These three chilling words distress parents in households every day. Parents are terrified that after all their hard work and caring, their child does not love them. Memories of any feelings of rejection from their own childhood, cloud their minds and an old sadness and anger returns.

Luckily, when your child yells these words, there is an explanation that can help you relax. Your child loves you more than anyone in the world. He is just feeling very angry about something that is going on. Maybe you said no to a new toy. Maybe he is mad at his friend and he is taking it out on you.

Children have limited verbal abilities, so they have a hard time expressing their feelings. They do not know how to tell you, “I feel very angry because you will not let me go to the park.” Instead they blurt out, “I hate you.”

Something else occurs for young children. As they grow, and develop their verbal skills, they discover that language can give them power. Other kids will say, “I hate you” to them, and it has a devastating effect. It makes them feel unwanted and powerless. They then repeat these words to others to gain a feeling of power. Here are some approaches that will help you handle these sensitive moments.

Focus on your child's anger, not the seeming personal attack. It will help you to avoid overreacting.

Acknowledge your child's emotions, for example, “I can see that you're very angry.” In this way you help your child to get in touch with her emotions.

Connect his anger to the underlying cause by telling him the story of what happened. For instance, you might say, “I said you couldn't go on a sleepover tonight and you got angry.”

Teach her a phrase that you desire her to use. You can tell her, “When you're angry, say, 'I'm angry', and I will help you.”

Educate your child about the effect of his words. You can explain that hate is a word that hurts peoples' feelings. Remind him of the times when someone used these words with him and talk about how he felt. Pointing out these concrete examples from his own experience, will help him to build empathy.

Avoid shaming her for her choice of words. Parents often react angrily to the phrase, “I hate you”, and respond with common phrases such as, “How could you say such a thing” or “What’s the matter with you?” The problem with these remarks is that they give a child a bad feeling about herself and communicate that her feelings are not acceptable. Our goal with children is to set a limit without harming their self-esteem.

Never respond in kind. Sometimes parents are so hurt that they respond, “I hate you too.” Though it may be a natural urge, it has a negative impact on children. It actually can cause them to doubt your love. If these words do slip out, it is therefore crucial to apologize and say that you were feeling upset.

The best approach is to encourage your child not try to hide his feelings, and teach him how to express himself in the most positive way. Talking about his emotions and dealing with them effectively, will help him to have a happier life.

Recently, I was fortunate enough to travel to New England at the peak of autumn. This meant a week of leaf-peeping and lobster-eating, lakeside hikes, and morning runs that doubled as quick tours of idyllic New England towns. On one particular morning, I was running along the quiet, solitary waterfront of Portland, Maine and saw the most incredible sunrise over the water. Sailboats dotted the landscape, the sky was pink, and the light was reflecting on the rippling water. It was the kind of scene that would grace the cover of a magazine or travel guide. It was the stuff vacations are built around. However, as I took it in, my wonder and gratitude was dampened by a sense of sadness and annoyance with myself, because, horror of horrors, I'd forgotten my phone. I wouldn't be able to snap a picture - no, multiple pictures! - to later be fancied up with various filters. I wouldn't be able to revisit the scene later, or, more importantly, post it to Facebook and wait for the "likes" to start pouring in. This loss nagged at me for the rest of the morning.

Why did I frame this lovely moment as a loss? What real value is there in capturing these moments, compared to just being present and taking them in as they unfold?

I believe we have a deep need to preserve beautiful but fleeting moments such as these, because the fact that they exist only in time is just too sad to face. Isn't this what drives a tourist in Paris to videotape his visit to Notre Dame, take selfies in front of the Arc de Triomphe, and buy a miniature Eiffel Tower to put on his knick-knack shelf back home? It’s a means of coping: "No, this experience isn't really over! Look at all the reminders I'm going to have!" But at what cost? That guy filming Notre Dame - is he really seeing it, or is he missing it even as he preserves it? Is there a downside to turning away from the Arc de Triomphe to take that selfie - photographic evidence that you were there - as opposed to just standing before it and taking it in? Does preserving the moment for the future detract from it in the present?

In some respects, yes. One recent study found that those who took photographs of the works they viewed in an art museum showed poorer recall of those works compared to people who didn't take photographs. Essentially, a camera can serve as an external hard drive for our memories.

But we're interested in more than just accurate recall of an experience. What about appreciation and enjoyment? Certainly, careless snap-snap-snapping can detract from that. But, done differently, the process of taking pictures can also propel us into the moment. Looking at the world as a photographer might - with an eye out for meaning or beauty – actually seems like a nice way to teach ourselves to be mindful and appreciative. "What in this moment is worth capturing?" one might ask. Indeed, in the study mentioned above, those who took pictures of specific details of an artwork – a brushstroke, or a specific part of an object – showed enhanced recall of the work, presumably because they were processing it more deeply.

Maybe the answer, then, is to engage in mindful photography, using the camera as a tool that helps us hone in on what around us is worth noting. I've actually done several experiments instructing college students to take mindful photographs in their everyday lives. I found that these students reported higher levels of appreciation, motivation, and energy than those who were asked to take more neutral, informative photographs. They also enjoyed the activity more.

Some suggestions for trying this out: Go to a local spot - a park, a charming street in your town, even your own backyard or a room in your home, and simply look around. What are some of the notable features of the scene before you? The landscaping, the architecture, the decor? Then, start honing in on details: colors, textures, architectural features. Ask yourself, is there anything surprising about the scene before you? Is there anything personally meaningful? If you were to never be in this place again, what would you most like to remember? Don't be surprised if you find things you've never fully noticed before. We so often have blinders on, and this activity can open your eyes to what we tend to miss. Then, take just a few photos that really capture the scene in a way that is beautiful or meaningful to you.

Virtually all of us carry cameras, in the form of smartphones, with us constantly, so it's certainly worth considering how their use impacts our lives and whether we can use them in a positive way. I say don't leave your camera behind while traveling, but use it thoughtfully. Don't let it be your eyes. Really look around, see what lies before you, mindfully capture it, and relish looking back over your photos in the future.

References

Henkel, L. A. (2014). Point-and-shoot memories: The influence of taking photos on memory for a museum tour. Psychological Science, 25, 396-402.

Kurtz, J. L. & Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). Using mindful photography to increase positive emotion and appreciation. In J. J. Froh & A. C. Parks (Eds.). Positive psychology in higher education: A practical workbook for the classroom. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Zhang, T., Kim, T., Brooks, A. W., Gino, F., Norton, M. I. (2014). A “present” for the future. The unexpected value of rediscovery. Psychological Science. 25, 1851-1860.

With the advent of the Internet, reality television, and social media, American cuisine has experienced an interesting split between two extremes: between foodies who value meals and food as a way of life, and goal-seekers who view food as a bottom-line obstacle for maximum time management via minimal sustenance. The goal-seeker movement has reached its pinnacle (or nadir depending on how you view it) with the Soylent trend.

Soylent has merged the efficiency and geek chic of Silicon Valley techiedom with gym-diet faddiness, leading to a New Yorker article and a burgeoning start-up company whose mantra is “Free your body.” You can order the original brand-name Soylent powder (although it is notably an open-source formula) via mail (although new orders are reportedly backlogged) or make your own pseudo-Soylent via widely publicized Internet recipes and nutrition stores. The powder is added to liquid and turned into a personal shake, not all that different from Ensure or baby formula really. You can tweak the recipe to your “taste,” ahem. The idea is to create the most essential form of sustenance needed to continue living, eat to live being the credo to save time, money, and work. You create freedom from this tedious organismal dependence on food product. A meal takes seconds to drink.

Yet on the opposite end of the spectrum, this has been the century of the foodie in America. Between Top Chef, the Food Network, and Anthony Bourdain, foodies have burst all over urbanite centers and beyond, looking to reconnect with the joys of slower-paced meals, home cooking, hand-craftsmanship, locavore sourcing. While certainly somewhat mockable as a hipster-driven ethos (as parodied on the TV shows Portlandia and Girls via pickling hobbyists and more), it speaks to a craving for relinking to the essential world around us, live to eat not just live to work.

And for the 20^th century in America, food leaned more towards the “eat to live” raison d’etre, for various cultural and economic reasons. America may claim world supremacy in many ways, but our cuisine has not traditionally been one of them. That hasn’t stopped America from trying to dominate the world via McDonald’s and other less-than-pleasant culinary venues. When food meets capitalistic efficiency, the results in America have usually been depressing. France is known for its croissants and coq au vin, Japan for its sushi and ramen, Italy for its pasta and artisanal prosciutto. America has hamburgers and fries and hot dogs.

Part of the sad American culinary tradition has been multifactorial; a predominantly northern European immigrant base for 300 years (bringing the mouthnumbingly bland traditions of England, Ireland, and Germany) meshed with the American industrial complex that has valued productivity above all else--cheap, fast, efficient in all walks of life, and needing to tame that huge, extravagant time-waster, the enemy known as food.

Accordingly, bad cuisine went on for the latter half of the 20^th century after the starvation and limited rations of the Great Depression and World War II. Modern innovation and assembly-line precision just like the original American invention, the Model T, would solve America’s food problems. Rectangular, metallic diners resembling spaceships dominated the landscape, serving the same simple staples fast and freshly reheated, drive-throughs-a-plenty. Fast food chains took over suburbia. TV frozen dinners in metal oven trays were the latest innovation, followed then by microwaveable food. Products were churned out in mass quantities by industrialized food companies, processing everything into easy sugary and fatty consumables for the classic American family unit. We were too good at feeding ourselves, and we got bigger as a result.

Then somehow nutrition science caught up with reality in the 21^st century, and the idea of original, unprocessed “whole foods” came into vogue. Food as is, sans bleaching, sans chemicals, sans hydrogenation, sans enrichment. And the pleasant discovery was that food au naturel actually tasted better too. The older way was the better way, as had remained traditionally venerated throughout Europe’s Mediterranean countries and parts of Asia and Africa. Mealtimes there are long, valued rituals where families and friends spend hours socializing and bringing out dishes. Food becomes a form of human bonding, even love. Farmers’ markets and DIY (do-it-yourself) gastronomy (such as craft beers and whiskeys, artisanal food products, New American cuisine) now have become trendy, and slow food is a way to take pause and smell the coffee. Returning to the land, to our roots, has become both a dietary and spiritual reassessment. Is the ultimate goal, the bottom line all that matters? Is the endless drive for money and productivity and workaholism the be-all and end-all to American life?

