugely important--for all students, but especially kids like him. If your child has psychiatric involvement, like mine does, then it may be imperative to figure out what he needs, and find a way to get it for him. It’s not easy, but it is possible. And so, so worth it.

Readers, please let me know in the comments if you want more information about any of the processes or resources I’ve mentioned here, and I will pull together some resources.

Mindy Greenstein has a lot to say about life and death, and she says it well. Her books, including The House on Crash Corner, are life-affirming and wise. Her work as a cancer psychologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering has a lot do with this. But, more than that, she’s a cancer survivor herself. Here is a glimpse of her latest book, Lighter As We Go, co-authored with Jimmie Holland, M.D.

What led you to write this particular book?

After I finished chemotherapy in 2007, when I was in my early 40s, I began doing research with Jimmie’s new geriatric group in the psychiatry department at Sloan Kettering. Jimmie was in her late 70s. Between meetings, we would share personal and professional perspectives about aging. We really enjoyed those bi-generational discussions, which turned into a weekly meeting, which then turned into Lighter As We Go. It’s been incredibly fun.

Is it hard to be so honest in your writing?

It was harder when I first started writing personal essays, particularly the issue of self-disclosure. But now, I actually find it easier to be honest. It’s a liberating feeling to stop worrying about how my writing makes me look.

How do you imagine yourself at old age?

Having had cancer twice, I think of old age as an achievement in itself, and that the rest is gravy. Writing, playing with grandchildren, making new friends, and lots of KenKen puzzles. I’m sure I’ll be complaining about various ailments, since I already do that. But I’ll try to keep what our support group calls “the organ recitals” to a minimum.

Has your view of yourself changed over time?

I’m more comfortable in my own skin than I used to be. And it’s easier to credit myself for achievements, and to admit when I make mistakes, which makes it easier to learn from them.

When have you been your most content with life?

I feel most content when I’m “in the zone” during writing. In general, though, contentment is one of those things I aspire to. I feel like now I’m investing in future contentment by trying to navigate my sandwich life as well as I can.

And when have you felt most alive?

Between crying spells, during breast cancer treatment eight years ago. That was when I was most aware that being alive was a gift. I also treated my cancer as my continued education as a psycho-oncologist, and, oh, so much material for a writer!

Who is the ambassador of humanity in your life?

My co-author, Jimmie Holland, who is also the founder of my field. She sincerely seems happiest when helping other people. And her generosity is infectious.

What is the most surprising thing you discovered while writing this?

How important it is to have friends in all age groups, no matter your age. Feeling like each person has something to teach the other all make life nicer for everyone. And younger people can choose which images of aging they’d like to aspire to.

Who would most benefit by reading Lighter?

Our book is really meant for all adult-age groups. In a way, younger adults might benefit most because better attitudes toward aging when younger are associated with better health when we’re older. People my age, 51, sometimes fear that if the sandwich years are this challenging, it must all be downhill from here. But, as Lighter As We Go shows, it’s often just the opposite. The knowledge that things can actually get better in life puts less pressure on middle agers, which might make middle age look less unappealing to younger adults. It’s like a cascading effect of the fears of aging. That’s what we’d like to change.

What gets in your way when writing? What do you fear?

For me, it’s easier to get from page 1 to page 100, than from 0 to 1. I start with a chaotic jumble of ideas. Finding the structure feels very daunting. I have to have faith that I’ll figure it out along the way.

What is the most profound thing you’ve learned about yourself through writing?

That I have a lot to learn, and will always have a lot to learn. And that knowledge isn’t a negative, but an invitation to engage with life more fully.

If you had one piece of advice, what would it be?

If you find those aspects of the future you can look forward to, you might find that the present moment feels better, too.

Cover Image: Shutterstock

For more on Mindy Greenstein, click here and here.

Lybi Ma is the deputy editor of Psychology Today. She is also the author of the novels Repo Girland Double Happy.

From my personal and professional experiences – as a marriage counselor -- a relationship that goes unscathed and unchallenged is a notable exception, and at times may be due to passivity or an avoidance of confrontation. Regrettably, conflict and struggle become ordinary facets of our partnering. Over time, what often begins, as a loving and intimately connected union tends to wither and fall from grace. It seems a rather common denominator that relationships are a challenge for almost all of us. We might well consider why that is the case.

