Family.

For most people, Thanksgiving is not about a commemoration of histories of colonization of the present day US by European refugees. It is a celebration of family: a time to reunite with people who, however distant they might be, remain closest to you in identity through shared history.

The shared preparation of Thanksgiving dinner, or even a group meal out at a restaurant: Thanksgiving is centered on a continuing tradition of eating together. And in my experience, one topic that often comes up when family gathers for this once-a-year ritual is the question of relationships: what kind of kin are we, actually?

Anthropologists should be good people to answer this question: kinship is one of my discipline's core areas of expertise.

Although I seldom rely on Wikipedia as an authority, in this case it is illustrative that the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry for "Kinship" is

In anthropology, kinship is the web of social relationships that form an important part of the lives of most humans in most societies, although its exact meanings even within this discipline are often debated.

For kinship to be defined, we have to assume the anthropological framework. But it's that "often debated" that makes me wince when I am asked to clarify kinship. Are we first cousins, or cousins once removed?

The Internet has produced one kind of reply in a chart that identifies a formal structure of cousins based on the generation of your common ancestor.

What the builders of this handy chart don't explain, because they aren't anthropologists, is that this captures only one kind of kinship terminology, one that circulates in the United States, and that even there, it is by no means interpreted universally the same way.

What stabilizes this kinship mapping is its use in the law, both for inheritance and, as comments on the original chart posting quickly noted, in legal restrictions on sexual and marriage relations.

Anthropologists long ago went beyond the question of defining structures or terms that would let me easily answer questions of classification.

Carol Stack explored how people in a particular Midwestern African American community worked to create relationships they characterized with kinship terms like sister and cousin connecting people who would not be counted as kin in these legal charts.

Another classic anthropological study of American kinship, by Ward Goodenough, explored what he called "Yankee kinship". He comments that the terminology he documented, from his own experience, is

not shared by all North Americans or by all native speakers of English. I have encountered many fellow Americans who reckon degrees of cousinship differently and others who confine cousins to ego's generation entirely, regarding all collaterals in their parents' generation as their aunts and uncles rather than as their cousins.

Then there is the issue of people who are addressed using kinship terms even though they would not be counted in the legal charts of kinship. "Courtesy aunt" is one such extension of terminology, exemplified by Charles Dickens in an 1892 story:

"Rupert, this is my sister, Mrs. Cranstoune; your Aunt Deborah-- by courtesy"...

This pretty old lady was an agreeable surprise, for until this moment he had never even heard of her existence.

"But it is a mere matter of courtesy, Mr. Leigh," she said, almost regretfully; "we are not really connected".

Plenty of aunts, uncles, sisters and cousins could express the same regrets and reservations: we think "we are not really connected", despite being treated as kin, because American kinship is grounded on a deeply embedded language of blood ties.

Identifying this as a core symbolic component of American kinship (violated in many, many ways in practice) was a major contribution of anthropologist David Schneider, singled out for comment by the New York Times when he died in 1995:

To Mr. Schneider, however, kinship was not a natural system founded on blood, or "that thin red liquid," as he called it, but instead an entire culture of powerful symbols and meanings.

If kinship is not "a natural system founded on blood", even where this framework exists in the US, we can ask the question: what serves to make kinship?

One answer: eating together.

Eating together habitually literally makes the bodies of the social group similar in substance at a level that leaves traces in your bones: archaeologists can identify the different proportions of carbohydrates from different groups of plants, and of protein, sourced from marine fish or terrestrial animals, or from plants like beans, that were eaten by each person based on the nitrogen, carbon, and strontium isotopes left in the bones.

Anthropologist Mary Weismantel, in her research with indigenous people living in the Andes of Ecuador, explored how food literally makes kinship connections. She summarized the connections between eating and being related in the town of Zumbagua in a memorable phrase: "people become parents by feeding and caring for children over extended periods of time".

While offered as a characterization of one specific human experience, and thus not meant to be generalized, Weismantel presented her analysis as a contribution to anthropological studies of kinship. So we can build on it to reinforce the message of Thanksgiving: we eat this symbolic meal with the people to whom we are related; and we are related to the people with whom we eat this meal.

Bone deep, and as we feel it: giving thanks for the people we feed and who feed us makes us kin, and makes us humankind.

[h/t to David Rudner for links to the chart and Ward Goodenough's essay.]