So here we have vastly different competing movements, both mainly part of middle and upper class elites who have the luxury to ponder such choices. There remains, of course, a larger problem with the obesity epidemic in America, which is tied also to education and socioeconomic status. For most, it is still unfortunately quicker and cheaper to drink a soda and buy a burger than to roast organic Brussel sprouts with Applewood bacon at home.

In this vein, Michelle Obama, Jamie Oliver, and other dignitaries have focused on eating our fat-free cake and having it too through systemic culinary reforms. School systems and cafeterias are slowly shifting to cost-effective compromises that value healthier dishes. Fast-casual is the largest-growing sector in the restaurant industry, and many are following the model of Chipotle, where assembly-line efficiency can combine with better quality ingredients and gourmet ethnic recipes. Food trucks have become a hot trend where portable gourmet cuisine goes anywhere. Even high-end chefs are getting into the fast-casual game and are also targeting the mission of improving less affluent neighborhoods’ eating habits in the process.

The Soylent trend seems like a menacing counterthreat to those who have rediscovered the joys of food-centered living as the rest of the world has known for eons. Soylent reminds me of the grotesque scene in The Matrix where you see reality as is, where all the humanoids are shown being bred like mass-produced fetuses and fed nameless paste through plastic tubes made of liquefied human remains (not unlike Soylent Green, the new product’s sci-fi namesake, which was famously made of people.) It reminds me of the sad feeding tubes you see in hospitals, where people have lost the ability to swallow or use their gastrointestinal tracts, with the machines quietly cranking in bags of cream-colored goo into their stomach tube. Why voluntarily give up the gift of flavor, the gift of food, the sensory appreciation of life, for a couple extra hours to finish spreadsheets?

Copyright 2014-Jean Kim MD

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons, own work by Oliver Stapel. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

In my last blog, Fuller Torrey described the dramatic deterioration of our mental health nonsystem and the resulting torment for the 600,000 severely ill who are either homeless or in prison (or rotating between the two). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/we-should-all-be-asha...

There will be general agreement with Dr Torrey that all of us should feel deeply shamed by this and inspired to do something to reverse it. We can also probably agree that the most important single thing we can do for the severely ill is provide them with decent housing. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First

Consensus beyond this is more difficult to come by. Dr Torrey emphasizes the need for easy access to adequate treatment, the value of medication, and the very occasional resort to court ordered treatment for those in imminent danger of otherwise winding up imprisoned or homeless.

The recovery movement comes at this from another perspective which will be described by Gina Firman Nikkel Phd, CEO of the Foundation For Excellence in Mental Health Care. I have asked her to indicate where there are differences, but also where she sees possibilities for joint advocacy and for complementary rather than competitive service delivery.

Dr Nikkel writes: "The recovery model is a large and inclusive tent with broad areas of common interest but also many different views on specific points, conditioned by very intense differences in how the mental health system has been experienced. For example, a person who has had negative treatment results, or has been forcibly restrained, or has been treated with disrespect by mental health professionals will have a powerfully negative perspective on the imposition of coercive treatment. In contrast, the family member who has tried unsuccessfully to get their loved one to accept much needed treatment and has helplessly watched them be imprisoned or wandering the streets will view the use of coercion in a radically different way. Everyone, in their own way, wants what's best for people with mental health challenges but risks and benefits are interpreted through a personal lens.

There is wide agreement that whatever model we are using, it is crucial to provide the financial, housing, employment, education, and social supports necessary for an independent and successful life. We clearly don’t have anything approaching enough of these. There also consensus that the use of alcohol and street drugs interferes with people getting on with their lives and staying out of jails, prisons and homelessness. For these problems, peer supports that parallel AA and NA are broadly seen as gaps that can be filled by people with “lived experience.”

It is also hard for anyone to deny the role that trauma and adverse childhood events play as major factors that need far more attention and earlier intervention. This is especially so for children living in troubled families and those who experience “adverse childhood events.” Again, no matter the model, whether medical or social, a trauma-informed system of care would go a long ways toward healing psychological, social and even physiological wounds.

We can also find great common ground among advocates on the need for much better medical care for people with severe mental health issues, especially since their life expectancy is about 20 years shorter than for the general population. Aside from providing access, it is important to train medical personnel about special medical problems drug complications (especially obesity), poor diet, heavy smoking, and lack of exercise. These are key issues that need more attention as integrated health systems are created and charged with improving the health of all populations.

There is a great divide in terms of whether services are best offered in traditional psychiatric or recovery settings, but there is still plenty of shared concern that services of any kind are not consistently or widely available. There are a number of community mental health systems that find a combination of the two types of programs complementary and not at all contradictory.

Recovery is the goal of whatever supports or treatments or interventions are available, especially if recovery is viewed as a life lived with friends, success in school, work and physical health. Many medically oriented leaders, like Dr. Stephen Marder of UCLA, have been saying this for some time.

Finally, whether spoken or not, there’s probably a consensus that fighting with each other is largely a waste of resources and energy. It would be a step in the right direction to acknowledge that significant differences exist but that there is a great deal of common ground. I think there also would be agreement that the best research and science on short term and long term outcomes should become the standards by which many of the disagreements should be judged and resolved to the greatest extent possible."

I am grateful to Drs Torrey and Nikkel. It seems clear to me that their common dedication to helping the severely ill far outweighs any specific areas of difference. The point is that one size does not fit all. As the Talmud puts it, "We dont see things as they are, we see things as we are."

My clinical and research experience and reading of the literature convince me that medication is essential for most people with severe and chronic symptoms. It is equally clear that medication is way overused in many people who don't need it. Anyone who inflexibly and ideologically believes that medication is all good or all bad is seeing only one part of the complex picture and is making recommendations that will sometimes be out of place and cause more harm than good.

The controversial question of coercive treatment also has to be understood in context. The drastic reduction in inpatient and outpatient services has made any psychiatric treatment, voluntary or coercive, very hard to get. It is now far harder to get into a hospital than out of one. Coercive treatment has become rare, usually brief, and provided as a means of avoiding the much greater, more degrading, and longer term coercion that comes with imprisonment.

It made great sense 50 years ago to fight hard against the then common and often unjustified use of psychiatric coercion. But the real fight now is against the much more frequent and much more coercive imprisonment of the severely ill- ten times more of whom are currently in prisons than in hospitals.

The Psychiatric Times is leading what may become a very promising discussion on what can be done to fix our broken heath system. We need to collect the widest possible assortment of suggestions and opinions. Please contribute your ideas and experiences at http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/cultural-psychiatry/how-fix-broke...

You are preparing for your upcoming exam, reading through thousands of pages. Suddenly you realize that you forgot to pay attention to what you actually read. You were reading along but your thoughts were elsewhere. "Good God," you think. "Hours of wasted time." You turn back the pages and start over. This time you make sure you pay close attention.

Research, published in the journal PNAS suggests that you may be wasting even more time by doing that. You don't need attention to comprehend what you read or to do math. In fact, you may not even need consciousness. The researchers, located at Hebrew University, used a technique known as Continuous Flash Suppression (CFS) to suppress consciousness in some 300 research participants for a short period of time. In CFS a series of rapidly changing images is presented to one eye, whereas a constant image is presented to the other. When using this technique, the constant image supposedly is not consciously perceived until after about 2 seconds.

Using this technique to suppress consciousness for a short period of time, the researchers exposed students, unconsciously, to simple equations or text fragments. Immediately afterwards the participants were shown sentences or numbers and were asked to say out loud what they saw. When the number was the result of an equation, the subjects would respond more quickly. For example, if they had been unconsciously exposed to (3+8)+5, they would respond quicker to the number 16 than to an arbitrarily chosen number.

The text fragments shown to the participants were a combination of ordinary and unusual sentences as well as negative and positive expressions. The researchers measured how long it would take for the subjects to become conscious of the phrases. They found that the participants became conscious of the expressions much quicker when the text was negative or unusual. For example, the subjects were quicker to become conscious of expressions such as "the food ate the cat" (unusual) and "riding your car in heavy traffic" (negative) than "the cat ate the food" (ordinary) and "the light turned green" (positive). The team concluded on the basis of their studies that we can complete math problems and read (and comprehend), even when we are not conscious of the equations we solve or the text we read.

There are several potential problems with the conclusions drawn by the researchers. One problem that comes to mind is the immediate jump in reasoning from "unable to report that p" to "unaware that p." Ned Block, Eric Schwitzgebel and many others believe that there can be attentional as well as phenomenal overflow. Or: There can be attention without consciousness and consciousness without attention. Blindsight studies suggest that it is correct that there can be attention without consciousness. Whether there can be consciousness without attention is more controversial but it can't be dismissed out of hand.

A further, only seemingly related, problem is the lack of discussion of what exactly CFS does. It is possible that CFS merely draws the subject's attention to the flickering images without affecting awareness of input to the other eye. It's almost a truism that unusual and negative information can capture attention. So this hypothesis, together with the hypothesis that attention can strengthen electromagnetic signals in the brain, would explain why the participants were quicker to notice unusual and negative facts.

The PNAS results, if taken at face value, however, raise the question of why we need consciousness if not to solve complex problems. Though no one can answer the question of what consciousness really is, philosophers and scientists have speculated that consciousness might play a role in what the Hebrew researchers call "abstract, symbolic, and rule-following computations." If their conclusions are correct, these computations are not among the things we need consciousness for after all.