When we struggle in our relationships, the tendency is to blame our partner or ourselves as we spiral down in disappointment and frustration. Although this conflict often has its roots in the battle of right vs. wrong, it becomes exacerbated by the fact that we are simply unschooled in the art of relationships. It’s illogical to personalize these struggles. Why would we succeed in something that we’re totally unprepared for?

Relationship Illiteracy

The underlying problem is, more often than not, that the couple—and individuals in platonic or familial relationships as well—have not learned the subtleties and skills necessary for successful relating and communicating. In nothing else in life do we expect to succeed without some education or training. We are well schooled in history, math, languages, and science for the purpose of prospering in life, so we seek at least a modicum of literacy in these areas.

Yet there is an intrinsic and fundamental skill set that is omitted from our curriculum: relationship and emotional intelligence and, of course, effective communication. I would contend that this is why we struggle and disappoint one another and ourselves with the frequency that we do.

How can we possibly expect to thrive in our relationships if we are illiterate in this most vital area? From this premise, we might at least begin to remove the blame factor from our relationships. It’s not our fault if we’ve never been shown the way. Blaming yourself or your partner mires you in a destructive energy. Guilt is even less productive. Such a perspective frees many of my clients from the blame game. This doesn’t suggest that we’re off the hook but rather indicates that we might elect to begin our learning.

 Love Is Not All You Need

Contrary to Lennon and McCartney’s lyrics, love is not all you need. While it’s a great start, we need to understand the subtleties and nuances of relating, or we we’ll lose that loving energy. From working with couples, I can’t recall a single instance in which one individual was completely faultless and enlightened and the partner was completely responsible for the problems at hand. It simply doesn’t work that way. Instead, there is a curious synergy at play whereby one’s needs or challenges are entirely entangled with those of the partner. In other words, when one person begins on his or her path of personal evolution, the change invariably triggers new challenges—and opportunities—for the partner. This resembles a very participatory dance, reminiscent of way in which crisis floods new opportunities for transformation, both individually and as a couple.

Another Beatle, George Harrison, wrote and sang the following:

 Isn’t it a pity?

Isn’t it a shame?

How we break each other’s hearts

How we cause each other pain

       Yes, it is a pity, and it need not be that way. Learning to feel competent, if not masterful, in relationships is achievable. There are many paths to this process, but I’d beware of quick-fix solutions. In fact, the goal is not to fix a relationship. Words aren’t simply semantic; they are informing us of a larger issue. A relationship is not a piece of machinery or an electronic device that is broken. At times, I’ve had people ask me if their relationship is salvageable. That very question points to the problem of insufficient expectations. We should not seek repair or salvage but joyfulness and fulfillment. Fixing, repairing, and salvaging are the nomenclature of machinery, whereby we attribute machine-like qualities to humans and, in this regard, our relationships. It’s small wonder we experience such abysmal results when we engage each other from a mechanistic stance.

Not infrequently, couples that have recently become engaged see me for premarital therapy. They may be totally happy and in love but are well aware of the sobering statistics confronting their future. They correctly believe that a foundation in relationship and communication will serve them well. We must engage in this process not from a perspective of fault, blame, or dysfunction but with a motivated eagerness to learn. Take a wellness approach to your relationships. Embracing the art of relating is the best assurance to a joyful life. To do so requires that we understand and embrace the process of commitment. This is devotion both to the relationship—which, of course, includes our relationship with self—and to our continued learning. They are in no way separate.

Why Do We Mean by Commitment?

What does this word commitment suggest? It usually evokes a strong sense of devotion, and it’s typically accompanied by a declaration of purpose and intention. Very often, we utilize this word in regard to proclamations that we may make about the seriousness of our relationships, such as “I’m in a committed relationship” or “I’m completely committed to this relationship.” In such circumstances, what exactly are we saying?