Thankful

There are many things to be thankful for. Some days it may be easier to see what those things are than others, but hopefully we all have the chance each day to just try to find one small thing that can either inspire us or remind us of something in our lives that is amazing.

There are so many things to be thankful for – the people who provide us our food. Do we really know who they are? Likely not, and yet there are millions of people who work to bring us our food everyday, as I was reminded recently by Bob at work who reminded us at a meeting that there people less fortunate than us who do not expect food daily like I do, so we should be thankful for what we have and for the people who provide us what we have as well.

Keep a few of your reminders of thankfulness with you. No matter how big or small they are – from cufflinks to photos, from signs to toys, and from blankets to cards, there are reminders of all sorts of things to be thankful for – be they memories, people, places, or things. Also, be willing to let your reminders go as well – share them with others and hold your memories with you while others might make new memories with your things.

I have enjoyed so many different things in my life, and I have also enjoyed donating them as well, hoping that others would also create great memories with them as well.

Further, be thankful for the people who have been or who are in your life. While we may miss some, we can take solace in the fact that they are always with us in our minds. And, we can celebrate with those who are with us and enjoy our time together.

I am thankful for all of my readers – I hope that my words will continue to help and inspire you, and I hope that they will always be a way for us to keep connected to each other. I am thankful for my friends and family who have supported me on my journey to be where I am at today, and I look forward to those that I will be thankful to know, and get to know, in the future.

Be well this Holiday Season.

Mobile dating application Tinder has been criticized heavily due to its appearance-based matchmaking process, which many consider so shallow and superficial that it could only be used to facilitate casual sex. However, the app’s popularity continues to grow at an extraordinary rate: it is currently available in 24 languages and boasts more than 10 million active daily users. It was also awarded TechCrunch’s Crunchie Award for “Best New Startup of 2013.”

The app’s runaway success cannot be attributed solely to singles looking for quick hook-ups. The counter-intuitive truth is that Tinder actually provides users with all the information they need to make an informed first impression about a potential long-term mate. And it does so by matching our human evolutionary mechanism.

How Does It Work?

Tinder connects with users’ Facebook profiles to make a limited amount of personal data available to other users within a pre-set geographic radius. A Tinder profile includes only the user’s first name, age and photos, along with the Facebook friends (if any) they have in common with the person viewing the profile. Upon signing up, a user is provided with potential matches and the option to “like” or “dislike” each one based on his/her profile. If two users mutually “like” each other, they can begin a chat.

Tinder’s success stems from its simplicity and minimalism, which relates to how our cognitive system works. The only way that human beings could’ve survived as a species for as long as we have is by developing a decision-making apparatus that’s capable of making quick judgments based on very little information. Although we always ascribe our decisions to a rational, conscious-brain motivation, this supposed motivation is never the entire reason for our decisions; in fact, it often has nothing to do with it! We like to think of ourselves as rational human beings that base our decisions on logical processes, but most of our decisions occur unconsciously and based on minimal information.

How do Tinder users choose partners?

Finding a date on Tinder involves a three-stage decision making process:

1. Rational Controlled Process – The user sets the gender, age range and geographic radius of a potential partner.

2. Emotion-Oriented Process – As the app presents potential matches fitting the appropriate search criteria, the user chooses ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ based on an automatic emotional reaction to each photo.

3. The Waiting Process – The third stage is out of the user’s control. In order to engage another person in a chat, that person first has to ‘like’ the user back.

How can so little information prove valuable?

Tinder exposes its users to two types of factors: rational (Geographical Distance and Age) and emotional (Appearance and Requited Interest). Each of these factors makes a unique contribution to the decision making process.

Geographical Distance– Research shows that the best single predictor of whether two people will develop a relationship is how far apart they live. People are more likely to develop friendships with people who are nearby (ex. live in the same dorm or sit near each other in class). An examination of 5000 marriage license applications in Philadelphia found that one third of the couples lived within five blocks of each other. Thus, geographical distance is a powerful predictor of the likelihood that two people will end up together.

Age– People with little or no age difference have significantly more in common than those with a larger age difference. When two people are the same age, they are generally at a similar stage in life, both psychologically and physically. They also likely share similar backgrounds, concerns, life challenges, and cultural/historical references. These similarities make it easier to find common conversational ground, and add an element of cohesiveness to a relationship that cannot be attained in relationships with a more notable age difference.