In our research in the Brogaard Lab for Multisensory Research we have looked at a number of people who apparently engage unconsciously in these kinds of computations. Most of these individuals are people with savant syndrome, a condition that enables the afflicted to perform tasks that appear impossible. Jason Padgett draws complex mathematical patterns by hand based on how he perceives the world. Daniel Kish rides a mountain bike through packed streets despite being blind. Derek Amato plays the piano by following black-and-white musical notation in his head. Lidell Simpson recognizes people in terms of sounds despite being profoundly deaf in both ears.

Nearly all of the subjects we have looked at appear to have special visual imagery associated with their savant skills. Though the subjects are not conscious of how they perform the computations associated with their savantism, they seem to need their special visual imagery to access their unconscious computations. Based on these observations and various other research results, our working hypothesis is that consciousness may play a role in making unconscious computations accessible to people for reporting, decision making, or artistic expression.

If consciousness simply is what Ned Block calls "access consciousness," this conclusion is unsurprising. But part of our hypothesis is that while there is a conceptual difference between access consciousness and phenomenal consciousness, there is no actual difference. So the conclusion should not be read as a restatement of the definition of "access consciousness," but rather as an empirical hypothesis about a role of consciousness in actual human beings.

Photo Credits

The photo is from Wikipedia's public domain.

In many public situations, we make judgments about people’s commitment to carry through on their stated views.  Politicians express commitments to issues ranging from immigration to same-sex marriage.  Corporate leaders give their views on fair labor practices and innovation. 

After hearing these views expressed, we have to make judgments about how likely these people are to follow through on their commitments.  These expectations influence our support of politicians and companies.  They also help us to predict what will happen in the future.

When making statements about difficult issues, there are often two different types of justifications people may give for their beliefs.  One type of justification is consequential.  It focuses on the outcomes related to a position.  For example, a business leader might be opposed to child labor, because it harms children.  A second significant type of justification is deontological—it focuses on broad rights and responsibilities.  A second business leader might be opposed to child labor because forcing children to work long hours is unjust.

A fascinating paper by Tamar Kreps and Benoit Monin in the November, 2014 issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin examined how these views influence people’s perception of the moral commitment of the speaker. 

In one study, participants read actual statements from State of the Union addresses given by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.  Participants did not know which president spoke these words, only that they came from presidential speeches.  The statements took positions and then defended them either because of the positive outcome associated with the position (a consequentialist defense) or because of the rights or justice associated with it (a deontological defense).  A control group of statements had no justification for the position.  After reading each statement, participants rated whether the issue was a moral issue for the speaker.

Participants felt that statements justified by rights and justice were more strongly based in morality than those statements justified by their outcomes.  Indeed, statements justified by their outcomes were judged as less strongly based in morality than those with no justification at all.

This result suggests that positions that are based on beneficial outcomes are seen as pragmatic positions rather than moral ones. 

Another study in this paper explored this phenomenon further.  In this study, participants read statements that were said to have been made by a manager at a company.  In addition to rating whether the speaker had a moral basis for the position, they also rated the speaker’s authenticity in holding that position, their commitment to the position, and how generally they support that issue.

As before, when the speaker gave a justification based on rights and justice, that had a stronger moral basis than when the speaker gave a justification based on outcomes.  In addition, participants felt that positions based on rights and justice were more authentic, more strongly held, and reflected a more general commitment than those based on outcomes.

Why does this happen?

When people focus on the benefit of the outcome of a position, then it suggests that if someone were able to avoid the bad outcome, then the person’s judgment would be flipped.  For example, it seems reasonable that a business leader who opposes child labor because it is bad for children’s long-term education might be convinced to support child labor if accommodations were made that gave the children more education.  The consequentialist view suggests that the leader does not have a broad moral argument against the practice, but rather a narrow pragmatic one. 

These findings also have implications for people who are trying to express a position.  If you want other people to believe that your support for an issue is ironclad, then you should justify it based on broad principles of justice and rights.  If you want to signal that you might be willing to compromise on an issue, then you should frame your justification based on outcomes.

Follow me on Twitter. 

And on Facebook and on Google+.

Check out my new book Smart Change.

And my books Smart Thinking and Habits of Leadership

Listen to my radio show on KUT radio in Austin Two Guys on Your Head and follow 2GoYH on Twitter and on Facebook.

Imagine when our ancestors first started to look up at the stars and question their place in the universe. Why are we here? Are we alone? What happens to us when we die? It is difficult to know for sure at what point in time we became a species obsessed with existential questions. We can roughly date when humans first started to paint magical beings on cave walls or carefully and ornamentally bury the dead. But precisely when our ancestors started to truly behave like us is a matter of considerable debate. What we do know, however, is that at some point tens or maybe even a hundred or more thousand years ago, people started to look beyond the basic day-to-day concerns of the body to focus on matters of the soul.

A lot has changed since our species first began to contemplate such heavy issues. We can now send rockets into outer space, map the human genome, and transmit information around the globe nearly instantaneously (we still need those flying cars we were promised though). And yet, despite how technologically advanced our world has become, we are still burdened by the basic existential queries that early humans grappled with. We want to know our place in the universe. We strive to maintain the belief that we are living meaningful lives. And we cling to the hope that we are more than the sum of our biological parts, that we will make contributions to the world that transcend our mortality. In short, humans have long been and probably always will be existential animals – a species on a quest for enduring meaning.

Our existential lives have always fascinated philosophers and theologians. But now scientists are jumping into the fray, using empirical methods to ask questions that were once considered off limits to them. Specifically, empirical psychologists are exploring questions such as: Why do people seek meaning? What is it that makes life meaningful? And what are the mental and physical health consequences of finding (or not finding) meaning?

Why Does Meaning Matter?

My dog does not appear to be contemplating his purpose in life and he seems relatively well-adjusted. Why then do humans desire to perceive their lives as meaningful? 

One explanation that has received a significant amount of scientific attention relates to the human awareness of self and death. According to terror management theory, a prominent theory in social psychology, humans are like all other animals in that we strive to survive. Our bodies consist of systems that work to keep us alive. And as conscious beings, we deliberately engage in efforts to avoid death. We are motivated to live. However, unlike other animals, humans are intelligent enough to realize that death is certain. That is, we are uniquely aware of our mortal nature. We understand that despite our best efforts to stay alive, death is inevitable.

 Terror management theory asserts that this juxtaposition of a desire to live and an awareness of death has the potential to cause a significant amount of anxiety or terror and that humans need to manage this terror in some way. We would not be a very productive species if we lived our lives in constant fear of death. Thus, according to the theory, people seek out a sense of enduring meaning that makes them feel more than mortal.

In other words, people know their lives are brief and so we endeavor to be part of something that transcends biological existence. This sense of death-transcendence can come from having children, creating works that will leave a lasting legacy, investing in a group or organization that outlasts the lives of any individual member, and so on. Of course, religion is a particularly powerful meaning-making tool as most religious beliefs explicitly afford humans a means of transcending death.

 Research supports terror management theory. Specifically, studies find that when people are exposed to stimuli that remind them of their mortality, they exhibit increased investment in the social and cultural identities that provide meaning and perceptions of death-transcendence. For example, having people contemplate mortality increases their desire to have children, level of patriotism, religious faith and commitment to romantic partners. In short, heightening the awareness of death heightens efforts to find and preserve transcendent meaning.

 Similarly, meaning mitigates the threat of death awareness. For example, studies show that having people think about death increases fear of death. However, this effect is only observed among those who do not perceive their lives as meaningful. People who have meaning are not as terrified about the fact that they are mortal.

 There may actually be a number of reasons that people need meaning. However, a large body of research demonstrates that the realization that life is finite is a potent driving force for people’s efforts to feel that their lives are purposeful and meaningful. People want to be more than mere mortal beings who die and disappear forever. To feel meaningful is to feel like you made a lasting mark, a contribution that will endure beyond your death. To feel meaningful is to feel immortal.

 And there are many practical benefits to existential security as studies have identified a number of ways that meaning contributes to mental and physical health. Consider the following examples.

Meaning Helps People Cope with Life Challenges: Becoming ill or having to face a major life challenge such as job loss or the death of a loved one is difficult for everyone. However, research indicates that people who report having a strong sense of meaning in life are better able to cope with these mentally and physically taxing experiences. Meaning can give people the inner strength they need to overcome many of life’s hurdles. Meaning motivates. It makes people want to productively move forward in life.

 Meaning Reduces the Risk of Mental Illness: Many studies indicate that people who believe their lives are full of meaning and purpose are less likely to suffer from mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety disorders and less inclined to engage in problematic behavior such as excessive drinking. And studies show that when people do struggle from mental illness, finding meaning can improve the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions. Meaning not only helps people cope with difficulties in life, it also promotes psychological health.

Meaning Contributes to Successful Aging: A number of studies have established a strong link between meaning in life and quality of life among older adults. Older adults who perceive their lives as meaningful are physically and mentally healthier than those who perceive their lives as having little or no meaning. Meaning in life is also associated with decreased fear of death among older adults.

 Meaning Reduces the Risk of Mortality: Emerging research further highlights the importance of meaning by revealing that people who report having a strong sense of purpose in life live longer. In fact, across all adult age groups, purpose is associated with mortality. Even among young adults, the greater your sense of purpose, the less likely you are to die.

A Growing Field

This is just a small sample of the ever-growing scientific literature on the psychology of meaning. Historically, existential psychology was considered a topic that “serious” empirical psychologists should avoid. It was too warm and fuzzy. This view was prominent, in part, because the field of psychology was desperately striving to earn its place as a legitimate science and shed its lay reputation as a discipline more about interpreting dreams and decrypting the hidden meaning of people’s thoughts than systematic scientific research and empirically-derived therapeutic interventions. But as the field continues to evolve and thrive as a science-based enterprise, researchers are beginning to feel more comfortable using the tools of science to explore fundamental questions about our existential nature. Humans are meaning-making animals and scientists are just now beginning to fully understand just how important the meaning motive is for adaptive functioning.

 This post was originally published on Scientific American.

Special Guest Blogger: Tom Lottman, Children, Inc., Covington, KY

“…..all our morality appears but as a plaster hiding a sore it can never cure, and all our well-doing as the hollowest substitute for that well-being that our lives ought to be grounded in, but, alas! are not.”