These offerings of relationship commitments are typically statements about behavior or proposed outcomes. For example, “I’m committed to you,” suggests that I won’t be seeking another relationship, or that I’m going to be monogamous. These pledges are prevalent in most unions, and particularly marriage. Marriage is an undertaking of legal vows to substantiate our pledge to fidelity, if not continued love. However, statistics reveal that even when we formalize our relationship through the compact of marriage, there is as much likelihood of failure as success. Infidelity and/or divorce are, in fact, just as likely as fidelity and lifelong marriage. So, if our most honored pledges aren’t kept, we need to understand why that occurs.

The problem arises because we are making promises about behaviors and outcomes while ignoring the necessary processes to achieve those goals. Imagine a C student declaring her intention to attain straight A’s but not devoting herself any further to her studies. Or your proclaiming that you’re going to lose thirty pounds with no game plan as to how to do so. Without paying attention to what is required to achieve the goal, the commitment turns out to be just wishful thinking and lip service. If we become aware of the required process, we can at least choose to undertake those steps necessary to do so.

How often do we hear of people committing to the process of relationship? Do we pledge to share our truth, work on developing our emotional intimacy, learn how to listen and validate each other, and devote ourselves to ensuring that our union prospers? If indeed we focused on the integrity of this process, the relationship might flourish. What might happen if we committed to learning the necessary communication tools to support that process or if we prioritized our relationships by actually valuing them over competing interests that seem to get in the way?

During the early stages of a romantic partnering, both people may experience the courtship as front and center, the priority in their lives. Regrettably, after the conquest has been achieved and the bond secured—or so we might think—we tend to deprioritize and devalue the partnership. We begin with our focus on the inner relationship but over time default to the familiarity of the outer relationship, the form as opposed to the content.

When I ask couples if they’re talking about their issues with one another, they often answer that they don’t have time. And, as unseemly as it appears, too often many couples actually don’t make enough private time to spend together, commonly falling back on the refrain that life has gotten too busy. Some couples might not even recall their last date night, which while possibly cliché, is nevertheless an important component of keeping courtship alive. Without private time together, we shouldn’t be surprised if falling out of love or experiencing an affair, conflict, or ultimately a divorce might regrettably ensue. If not, at least we might expect a prevailing mediocrity in such relationships.

What Is an Outcome?

The fear of making mistakes blocks us from seeing the flowing nature of reality and our participatory role in that process. Mistakes focus on outcomes rather than on process. The same faulty thinking applies to our typical notions relating to commitment. Ordinarily, pledges of commitment are about the end result—the outcome. What we refer to as a result is but a momentary snapshot. You can choose to look at the singular event that we call an outcome, or you can consider whether a half-hearted engagement to the process led to that event. When we make vows about the result and ignore the process, we delude ourselves. What we truly need to look at is the flow of our experiences and the quality of how we choose to live them. If we learn to become present in the moment, then what we refer to as outcomes—actually moments that we freeze in time—will be what they should. But if we pledge merely to the outcome and ignore the process, we’ve sabotaged both.

An Option to Renew

Perhaps it is ironic that the formalizing of our relationships—at times through marriage—tends to result in the loss of authentic engagement. The prevailing attitude for most people is that they feel secured by the marriage license and no longer need to engage in maintaining the emotional connection that was necessary to originally secure the relationship. Short of the disruption of divorce, the marriage simply survives, although too often in a sea of discontent.

How different would our relationships look if marriage were simply a five-year renewable contract? Before your thoughts protest this suggestion, just consider the implications. Such an arrangement might actually honor the sanctity of the marriage, and the benefits might be clearly discernible. The assumption that a marriage contract protects an existing relationship creates the inertial tendency to sleepwalk through that relationship.

Yet if either person could simply decline to renew the contract, without all of the incumbent drama and blame associated with divorce, it might motivate each party to truly engage in the process of the relationship. The literal commitment to the process would become essential to the partnership’s survival, shifting from a meaningless offer of future promises to a veritable tool of engagement. Under such a system, we would be less inclined to take one another for granted. From this shift, the relationship would more likely serve as a vessel for potential joy and gratification as opposed to a justification for our discontent.