After the rational stage comes the emotional stage:

Appearance– Although it may seem shallow to admit it, we are strongly influenced by the physical attractiveness of others, and in many cases appearance is the most importantdeterminant of whether or not we initially like a person. Infants who are only a year old prefer to look at faces that adults consider attractive, and we often subconsciously attribute positive characteristics such as intelligence and honesty to physically attractive people. Evolutionary psychologists have argued that this may be because physical attractiveness is an indicator of underlying genetic fitness. In other words, a person’s physical characteristics may be suggestive of fertility and health – two key factors in the probability of our genetic line’s survival and reproduction.

Furthermore, evidence has shown that most couples are closely matched in terms of physical attractiveness. This appears to be because we weigh a potential partner’s attractiveness against the probability that he/she would be willing to pair up with us. Thus, after the emotional process of categorizing a person as attractive, most of us have the self-awareness to determine whether society would perceive us as more, less or equally attractive as the potential partner. This determination affects our decision whether or not to approach the other person.

Looking beyond physical appearance, each image presented on Tinder also has a subtext. People use their photos to make identity claims – symbolic statements to convey how they would like to be seen. Examples include choice of clothing, presence or absence of jewelry and sunglasses, and the way they interact with other people in the photos. All of these signals shed additional light on the person in the image.

Similarly, behavioral residue refers to clues inadvertently included in the chosen photos. For example, smiling without a head tilt signals high self-esteem, selecting a close-up photo shows confidence and willingness to share minor flaws, and choosing a long-distance shot may indicate low self-esteem and a desire to hide flaws.

Requited Interest– Equipped with all this valuable information, the user waits for the final piece of the puzzle: will the other person “like” him back? If so, this approval gives a positive kick to the interaction. People are naturally attracted to individuals who make them feel good about themselves, and a mutual “like” lets each party know that the other considers them attractive and approachable.

The Chat

Finally, the Tinder chat is an extremely valuable asset for filtering a potential partner. Does he make a lot of spelling mistakes? Does she dominate the conversation with self-aggrandizing comments? Does he seem macho and disrespectful?

Here is a sample interaction documented by a female Tinder user:

He: “so, when can I see you?”

She: “What did you have in mind?”

He: “how about now?”

She: “Just so you know, I’m looking for a serious relationship. I’m not looking to play around.”

He: “To see you now is not playing around it called being spontaneous”

It is obvious from this brief exchange that these users are interested in completely different things. At this point, it should be easy for her to make a decision based on past experience and the understanding of the hidden meaning in his words.

Conclusion

When all the data collected during the Tinder matchmaking process is compiled, the emerging picture reveals a substantive amount of relevant information. Each of the provided clues helps the user to create a valuable mental picture of the person on the other side. Interestingly, this picture is often more accurate than what we can develop with a larger amount of information. Consider such online dating websites as Match.com and OKCupid. Unlike the minimalism of Tinder’s profile, these sites provide users the opportunity to build structured and detailed profiles, many of which contain inaccurate information. Users intentionally exaggerate their descriptions to portray themselves in the best possible light – something that just isn’t possible in the bare-bones format of Tinder.

Tinder’s popularity stems from its ability to match the human evolutionary mechanism. In a word, it is “distilled.” It cuts through the B.S., giving users only the data they need to develop a meaningful first impression. Though we like to think we base our decisions on a calculated cost-benefit evaluation, the truth is that most of the time we rely on automatic unconscious processes that have nothing to do with rationality. Thus, exposure to a detailed profile containing a person’s hobbies, education and personal information may lead us to conclude that our choice was influenced by these factors, but honestly once we know a potential mate’s geography, age, appearance and feelings about us, we have all the information we need.

And it is usually quite accurate.

Ever wonder if you or someone in your life is a diagnosable narcissist? Well, try answering these questions to find out.

Do they have an exaggerated sense of self-importance? Do they expect recognition or praise even when they haven’t earned it? Do they exaggerate their accomplishments? Do they have a sense of entitlement? Expect special favors? Feel envious of others? Act arrogant?

All of these traits are listed among the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder as it’s defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Whether you’re responding about yourself or someone else, you’ll probably answer “I guess” or “sometimes” to a lot of these questions. So, maybe try one more very simple question, which researchers from Ohio State University found could identify narcissists as accurately as the 40-item test that has been widely used to diagnose the disorder. 