-William James (1902)

Whether it’s the boisterous laughter on the playground or anxiety in the classroom, emotions in children are contagious.  But, if we watch carefully, the way that social and emotional situations are dealt with vary, sometimes subtly, and sometimes profoundly from child to child. 

In recent years the link between social and emotional learning (SEL) and academic success has been well established.  SEL has become an accepted and celebrated component of educating the whole child.  However, I wonder if we have given enough thought to exactly “what” is being learned in SEL. I suggest the SEL field is too concerned with the acquiring of prescribed prosocial skill sets at the expense of acquiring individual positive mindsets.  Said another way, we are too focused on behavioral “well-doing” and not sufficiently focused on experiential “well-being.” 

In preschool, kindergarten and early primary grades we all agree that the skills of turn-taking, cooperation, and perspective-taking are crucial to academic and life success.  However, we seem less concerned about what are the beliefs the child is learning and developing about herself, other people and the world in general. 

These belief systems are the “subjective” filters through which the “objective” world is perceived and understood.  They are what Alfred Adler described as “schemas of apperception” almost a hundred years ago.  Yet in SEL, little attention is placed on how these belief systems develop.  Do we understand how EVENTS in the life of a child are sufficiently attended to so that they become meaningful EXPERIENCES that are connected to other events to become part of narrative MEMORIES that in turn are rehearsed through self-talk so that they become BELIEFS by which she understands her world? 

The fields of neuroscience and positive psychology describe the brain’s negativity bias through which a child is more likely to attend to, process and remember negative events than positive events.  As educators, we would benefit from understanding how to help children attend to and process positive events into impactful experiences that are encoded in memory and nurtured to beliefs.  Therefore, I suggest educators, parents, teachers, and practitioners begin to apply 4 key strategies. These are listed, each with an example, below:

• Moment-Making: Being intentional about two specific strategies: 1) Orchestrating positive emotional experiences for young children, keeping in mind that most often frequency and consistency trump intensity and duration; 2) Observing positive events and helping a child attend to that event for a sufficient duration that it becomes a meaningful experience.
• Meaning-Making: “Connecting the dots” between positive events and positive emotions.  Once you have focused the child's awareness on the positive event, the next step is helping to connect their positive feeling to their actions or the actions of others. “Your face tells me you feel very happy. When you helped Kristin clean up, I think you made her happy and you felt good too.”
• Memory-Making: “Connecting the dots” between these events and other positive experiences so that they become a thematic element in the child’s personal narrative memory.  “I noticed how you helped Mason when he was upset.  It reminded me of the time you invited Sarah to play with the group when she felt left out.”
• Mindset-Making: Reinforcing positive beliefs about oneself, others and the world through positive self-talk.  At Growing Sound we use what we call “self-talk” songs to help children internalize positive beliefs.  Songs like “I Can Do It” and “I’m Gonna Find a Way” help internalize private speech around initiative and perseverance.
• Social and emotional learning songs can be previewed at www.growing-sound.com or www.youtube.com/growingsound1

The field of character science, a pillar of positive psychology, is uniquely positioned to be the nexus of both “well-being” and “well-doing.”  The application of character strengths in education, and early childhood education in particular, means identifying and promoting the unique constellation of character strengths in each child. 

Helping every child to notice, appreciate, and apply these emerging strengths in the classroom not only reinforces the likely repetition of prosocial “well-doing” but also the boosting of positive “well-being.”

References:

Ansbacher, H.L., & Ansbacher, R.R. (1964).  The individual psychology of Alfred Adler: A systematic presentation in selections from his writings.  New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Durlak, J.A., Weissberg, R.P., Dymnicki, A.B., Taylor, R.D. & Schellinger, K.B. (2011).  The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405-432.

Hanson, R. (2013). Hard-wiring happiness: The new brain science of contentment, calm, and confidence. New York: Harmony Books.

James, W. The varieties of religious experience. (1902). Gifford lectures, University of Edinburgh. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Rozin, P., & Royzman, E.B. (2001).  Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296-320.

About the author:

Tom Lottman is an early education administrator at Children, Inc. in Northern Kentucky and Research Director of Growing Sound, an initiative that produces research-based children’s music to promote social and emotional development.

Additional Resources:

Children Inc. (nonprofit focused on early childhood education)

VIA Institute (nonprofit focused on advancing character strengths research/practice)

VIA Classification (the universal classification of strengths and virtues)

VIA Survey (the research-validated test of character strengths)

Character Strengths Research (up-to-date science on character strengths)

Photo copyright (Children laughing): from Huffington Post

Consider these two dialogues:

Hunter: I’m sorry that you’re upset with me.

Logan: But you’re not sorry that you did it, right? Sounds like you’re blaming me and my upsetness for the problem here.

Hunter: Me?  I have no intention to blame you.

Vs.

Hunter: I’m sorry that you’re upset with me.

Logan: But you’re not sorry that you did it, right? Sounds like you’re blaming me and my upsetness for the problem here.

Hunter: Oh. You’re right. I am blaming you rather than considering my contribution. I can see why that would bother you. Since I don’t intend to just blame you, I’m going to work on my tendency to do so.

In the first dialog, Hunter declares a good intention as a substitute for changing behavior. Hunter’s pledge of good intentions implies having always had good  intentions.  If Hunter has always had a good intention then it makes Logan wrong again. “It’s impossible that I could have blamed you since I know myself to be the kind who never wants to blame and therefore could never blame. Blaming you would be wrong so I never do it. Therefore your must be wrong about me blaming you.”

In the second conversation, Hunter’s declared intention is a pledge to work on not blaming from now on. Hunter’s declared intention is not a substitute for working on changing, but a complement to it, a pledge that Logan can bank on. 

A lot of us think very highly of ourselves, or have such strong doubts about ourselves that we employ a full time inner spin doctor to cover our asses if there’s the least suspicion in the air that we might have made a mistake. 

We don’t think about what we’ve done. Instead we listen for criticism and block it with declared intentions. “My intentions are always good. I never do anything that sounds like a bad thing because my intention is always to be right and righteous. So if you think I’ve done something wrong you’re making a mistake.” 

Are such arguments convincing? Pretty much never.  You can assume that when you censor feedback with declared intentions, it doesn’t go away, you just won’t hear it anymore. Blocking feedback is a great way to invite people to keep you in the dark about their real interpretations, to humor you by biting their tongue, and to escape you as soon as they can. Don’t blame them for keeping you in the dark. You asked for it with your use of declared intentions as a substitute for considering changes. A saint’s cloak you drape over yourself to protect yourself that only you can see. Others see it as the emperor’s new clothes, and having to bite their tongues since you assume you’re a saint, it will drive them crazy and eventually away.

In a recent article I wrote about research which was attempting to equip dogs with the latest computer based equipment so that the dog could be remotely monitored and controlled (click here to see that article). The idea was to create a Cybernetic Enhanced Working Dog. The required equipment is bulky and expensive, but could be very valuable when working with search and rescue dogs. The ultimate hope is that similar equipment, if it was miniaturized, might be made available to dog owners to help them keep track of their dogs, and perhaps to serve as a training aid. The response that I got to this article included a flood of information about wearable devices that were already available or soon to be released, and relatively low in cost. These devices were designed to allow dog owners to keep track of their dogs, monitor their activity, and even keep watch on their health status. Let me describe a few of the more interesting items.

The first is the PetPace wearable monitor which is undergoing testing at the Andover Animal Hospital in Massachusetts under the supervision of a veterinarian, Jasmin Kermaty. It has sensors that monitor a dog's vital signs around the clock, including temperature, pulse, respiration, pain, and even calorie intake. It also monitors the dog's activity, whether it is running, sitting, sleeping and so forth. All of these sensors are mounted in what looks like a simple dog collar. The dog owner and the veterinarian can check on the dog's activity with a smart phone app or via their home computer. It can also be used to keep a check on dogs that have chronic medical conditions. The monitor can be set up to trigger an alert which is sent directly to the veterinarian if there is a negative change in the dog's health status. While the initial cost of the collar is low ($150) its use requires a $15 monthly subscription to run the software.

Another soon to be released device is Voyce which again looks like a simple collar. From what I can gather it is somewhat similar to the PetPace device but does not contain as many types of monitoring sensors. It keeps track of the dog's location and wellness through parameters such as respiration, heart rate and activity level. These can be converted to an estimate of the number of calories burnt over the day and the quality of leisure your dog has had. Again the information is presented through a smart phone app, but this comes with an analysis that gives you a general picture of your dog's wellness as well as presenting tips to improve particular elements of your dog's well-being. No information is available on price and software subscription rate as yet.

There are some much simpler and less expensive devices including WhistleGPS ($130 plus a $5 monthly fee for the software) and Tagg ($99.95 plus $9.95 per month). Both are quite similar in their functionality. They are basically GPS devices which allow you to locate your dog using a smart phone app which superimposes the dog's location on a map. You can set up alerts which will trigger a text message to your phone or computer in case the dog goes "out of bounds" based on the geographical limits that you have set. In addition to monitoring location of the device has an accelerometer built into it which allows you to keep track of changes in your dog's activity to determine whether your dog is getting enough exercise.

I suppose we can add to these devices about a half a dozen different styles of PetCams, which are digital cameras that can hang off of the dog's collar and allow you to see what he does (from his point of view). This will allow you to observe your pet's ongoing or previous activities and location. Some of these PetCams have large storage capacity in the form of flash memory, and some can be set up to send the signals back to a computer or other device with Wi-Fi capacity.

Up to now we have only discussed devices which give incoming information from the dog to its handler. It certainly would be useful to be able to give commands remotely to the dog. The Swiss+Tech Talking Dog Collar appears to have been designed to do that. It consists of a small speaker which attaches to the dog's collar. You can pre-record up to four commands or short messages and later trigger any one of them using a push button remote control. Although these messages could be instructions to tell the dog where to go or simple commands such as to return to its handler. The advertising makes it clear that it was designed to be a toy rather than a serious communications device since they suggest that it might be used to carry messages like "Hi cutie!" or "I love you!" It also seems to be priced so that would be an affordable toy at $29.99. Its range is limited to 100 feet and users complain that local interference can reduce that distance. However it does seem to be an available prototype for what could be a useful piece of communication technology between a person and the dog if it were developed properly.