Given that such a radical reconfiguration to the institution of marriage would have a profound impact on our children and disturb our prototypical notion of family, this isn’t likely to occur anytime soon. Yet if we treated one another in such a manner, the genuine process of commitment would no doubt benefit our relations. Without the devotion to the process of relating, a dulled and predictable familiarity occurs and sets up a regrettable and disappointing result. If we rethink how we engage our relationships, we might very well thrive in them. 

This article was excerpted from Mel's forthcoming book, A Shift of Mind. 

Mel Schwartz LCSW is a psychotherapist and marriage counselor practicing in Westport, CT and Manhattan. He also offers telephone and skype sessions. He can be reached at 203.227.5010 or Mel@melschwartz.com. Mel is the author of The Art of Intimacy, The Pleasure of Passion and the soon to be published A Shift of Mind. 

Learn about Mel's upcoming seminar, The Shift, Turning your Mind into your Ally 

Please "like" his Facebook page to see quotes of the day, follow him on Twitter, join his LinkedIn network, and visit his blog, A Shift of Mind.

I had been in Rwanda for a month, tracing the footsteps of the genocide in the ten thousand hills. This was my last morning, alone in the genocide museum near Kigali. The perfect place to reflect on all I had seen. At the end of the hall there was an alcove room lit only by a smattering of sunlight. I stopped short, met by the smack of larger than life, black-and-white photos on the walls.

 A boy with wild curls sat in front of a sandbox, waving a red shovel. “Look at me!” he demands. I imagined his father standing on the other side of the lens, laughing and encouraging his precocious son. My chest ached with a sick knowing, even before my gaze dropped to the epitaph:

Patrick, age 5

Best friend: Alaine, his sister

Favorite food: chips

Favorite thing to do: Make people laugh

Cause of death: Whacked by a machete

I was alone, or so I thought. The low hum of conversation in the garden outside floated through the window, like a chant. A hymn that held the whisper of a question. A question that had been haunting me for forty-three years, since before I had the words to speak it.

Tears slid down my cheeks, images of the past month clicking through my mind. The church with bullet holes in the ceiling, a blood-stained Mother Mary on the wall. The pristine Virunga Mountains where I had played with young gorillas who were likely to be shot by poachers before reaching adulthood. A shantytown where a young mother with blank eyes told me that she still believed in God but not justice. She wanted to forgive, but could never forget.

A young woman who I will always think of as a girl stepped out of the shadows; or perhaps she had been standing behind me, following me, for a long time. I recognized her from earlier: jeans and a striped t-shirt, she could have been any African teenager. She had smiled shyly at me in the garden, and I took note of her old-soul brown eyes. She was, in a way, ageless.

Now, she was looking at me, waiting, as if she had already asked a question. “Madame,” the girl said, her voice high but strong, “will you be my mother?”

My lips parted, but no words came to me. Surely, she must be asking something else, asking for something else. I fumbled in my purse, my hand grazing foil gum wrappers, lipstick tubes, scraps of Kleenex, loose change that felt dirty on my skin. I couldn’t look at the girl or the photos on the wall.

Yes, of course. This is what I wanted to answer. But there was too much in the way. My mom’s shaky voice admitting that after my older sister Susie died, when I was too young to remember, she couldn’t love her remaining three children for a long time. And then the shouts of a therapist who had held me an emotional hostage for two years, bullying me into thinking of her as my surrogate mother. Tough love, that’s what she had called it. At the time, I had been a young mom myself, afraid that I didn't know how to love my sons well enough.

Eight years later, that moment when I turned away a girl who was, most likely, simply looking for some comfort not adoption, still haunts me. In my mind, I smile and answer yes. I imagine how that small breath of compassion might have connected me with a stranger; changed me. Changed her. Eight years later, I’m still trying, not always successfully, to answer, yes.

Jennifer Haupt contributes stories and book reviews to a wide variety of magazines. Her e-book “Will you be my Mother? The quest to answer yes,” includes three stories from her journey to love better and connect more deeply with her children, her mother, and the world. For more information about Jennifer, visit her website or Facebook page.

This essay originally appeared in Mamalode in a slightly alternered form.