Here it is:

Rating yourself on a scale of 1-7: To what extent do you agree with the statement: I am a narcissist? Note: The word narcissist means egotistical, self-focused and vain.

Okay, so noticing narcissistic traits may be the easy part. The hard part is understanding why these traits show up and what to do about them. A lot of people have been asking these questions recently, because narcissism happens to be exactly where it likes to be – in the spotlight. As a society, we seem to be sensing that inflated self-esteem is getting a little out of control these days. The swell of “selfies” has many people wondering, “what’s wrong with this picture?” When does posting become boasting?

In their book The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement, researchers Jean M. Twenge and W. Keith Campbell wrote, “The United States is currently suffering from an epidemic of narcissism.” They quoted the research finding, “In data from  37,000 college students narcissistic personality traits rose just as fast as obesity from the 1980s to the present.” They went on to say that “nearly one out of 10 Americans in their 20s and 1 out of 16 of those of all ages, has experienced the symptoms of NPD [Narcissistic Personality Disorder].”

To contain any epidemic requires a real understanding of what it really is and a settling of the misconceptions. These are subjects I will dive into more deeply in my upcoming Webinar, “Narcissism: From Healthy to Pathological.” Here, I will highlight some important points.

1.     Is Narcissism the Same as Self-Esteem?

Narcissism should not be confused with high self-esteem. Narcissists may have an inflated sense of self-importance or a heightened desire for attention, but that doesn’t mean they really feel good about themselves deep down. Narcissists often have fluctuating self-esteem. They may feel a desire or need to be special or great and therefore seek to bolster themselves but if they get criticized or experience failure they become vulnerable to putting themselves down.

Like most people, narcissists have an internal coach or “critical inner voice” that evaluates their actions. Their coach speaks to them with a soothing voice, telling them how great they are, superior to others.  It tells them they must always be the best, the smartest, the most attractive, etc. However, when there is any challenge to their aggrandized image, the voice may turn and tear them apart, criticizing everything about them. When they attempt to reinstate their deflated self-image they often lash out at others, complicating and disrupting interpersonal relationships.  Such people are simultaneously grandiose, yet fragile, because they are on a high pedestal to fall from. While a narcissist may appear to be the star of their lives, it can actually be a difficult and painful disorder to live with.

2.    Why Do People Become Narcissistic?

Interestingly there is research suggesting a genetic component to narcissism, but there are also many environmental factors that can contribute to a person becoming narcissistic. It can start with having narcissistic parents who needed their child to be great, so the child would reflect well on them. The parent’s point of view toward the child sets the foundation for what becomes the child’s own “critical inner voice.” When a kid is falsely built-up by their parents, he or she may feel a mix of pressure and, as a result of feeling undeserving, incompetence. The child may feel like a fraud but also harbor a desire to live up to the parent’s expectations. Additionally, if children feel neglected or not seen by a narcissistic parent, who has no use for them when they are not serving his or her needs, they are also vulnerable to developing narcissism. In this case, they often become reliant on fantasy gratification, including fantasies of how special they are, an illusion that they later demand others support.

3.    How Can We Counter Narcissism?

One way, to counter the development of narcissism is to place an emphasis on and teach self-compassion over self-esteem, particularly unwarranted self-esteem, where adults over-praise children, offering them a build up for talents or traits they do not possess. Research from Dr. Kristin Neff shows that high or inflated self-esteem correlates with narcissism, whereas self-compassion does not. Neff points out that self-compassion is about having a kind attitude toward oneself. It emphasizes a common humanity, equality, humility and openness to feedback and self-change. On the other hand, self-esteem is based on self-evaluation and performance, which can lead to a lack of empathy or a more self-centered outlook.

Narcissism can be a tricky thing to treat, but the first step is being willing to notice and even acknowledge when a person has the traits. People can’t always control how they think, but they can control how they treat themselves and others. By acting kindly toward others and refusing to act out superior attitudes or tendencies to demean them, people can take a stand against these offensive traits in themselves. They can also treat themselves more compassionately when they fail to live up to idealized standards of perfection and righteousness. 

When people’s behavior is more caring and generous, they can start to develop more self -compassion. They can choose to focus their attention on others, looking outward more often. This is good advice for everyone who spends too much time evaluating themselves either by self-criticizing or self-soothing. People can both literally and figuratively point the lens to what they see around them instead of at themselves. 