All of these devices differ from the Cybernetic Enhanced Working Dog unit in that they are "one way" meaning that the dog's owner can monitor some aspects of the dog's behavior but cannot directly communicate with the dog or can send messages to the dog without knowing what the dog's current circumstances are. The experimental cybernetic dog harness is a "two-way" device in that it contains a number of little motorized units that vibrate and can be used to convey commands to the dog to assist him in his search and rescue job, such as "go to the right", "go to the left" or "come back to me now." In addition the harness can be fitted out with a speaker that can broadcast a tone and perhaps in the future a human voice as another means of communicating with the dog. Of course such added functions inevitably involve additional weight and size. The existing experimental prototype already requires a large bulky harness rather than the light compact collar units that I described above.

In the set of emails that I received alerting me to various computer-controlled connections with dogs I found only one that offered two-way communication with the dog. However it is really not a wearable device and it is a purely communication device rather than something that provides continuous monitoring of your dog's activity and health status. This is the PetChatz which is really a sort of video phone that allows you to talk to and see your dog. It plugs into the wall and contains a small video screen which allows your dog to see you if you are broadcasting from any computer or smart phone that has a built-in camera. It also contains its own internal camera which records the dog when he is standing near the unit. There is a speaker and microphone built-in which allows you to have a two way "conversation" with your dog if you desire. You might ask why would a dog bother to wander over to such a device to allow this kind of interaction. The trick is that when you call into the PetChatz the apparatus sounds a tone. When the dog comes close to the device in response to that to the unit you can send a signal that delivers a treat to your dog. Presumably you can keep the "conversation" going by continuing to dispense treats. This particular phone chat does not come cheaply, since the selling price for this instrument is $349 (plus the cost of the treats of course).

I am sure that there are many more such devices available or being developed which are designed to let us monitor and perhaps communicate with our dogs no matter where they are. However when I discussed some of this technology with a friend of mine his immediate question was "We humans have laws to protect our privacy — aren't dogs entitled to have private lives as well?"

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

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

QUESTION

Hi Irene,

I am a 53-year-old woman with two great kids, both in college, and I’m divorced after 18 years of marriage.

Making friends has never been easy for me but when the kids where younger, I found myself getting involved with so many things and ultimately became a part of a very special group of ten women with whom I and our husbands became fairly close. If nothing else, we spent every Sunday morning together taking a walk, having coffee, and solving the problems of the world.

As my marriage fell apart, so did my social connections (I’d heard this happens but couldn’t imagine this group whom I’d grown close to over 16 years would desert me). Well, I don’t totally blame them. I was miserable and difficult to be around angry, depressed, manic all over the place and they gave up on me. I have tried to reach out and acknowledge my role in this demise and have been dismissed.

I can’t go back…I am devastated…Having moved on from the divorce, moved locally and having become an empty nester all within a short period of time. I miss my friends or maybe they really weren’t.

Signed, Selma

ANSWER

Hi Selma,

The experience of divorce, a move, and kids leaving home are major transitions in a woman’s life.

It sounds like your “Sunday Friends” were very rewarding. Yet, divorce often makes coupled friends uncomfortable for a variety of reasons: Your friends may feel uncomfortable taking sides, may see a new divorcee as a threat, or your divorce may make them feel uncomfortable about their own marriages. You say that these problems may have been compounded by your mental state after the separation/divorce from your husband.

Beyond the divorce, you have moved and have more spare time now that your children are older and away from home. It may be that you would be seeking new and different kinds of friends at this point in your life even if the divorce hadn’t happened.

Since you were able to foster these close relationships in the past, I’m confident that you will be able to make new friends again. Making new friends isn’t easy for most people. It takes some effort and you may need to extend yourself beyond your comfort zone.

If you aren’t working, you need to find ways to engage with people in your community—whether it is through religious, social, political or educational groups. Commit yourself to participating in some activity of your own choice where you can find other people with like-minded interests. It is likely that they, too, may be feeling friendless and will be just as eager to make new friends. Would joining a gym or volunteer group be appealing to you? Would you be interested in part-time employment?

You can’t replace decade long friendships overnight but now that you are recovering from your divorce, you can slowly begin to make new acquaintances. You may also find that one or two of the woman from the “Sunday Friends” might be amenable to going to lunch and catching up.

Hope this helps.

My best, Irene

I am not religious (in the organized religion sense), but I have been on a journey to become and feel spiritual.

Why? Because I know there is more and even much more to life than "living in a material world."

As part of that journey I attend church on Sundays and a Torah group on Mondays. I attend both because I believe that the Pastor, Jimmy Bartz, and Rabbi, Nachum Braverman, each embody the best of what spirituality is and could be about and I love who they are and how they are.

At a recent sermon Jimmy spoke about God esteem and how it is different than esteem from other people and self-esteem, the pursuit of each of those that can agitate us more when we feel we are never good enough than actually provide us with the contentment that most of us seek.

He spoke about how in God's eyes and heart we are unconditionally chosen, loved and delightful. In other words that we were and are loved, accepted, embraced and forgiven for who we are including the darker sides of ourselves.

That caused me to think that:

• If we can truly feel unconditionally loved we get to feel lovable
• If we can truly feel unconditionally accepted we get to feel acceptable
• If we can truly feel unconditionally embraced we get to feel embraceable
• And if we can truly feel unconditionally forgiven we get to feel forgivable

And if we get to feel lovable, acceptable, embraceable and forgivable just as we are, we get to throw out three of the results of low self-esteem, namely:

• feeling unworthy
• feeling diregardable
• feeling discardable

That led me to ask what God wants in return if He is so unconditional in his regard for us. My conclusion is that God neither needs or wants anything from us, because that would make Him transactional and cause him to veer towards being conditional towards us.

Instead of needing, wanting, demanding or exhorting us to do anything, I believe He hopes that by immersing, imbuing and marinating us in His love, acceptance, embrace and forgiveness that we will feel complete as we are and that our cups will runneth over and that we will do onto and into others what He has done and continues to do onto and into us.

That's when it dawned on me how all encompassing and less arbitrary God esteem is compared to esteem from others and ourselves.

Since this is a work and journey in progress, I'd welcome any and all of your comments with regard to God's purpose in your mind and God's meaning in your lives.

Centenarian is the word for people who live to be at least 100 years old. Centenarians should not be confused with Centurions, who are Roman soldiers commanded by Caesars; they often did not live very long at all. Supercentenarians are people who have lived to at least age 110. What can they teach us?

There are between 50 and 100 known supercentenarians, with good documentation as to their age. Each year some die while other people reach 110. Few ever live beyond 115. There are also dozens of fakers, who claim to be the world's oldest living person, usually for the attention. They are in their 90s but may have the world's most wrinkled skin.

You may think that you would never want to live that long. Many young people say they want to be gone by 80 (although not too many 79-year-olds say that). Few want to linger and suffer. But it turns out that the people who live the longest generally suffer the least disease; they are much less likely to have heart disease and cancer in mid-life. So, long life starts to look more appealing.

Genes are important to long life but not nearly as important as you might think. Only about a quarter to a third of the variation in longevity is accounted for by genes, and even that is likely an overestimate of direct biological effects. These estimates come from studies of twins, and if you think about it, you know many cases in which one sibling lived long but another did not, even though both share the same parents.

Many long-lived individuals have way outlived their parents' or siblings' lifespan. But it does seem to be the case that if you have lived to be 100, then you probably also have some long-lived relatives. So it makes sense to look for the genes that may be relevant to a very long, healthy life.

A clever study has just been published about the genetics of supercentenarians. The researchers collected blood samples from 17 supercentenarians. Then, complex analyses of their DNA were conducted, looking for the gene or genes that may be the secret to long life. If such genes were discovered and their functions understood, it might be possible to manufacture new drugs to promote good health. And such genes might help us predict longevity.

One of the supercentenarians was still driving a car at age 107. This is reminiscent of my own study, The Longevity Project, in which some of the participants are now centenarians and are still active and vigorous (and sometimes driving). In The Longevity Project, we have studied over 1500 individuals since they were children in the 1920s. We have found again and again that people who face life’s challenges with persistence, prudence, and a planful relishing of the experience will often tend to thrive. These thrivers and survivors were well-integrated into their communities and led active daily lives. For men especially, a long, happy marriage was a great predictor of thriving, and there is no gene that codes for happy-marriage proteins. But would the new supercentenarian study reveal the genetic basis of long life?

Alas, no super-gene or variant popped out. The new study contributed to the emerging research field of genes and health, but did not discover the secret to longevity.

Surprising the researchers, one of the supercentenarians carried a known harmful (pathogenic) variation of a gene. This genetic variation is associated with a form of heart disease in which the muscle wall deteriorates and your risk of sudden death rises significantly (technically termed arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy). This genetic variation, and others like it, is not that uncommon, and so you may well be warned that you have this risk. But here it appears in someone who lived in good health beyond age 110!

There is no gene that will make you live to 110, just as there is no magic pill and no enchanted diet. Some individuals surely face worse biological odds of great health, and some people are simply unlucky. But for most of us, how we live our lives deeply determines whether we thrive and live long, or suffer and succumb. Men at some time are masters of their fates. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves.

If you are interested, The Longevity Project, which explains the long-term pathways to thriving, was published in paperback edition by Plume (see http://www.howardsfriedman.com/longevityproject/ and is also available on Kindle and Nook. The book also contains self-assessment quizzes to help you figure your current trajectory. There is also a Facebook page for The Longevity Project.

Copyright © 2014 Howard S. Friedman, all rights reserved. The supercentenarian study was published November 12, 2014 in PLoS One DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112430

Photo: Betty White at the Time 100 gala in 2010 By David Shankbone, via Wikimedia Commons, creative commons license.

Sperm competition is a theory of evolutionary psychology which argues that men are primed to engage in more sex, when they believe that they (and their sperm) might have to compete with the sperm of other men, in order to achieve conception. The theory has a lot of fascinating elements and offshoots, concerning biology, psychology and mating behaviors.

A recent study in this area looked at a new aspect of the theory, studying a phenomenon seen in nonhuman animals, where the amount of attention a female mate receives from other males, predicts the number of times the male mate has sex with the female. In other words, it’s been observed that male primates get jealous, when their female mate is getting lots of attention, grooming, etc., from other males. When this happens, the male mate is more likely to have lots more sex with the female, in a behavior believed to be an expression of sperm competition. By having more sex, the male mate is increasing the chances that his sperm will fertilize the female, as opposed to the possible sperm of these other male suitors.

In humans, it’s of course more complex. Most human relationships and environments don’t involve easily observed sex for one thing. Further, in today’s world, we commonly interact on a daily basis with far, far more people, of both sexes, than humans interacted with in the days of our ancient, evolutionary history.

The authors of this study used self-report strategies to get data from almost 400 men, who were in committed, heterosexual and monogamous relationships. The men reported not only how much sex they had with their female partner, but also how many male friends and coworkers their partner had, and how much attention they thought their partner got from those guys. Finally, in a clever twist, the guys also ranked how attractive they thought their female partner was, or at least, how attractive they thought those other guys would think she was.

The point of this last measure of attractiveness was to determine whether the degree to which men think their girlfriend/wife is seen as a “catch” by other men, affects how much the guys feel threatened when their partner is getting lots of attention from those other guys. So, if the guy doesn’t think other men are likely to find her that attractive, will he be worried by the idea that they are paying lots of attention to her?

The researchers found strong evidence that in fact, the more male friends and coworkers a woman had, did predict how much sex the woman had with their male mate, but only when the man believed that she was likely to be seen as “hot” and desirable to those other men. Whether those other males were friends or coworkers didn’t seem to make a difference, as apparently these guys judged those other men as threats, whether they were social or professional relationships. Given the wealth of evidence about how many sexual relationships start in the workplace, we can’t say the guys are wrong about this. (I do wish they’d also looked at social media friendships, as that reflects a new, often challenging, unique aspect of modern relationships.)

I have one, rather substantial, quibble with this study. It looks exclusively at the males’ self-report. Granted, the man’s self-report is a strong reflection of his perceptions, and it is his way of seeing things that is most likely to affect his behavior, if sperm competition is at root of this issue.

But, what about the women? The authors ignore a very, very strong variable here, which is likely to confound these results: Female libido. The higher a woman’s sexual libido, the more likely she is to have more male friends. Not because she is having sex with them, but because women with higher sexual desire get along better with other men, and often, are seen to act more like guys. Other women are more likely to “slut-shame” women with high libido, whereas guys simply view it as fun, exciting, and like themselves.

Men whose female partner has higher libido are likely to have more sex, on average, reflecting her interest in sex. AND, those guys are more likely to view their partners as being more attractive to other men, because they know that other guys desire highly sexual women. AND, the male mates of high libido females are likely to have significantly more concerns about their mates engaging in infidelity, or being tempted by it, compared to women with lower libido.

These two variables don’t have to be independent, but indeed, are likely interacting in a synergistic manner, where female libido may enhance sperm competition behaviors. But, ignoring the issues of female desire is a common failing in much evolutionary psychology, which sadly, contributes to the perception that evolutionary psychology can be somewhat misogynistic, or at least sexist.

Are women with more male friends more likely to cheat? Probably not, at least, not simply based on that single variable. Sexuality is a complex, over-determined behavior affected by many variables and environmental issues, which all interact. But, concerns that other men may be trying to “poach” one’s attractive, sexy female partner is definitely a worry for many men, and I know that I hear from many guys who worry over their female partners’ “guy friends” who might get too close.

But, guys can take this jealousy and concern, and turn it on its head, viewing this as a compliment to themselves. If they are lucky enough to have a female partner that other guys want to be around, that says something about the man’s value. Like the old song says:

You can dance, go and carry on

Till the night is gone and it's time to go

If he asks, if you're all alone

Can he take you home, you must tell him, no

'Cause don't forget who's taking you home

And in whose arm's you're gonna be

So darlin', save the last dance for me...

Have you ever said, with grit and determination, that you are going to do something only to then give up? Lose weight, quit smoking, exercise more? Have you heard your friends say the same and then watched them slide back to their old ways? Ever made a resolution that’s come to nothing?

Such failures are common. In fact, they are more common than successes. Even though failing to carry out our own wishes causes personal distress, feelings of failure and unhappiness, it is human.  Even though unfulfilled promises and intentions cost companies and countries millions in lost efficiency, lost trust, health and social plans, these failings perpetuate.

The reason why people give up or fail to carry through their intentions is one of the conundrums of our time.  Despite having a unique consciousness that enables us to monitor our own behaviour, we humans still often fail to put into action that which we intended. Behaviour change experts have attempted to identify the real barriers to change and to articulate what we need to do make the changes we want (and often need), but the asnwers still elude them.

 What really stands in the way of us getting what we want? Below I offer 3 key barriers and 3 positive ways to make desired changes stick.

 3 big barriers to behaviour change: 

1. The Knowing-Doing Gap. Research shows clearly that information and knowledge are not enough to bring about change. For example in the USA and the UK the governments have spent billions of ££s on food and nutrition advice. Yet obesity is now reaching epidemic proportions. Most overweight people know what they need to do to lose weight BUT: People do not behave according to what they know or what is rational and sensible. This is because knowledge systems and doing systems are run by different brain processes.  
2. The willpower issue: Willpower is overrated. At best willpower is weak and limited and any change that requires the long-term application of willpower will fail except for a few people. Roy F. Baumeister’s research from the Florida State University shows that – at best - willpower is a limited resource. In my view US policy in behaviour change places far too much emphasis on developing willpower and it’s usefulness for real world behaviour change has been over-rated. Willpower is too easily hijacked by more pleasurable behaviours or by old habits. It weakens over the course of the day and it unavailable at times of greatest need because of emotional and cognitive demands drawing on the same resources. I am convinced it makes no sense to try to improve willpower in order to bring about change – it WILL FAIL for most people most of the time.
3. The fact that we are all habit machines. A great deal of human behaviour is done habitually or automatically. The brain is a habit machine and operates on a need to know basis, and most of the time it decides you don’t need to know about your behaviours. Neuroscience research by the top MIT researcher Anna Greybiel has shown that chains of behaviours become ‘chunked’ into long chains over time. They become chained together as one habit. I have called this the HabitWeb. These habits easily override conscious control mechanisms (or willpower). So even if a person knows what they should do, most are likely to continue doing what they have habitually done before or are unconsciously driven to do. Hence Fletcher’s 90% Rule – about 90% of people’s good intentions fail because of the power of habits. Sure, some people can beat their habits in the short-term, but most are on autopilot much of the time.

What can we do to bring about effective behaviour change?

 3 main ingredients that are essential if you want to bring about behaviour change:

1. Small steps. Make sure that any required changes are broken down into bite-sized behaviours. Most people cannot make big changes and take huge behavioural leaps, old habits get in the way.  Eat the elephant one piece at a time.

 As an example of the success of using small steps we used the Do Something Different techniques – which incorporates this approach. People feel released when a big change is cut down to manageable change pieces, even for something as abstract as employee engagement. In a global corporate client the changes in stress levels of employees alone produced benefits equivalent to more than the net profit levels of the group – 6.2% of staff costs, as opposed to a net profit level of 4.9%.

 In another application of this small changes approach the same techniques applied to happiness (see Do Happiness) produced great personal benefits in happiness, and anxiety and depression levels of people in all walks of life around the world.

2. Integrate knowing and doing in the real world. MAKE IT REAL. It is necessary to make sure any desired changes needed are actioned or done. Not just known or learned. The human brain is dependent on the context of the learning and the situation in which it is carried out. Contextualised learning happens in the real world – in the workplace, on the job, or at home, not in a distant classroom. 

If people only learn what they should do, or think about good ideas and practices, they often fall into what I have called the Thinking Trap– they fail to do what is actually needed to bring about the positive change.  Sometimes people don’t actually do the small steps because they think they ‘know’ already what will happen (and so assume it is not worth doing), or they think there could be no real benefit from doing the small actions, so they don’t. There are always unexpected experiences from doing something different. Guaranteed.

With one big company Do Something Different was deployed to develop digital leadership behaviours. This integrating learning within the job produced over 28% increase in new digital strategy behaviours among the staff. Previously knowledge-based training alone had had a negligible effect on actual changes in work practices. By sending them a text or an email telling them one change they could make, what they knew could be translated into what they actually did.

3. Break habits by expanding behavioural flexibility. To bring about change, you have to break habits and disrupt the long habit chains that make us run on autopilot. Without this people will snap back to old ways. To modify brain mechanisms you need to do new things, not just think them. Actions change the brain mechanisms that can bring about further changes in behaviour. Thinking does not. 

 In an earlier blog I described the link between behavioural flexibility and weight loss. Another different example comes from a company based in many different countries who used Do Something Different and produced an increase of more than 13% in diversity & inclusive behaviours as a result of enhancing behavioural flexibility. Also the changes in behavioural flexibility that resulted from the program were significantly correlated with changes in diversity & inclusiveness across all relevant diversity domains.

 My previous research shows that people who are more behaviourally flexible are likely to be more effective at their job. And they are much less likely to be stressed because they can have the tools to cope with a wider range of situations. The same job or life situation looks very different to the behaviourally flexible person than someone with a narrow personality range. The flexible person has a larger toolbox to deal with the world.

 Our personality can be a prison and a real barrier to our change and development and many companies fail to see the importance of increasing behavioural flex. We need to expand personality – to help someone who is predominantly assertive to experiment with being non-assertive for example; or someone who is risk averse to try taking a small risk. In this way they grow as people and not only break habits but also expand behavioural flexibility.

Why does this approach work? And what does it mean for those who never manage to follow through their good intentions?

I believe that most people cannot think – other than reflect – without the kick of action and doing. So how can we expect to change fundamentally how we behave just by trying to alter how we see things. Behaviour has to be the lever to change behaviour – and to change thinking too……

At a more philosophical level we know some scientists and philosophers believe that consciousness is unique to humans, distinguishing us from other animals. According to this view, having conscious thought afford the person control over their own actions. The evidence discussed in this blog suggests otherwise – either we humans are more animal than we think or our ability to think has been given too much importance by our egocentric minds.

The holidays bring predictable media images of large get-togethers with lots of smiling faces. People are laughing, wrapping presents and visiting friends who offer delicious treats to sample in front of a decorated tree. Perhaps your friends are looking forward to seeing family and watching parades before the football games. This is the time of year when being happy and having close relationships is highlighted as the norm and the way your life should be. Perhaps you wish you had that family that the commercials depict. 

Perhaps every November and December you are faced with a situation that is painful in some way. You may not have close family or friends to join you in lighting candles or sitting down at a table covered with traditional dishes. Maybe you have family that you visit but doing so is far from joyful. Perhaps you dread hearing the same criticisms that you have heard year after year or you are tired of tolerating someone who always drinks too much.

A well-known metaphor for insanity is walking down the same road and falling in the same hole over and over again. This may describe your experiences during the holidays. How can you change your pattern this year? 

Be Aware of Comparing.  You know that the media images surrounding you are not real. Yet somehow, during the holidays you think about other people in a great family gathering in which every member gets along, gives meaningful gifts, and are full of joy in being together. Families struggle with finances, illnesses or just not liking each other at times. They argue and worry and complain. Comparing your situation to media fiction is not helpful or realistic. Comparing your situation to that of acquaintances is not likely to be realistic either. They aren't likely to share the conflicts and struggles they face. Even if you are the only person in the whole world who doesn't have a perfect holiday, comparing is not helpful. Comparing your holiday to others who seem to have it better only increases your misery. 

Find the Gray. Maybe there are specific holiday issues that put you over the top with frustration and ruin your celebration. The issues aren't harmful or abusive but you focus on them to the point that you miss the positives of your holiday. Maybe you get angry just looking at your son's girlfriend or you are fed up with your cousin arguing with your wife. You think about the problem for weeks before the holiday, you are on alert for it all through the holiday, and you fume about it after the holiday. That's a recipe for unnecessary misery yet letting go can be difficult. One idea to try is that every time you think about the problem, then notice the thought and also think about something you really love about the holidays. If you do this repeatedly, you may find that the detested situation doesn't spoil all the joy.

List Pros and Cons. If you are dissatisfied with your holiday celebrations, how would you change them? Once you are clear on what you would prefer and that your wish is one that could be possible, consider the pros and cons of making the change. Perhaps you'll find that changing your holiday activities makes sense or maybe you'll see that there is a significant downside that you aren't willing to accept. 

Practice Radical Acceptance.  Perhaps your holiday plans are not at all what you prefer to do, and you believe you must keep them for excellent reasons. Perhaps you do it for your mother or your husband. If you decide you must keep plans you dislike or worse, and there is no way to problem solve, then radically accept that is the way it will be. Radical acceptance means that you completely accept an event or situation. You don't complain, wish it were different, or pretend. When you radically accept, you stop fighting the situation. You'll be less miserable.  

Think Dialectically.  When you think dialectically, you ask yourself what is being left out of your understanding of the situation or in thinking of a solution. So if your in-laws will be hurt and disappointed if you don't prepare dinner for twelve and you are exhausted, are there possibilities other than not doing it at all? 

Live Your Values. How do your holiday celebrations fit with your values? Maybe your annoyance would be less at being a part of something you don't enjoy if you also celebrated in a way that had meaning to you. Consider if it is possible to do both. 

Whatever the stresses of your holidays, think ahead to determine how you could be less stressed. Problem solve the situations that you can change. If what you'd rather do is possible in addition or instead of what you usually do, maybe this is the year to make the change.

Photo Credits:

Creative Commons

sharpkathy123 

     This blog has been up for a year now and we wish to thank you dear readers!  Your comments have advised us, your stories inspired us, and your readership encouraged us.  Reflecting on our first post , we are still driven by a deep passion to help women over 35 become moms.  We have met a lot of  our goals like dispelling myths about fertility and risks  associated with older primigravids, offering coping strategies,  introducing pregtiquette, and sharing stories of women just like you.  We have delved into some of the meatier topics like work-life balance, conception enhancers, and single parent hood though the lenses of the over 35 year old woman. Our hope is that we have presented these topics in an insightful, intelligent, and relevant way.  In the next year, we plan to further this work.  

     Underlying all of our posts lay the emotional and psychological aspects of choosing to pursue motherhood.  What does this look like when one is older?  How does your fertility journey affect this?  What are the universal truths in respect to each individual’s experience?  It is a privilege to be able to explore theses questions.  All too often, fertility and motherhood are treated superficially (Just do IVF! Don’t worry, freeze your eggs! Buying Jiff makes you a better mom!).  It is an interesting reflection on our cultural attitude towards mothering.  As a therapist, I know the richness in life lies in exploring the meaning of  our experience and reveling in the wonder of it all. I’m not talking about having some great existential crisis.  Nor do I mean insincerely seeking happiness or pretending to be happy in the face of grave uncertainty or hardship.  I’m referring to a peaceful acceptance of your circumstances and using that to seek understanding when possible and an appreciation of the unknown for things you simply cannot comprehend.   Trying to conceive, pregnancy, and parenthood are sacred experiences worthy of this reflection.  

      We want to instill a sense of confidence in you.  We want you to make decisions based on facts, not scare tactics and myths. The majority of couples between age 35 and 40 will conceive within one year of trying without fertility interventions.  (I always warn  my female patients over 40 that they can still get pregnant if they have not completed menopause and insist on pregnancy testing if I’m prescribing medications that could harm a fetus.)   We want to encourage you that not all babies happen within a year, about 10% of couples over 35 will need a second or even third year.  Sometimes a little patience is needed. With this knowledge comes a perspective that will serve you well once you are a parent. 

      The heart of our work, the most important thing we can share, is that absolutely no one but you gets to define you.  That is why we are interviewing so many diverse women.  The over 35 mom is not always the career crazed type A, nor is she always the consequence of poor relationship choices in her 20s or procrastination.  Some women always dreamed of being moms, others came to it later on.  Some have complete confidence in their bodies and others bought into the “fertility cliff” hype.   Most have no trouble conceiving and others needed a lot of help.

      People often feel most comfortable with set answers and neat patters but that is not life and certainly not fertility or parenting. I’m pleased to announce that after approximately three and a half  years of trying, my husband and I are expecting a little girl!   People always want to know how it happened.   I tell them that our Karma ripened.  Did we follow many of the suggestions offered in this blog?  Absolutely!  That was my level of comfort. We encourage you to forge and follow the path that is best for you.   At the very end, I know that it was not one specific thing that brought this little miracle into being.  If that was the case, then no one would ever struggle with fertility as we would all do that one thing.  I also know my age was not a factor (and one of the nation’s top doctors will back this).  My journey was much longer than most and at times I could not understand why.  I firmly believe that my unshakable belief that we could conceive and I could carry a child was paramount in it actually happening.  I had well meaning friends and relatives offer advice from doing IVF to even getting a surrogate.  Some thought I was too old.  Fortunately, I knew it would happen in its own time and way. I would not let them define me.  That is our wish for you.  Be informed, be empowered, be well in all that you do.

What’s your story? Send us a one page version if you would like it included in our work.

Don't miss a post and join in the discussion via Facebook or twitter!   

We don't serve the needs of our children when we neglect our relationship in order to attend to them. It can sometimes feel as if there is a competition for attention between our partner and our kids. When we realize that the well being of the children is directly related to the well being of our marriage, we are less apt to feel guilty or neglectful when we devote time to our primary relationship.

For Betty, the children always came first. She claimed that since her husband Stefan was an adult, he could take care of himself and shouldn’t need much attention. Even as her children grew into adolescence and young adulthood, she never modified her position. She justified her stance by saying to Stefan, "You're not giving enough to them, so I need to.""I'm not focusing on them," Stefan responded, "because you’re doing it enough for us both, and they need to learn to stand on their own two feet. When are you going to let them grow up?""You just don't care about your own children," Betty blurted through tears. They had this conversation hundreds of times over the course of their marriage. Sadly, they were both unable to see that the biggest casualty of the crisis was not the children, but their marriage. For years, the relationship had been starving from lack of attention while Betty and Stefan argued over their perceived needs of the children. Both of their children had now grown into adulthood while the marriage had not grown at all.

Betty's relentless attention to her children was a way of avoiding the real problems in the marriage, which had become nearly devoid of affection and care. Stefan's unwillingness to feed the marriage by acknowledging his own loneliness and sadness served to perpetuate the pattern. Ironically, but predictably, the children for whom Betty sacrificed her marriage, were also losers in the game. Not only did they lose out on the kind of support they needed to become more independent and responsible, but they missed the opportunity to grow up in the care of a loving partnership.

As a result, neither of them was very hopeful about the prospects for their own successful marriage. Betty and Stefan managed to stay together even after their kids moved away from home, but their marriage remained unsatisfying because they never faced their real issues. They stayed together because it was easier to follow old patterns and they were fearful of being alone. One of the greatest gifts we can give our children is in demonstrating a happy marriage. More than anything else we can do for them, this example supports and encourages the possibility of creating such a relationship in their own lives. The time to learn about the blessings of a marriage is not after the kids have left home. If we haven't done it by then, it's probably too late. The time to model a healthy marriage is throughout our children's development. One day they might even thank you for it.

Soon after the first oral contraceptive was approved in 1960, The Pill quickly became one of the world’s most popular birth control methods. More than 100 million women worldwide have used it, and among American women age 18 to 44, The Pill has been used by a whopping 82 percent.

Oral contraceptives have been the subject of more than 44,000 research publications, but fewer than 100—one-quarter of 1 percent—have dealt with its effects on women’s sexuality. The findings of those reports have been all over the map. Some show increased erotic interest, better sexual functioning, and greater sexual satisfaction. Others show the opposite—libido loss and sexual impairment. And some show no sexual effects at all.

This post summarizes the current confusion and suggests ways women might deal with it.

How The Pill Works

Birth control pills contain a combination of two female sex hormones, estrogen and progesterone (progestin). Formulations vary and over the past 50 years, dosages have diminished, but whatever the brand, the hormones in the Pill tinker with women’s pituitary hormones to suppress ovulation.

In addition, oral contraceptives decrease ovarian production of androgens, the female form of testosterone, which kindles sexual desire. This suggests that the Pill might suppress women’s libido. But most women produce more androgens than necessary for fully functional sexuality, so despite Pill-induced suppression, most women still synthesize enough androgens to maintain libido and sexuality.

Potentially Sex-Enhancing Effects

The Pill has many effects that may increase erotic interest and improve sexual function:

• Effective contraception. The Pill gives women total control over their reproduction, virtually eliminating anxieties about unintended pregnancy. This can feel freeing and boost sexual interest and energy.

• Relief from painful menstrual cramping. Monthly cramps can destroy interest in sex. By taming cramps, the Pill can restore it.

• Relief from premenstrual syndrome. The irritability, bloating, breast tenderness, and other symptoms of PMS can reduce libido and impair sexual functioning. The Pill minimizes PMS symptoms, making sex more possible and enjoyable.

• Less menstrual bleeding. Profuse bleeding can lead to iron-deficiency anemia, which saps energy, including sexual energy. The Pill reduces the volume of menstrual flow, and can restore energy.

• Suppression of endometriosis. Endometriosis causes severe menstrual cramping, pelvic pain, pain on intercourse, and other symptoms that detract from lovemaking. The Pill often relieves them.

• Reduced risk of uterine fibroids. These benign growths increase menstrual bleeding and can cause iron-deficiency anemia. The Pill makes them less likely, preserving sexual energy.

• Relief from severe acne. Severe acne destroys self-esteem, often taking sexual interest with it. The Pill is so effective at reversing this condition that three brands of birth control pills are FDA-approved treatments.

• Increased libido. Because the Pill suppresses androgens, one would think that it would reduce libido. However, some Pill-takers report greater sexual interest.

Potentially Sex-Impairing Effects

The Pill also has effects that may also impair sexual function:

• Loss of libido. Pill-induced androgen suppression can diminish or destroy erotic feelings.

• Less vaginal lubrication. Vaginal dryness can make sex less comfortable and enjoyable. Lubricants usually take care of it, but not always.

• Vulvar pain. Pill use for more than a year or two increases risk of pain during and/or after intercourse.

• Thinning of the inner vaginal lips and vaginal entrance. Erosion of this tissue can make genital play uncomfortable.

• General sexual malaise. In one of the largest studies, German researchers surveyed 1,086 women medical students, 752 of them oral contraceptive users. The Pill takers scored lower on the Female Sexual Function Index.

The Upshot

What should we make of all this? For women concerned about unintended pregnancy or plagued by severe cramps, PMS, endometriosis, fibroids, severe acne, or profuse menstrual bleeding, Pill-induced relief may well pique libido and enhance lovemaking. But for women who develop vaginal dryness, vulvar pain, thinning of the vaginal lips, or general sexual malaise, the Pill may deflate libido and impair sexual function.

This explains why some studies find sexual enhancement while others find impairment and still others find no effect. It comes down to the individual woman, her medical situation, and how she reacts. In the words of one research review: “The inconsistent, contradictory findings make a case for individual variation.”

If you’re taking the Pill or considering it:

• Understand that it can have a wide range of sexual effects.

• Be sensitive to your own reactions. Disregard friends and clinicians who say, “The Pill doesn’t do that.” On the contrary, almost any sexual effect is possible.

• Consult an expert. Family doctors can prescribe the Pill, but if you notice any changes in your sexual demeanor, you might consider consulting a family planning or Planned Parenthood clinician, who is probably more familiar with the nuances.

• Continue to focus on your reactions over time. Some of the Pill’s possible sex-impairing side effects can take a year or more to develop, for example, vulvar pain.

• If the Pill’s disadvantages for you outweigh its advantages, choose another contraceptive. With proper use, many are very reliable. A counselor at a family planning clinic or Planned Parenthood can itemize the pros and cons of all methods.

References:

Bancroft, J. and N. Sartorius. “The Effects of Oral Contraceptives on Well-Being and Sexuality,” Oxford Review of Reproductive Biology (1990) 12:57.

Battaglia, C. et al. “Sexual Behavior and Oral Contraceptives,” Journal of Sexual Medicine (2012) 9:550.

Burrows, L. J. et al. “The Effects of Hormonal Contraceptives on Female Sexuality: A Review,” Journal of Sexual Medicine (2012) 9:2213.

Caruso, S. et al. “Preliminary Study of the Effect of Four-Phasic Estradiol Valerate and Dienogest (E2V/DNG) Oral Contraceptive on the Quality of Sexual Life,” Journal of Sexual Medicine (2011) 8:2841.

Davis, A.R. and P.M. Castano, “Oral Contraceptives and Libido in Women,” Annual Review of Sex Research (2004) 15:297.

Graham, C.A. et al. “The Relationship Between Mood and Sexuality in Women Using an Oral Contaceptive as a Treatment for Premenstrual Symptoms,” Psychoneuroendocrinology (1993) 18:273.

Hatcher, R.A. et al. Contraceptive Technology. Ardent Media, NY, 2004.

Mathlouthi, N. et al. “Sexuality and Contraception: A Prospective Study of 85 Cases,” Tunisia Medicine (2013) 91:179.

Pastor, Z. et al. “The Influence of Combined Oral Contraception on Female Sexual Desire: A Systematic Review,” European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care (2013) 18:27.

Schaffir, J. et al. “Oral Contraceptives Vs. Injectable Progestin in Their Effect on Sexual Behavior,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (2010) 203:545.

Schaffir, J. “Hormonal Contraception and Sexual Desire: A Critical Review,” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy (2006) 32:305.

Strufaldi, R. et al. “Effects of Two Combined Hormonal Contraceptives with the Same Composition and Different Doses on Female Sexual Function and Plasma Androgen Levels,” Contraception (2010) 82:147.

Wallwiener, M. et al. “Effects of Sex Hormones and Oral Contraceptives on Female Sexual Function Score: A Study of German Medical Students,” Contraception (2010) 82:155.

Wallwiener, M. et al. “Prevalence of Sexual Dysfunction and Impact of Contraception in Female German Medical Students,” Journal of Sexual Medicine (2010) 7:2139.

I have virtually eliminated the word, "should" from my vocabulary. I believe this word, consistent with the tenets of cognitive therapy, creates a controlling, judgmental dynamic. Thinking "should" about someone you love or being on the receiving end of a "should" creates negative energy and, over time, can be toxic for all relationships, especially loving ones.

As described in my book, Why Can't You Read My Mind?, if relationship partners harbor internalized, hidden toxic thoughts, reflective listening drills may not expose these underlying empathy depleting thoughts. For example, if a partner is saying "I need you to please pick up after yourself more often", yet inwardly thinking, "You are always gonna be a lazy slob" then paraphrases will likely not rid this toxic underlying belief. For a toxic thinking partner to benefit in this situation, he must first be willing to challenge his toxic thought. In this case, the way of disputing the toxic thought may be, "She brings me a lot of joy and loves me deeply but rigidly and disrespectfully expecting her to be neater is not fair. It will help me to remind myself that she is a very nurturing mother to our kids, cooks well, and really is sweet to my family."

When distressed couples first walk into my office they look like the walking wounded. They often cite that the problematic way they communicate with each other is the real reason they have relationship problems. While this explanation has some merit, they are sadly oblivious to something very much closer to themselves---their own toxic thoughts.

I can't even count the number of times that couples share that they had seen a counselor in the past where they were told and instructed on how to do reflective listening. This exercise typically entails each person stating how her or she feels. The other partner then listens and paraphrases what was heard and receives feedback on how accurately he or she listened. I do think this exercise, which tends to be a "go to" activity for many couples therapists, can have considerable value.

Yes, this may not solve the problem of the partner being messy. At the same time, a heightened, emotionally laden barrage of inner toxic thoughts will likely result with the concerned partner signing up for the "bottle it up and explode later plan." Of course, we all know that is a not a productive, sane way to be in a loving relationship.

Returning to the opening remarks of this post, many toxic thoughts/statements begin with "Should." In this way we tend to "should" all over our relationship partners." Shoulding all over our partners, even in the privacy of our own minds, can come out in our tone or actions. This can leave your intimate partner feeling like a different word that beings with "Sh."

If you guessed that this Sh word is SHAME, then you are correct. The good news is that if your "Shoulds" are replaced with "Would Like" the resulting toxic thoughts can be avoided. Try it:

Instead of, "You should know how I feel.", try thinking and saying, "I would like you to please hear me out on this."

Instead of, "You shouldn't bring that up.", try thinking and saying, "I would like to consider what you are saying, please let me sit with it for a little while before I respond."

It amazes me how toxic thoughts in couples occur so incessantly and so often out of true awareness. Taking the time to be mindful, catch your toxic thoughts, and dispute/change them will take you and your partner to a much better place in your relationship.

Teaser image credit: Pixabay

Dr. Jeffrey Bernstein is a psychologist with over 23 years of experience specializing in child, adolescent, couples, and family therapy.  He holds a Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology from the State University of New York at Albany and completed his post-doctoral internship at the University of Pennsylvania Counseling Center. He has appeared on the Today Show, Court TV as an expert advisor, CBS Eyewitness News Philadelphia, 10! Philadelphia—NBC, and public radio. Dr. Bernstein has authored four books, including the highly popular 10 Days to a Less Defiant Child (Perseus Books, 2006), 10 Days to a Less Distracted Child (Perseus, 2007), Why Can't You Read My Mind?, and Liking the Child You Love, Perseus, 2009).