Read More from Dr. Lisa Firestone at PsychAlive.org

Join Dr. Lisa Firestone for the Webinar, “Narcissism: From Healthy to Pathological." CE's Available.

In distilling his very thorough research for practical application, John Gottman argues that there are four main relationship killers: criticism, contempt, defensiveness and stonewalling.  He calls them “The four horsemen of the apocalypse,” a surprisingly, unnecessarily, and incendiary gender-biased choice, given that in a great many troubled relationships, a woman already thinks her “horseman” is to blame.

I understand the literal reference to The New Testament’s craziest chapter, The Book of Revelations, but he could have been clearer and more to the point.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with each of his four horsemen. Each has its virtues. They only become vices when they’re employed by someone who has gotten on their high horse, pretending they’re the ultimate objective and infallible judge rather than a subjective advocate arguing with an equal.  Going through each:

Criticism:  There’s nothing inherently wrong with giving critical feedback. We all do it and won’t stop doing it. Pretending that there is something inherently wrong with criticism, is a recipe for self-deception, “Me? I don’t criticize because criticism is evil. I’m merely saying you’re wrong.”  Gotttman attempts to make the problem with criticism more credible by arguing that criticism is a killer when it attacks someone’s character, but what criticism can’t imply that there’s something wrong with the other person’s character? And what if there is something wrong with the other person’s character? Should Stalin’s young wife have kept from voicing criticism of his character? Criticism is deadly in relationship only when voiced not as your opinion about someone but as the objective truth. In other words, when the critic mounts a high-horse and talks down to the person he or she criticizes, in effect, pulling rank and pretending to deserve the final word on what’s true.

Contempt:  Contempt has its place too. Who doesn’t find Stalin’s killing in the tens of millions contemptible? Still, contempt may be the best thoroughbred killer in Gottman’s stable, because it is high-horse condemnation by definition. Indeed one could argue that there’s really only one high-horse manifest in four ways. 

Defensiveness: What’s the difference between defending yourself when you’ve been wrongly accused or misunderstood and “being defensive,” or engaging in “defensiveness”? There’s not always a clear line, but the closest we may be able to come to one is the difference between saying, “I’m speaking objectively when I tell you that you are wrong about me,” and “My opinion is that you’re misjudging me,” in other words, between pretending your voicing the absolute objective truth and voicing your subjective opinion. We often pretend that we can be objective about our own behavior, saying things like, “Don’t tell me what I think and feel. I know my own feelings.”  In fact, we don’t necessarily know our own feelings.  It’s easy to think of examples of people claiming to know what they feel when they don’t. Given the ease with which people claim objective knowledge of their own intentions, it’s especially important to qualify our “You’re wrong about me” defenses with subjectivity caveats like “I think,” or “In my opinion you’re wrong about me.”

Stonewalling:  Have you ever stopped listening to someone either permanently or temporarily?  Isn’t that readily interpreted as stonewalling and does that mean it’s always wrong? I don’t think so. I think we all have finite attention and must try to allocate it carefully, which means giving full attention to some voices and no attention to others, while giving some attention to still others in between. Stonewalling only becomes a problem when it’s done from a high horse, in other words as a contemptuous dismissal from a self-proclaimed infallible judge who knows for all humankind what’s worth listening to and what isn’t.

The vagueness at least in popular interpretations of Gottman’s work causes more trouble than necessary. It focuses on problem relationships in which both parties are roughly equal in their tendency to mount his four horsemen and it under-emphasizes the virtue of ending relationships with people who lean far more heavily into horsemen behavior than you do.

By failing to emphasize that the problem is getting on one’s high horse, Gottman’s findings easily become ways to attack someone else’s character from a high horse. “It would be objectively obvious to anyone of good character that you are criticizing, contemptuous, defensive and stonewalling and therefore the problem here.” 

There's a simple fix: Call them the four high horses of the apocalypse.

My children have had friends over in the past few weeks who packed toy guns with them, along with the other odds and ends kids bring to a sleepover. I live in South Carolina so guns are not a matter of too much taboo. (I've asked my College classes before how many of them regularly hunt and gotten a majority response.) I would have thought nothing of toy guns being included along with the Playstations and Pokeman cards. 

One child aimed the gun at the woman delivering pizza; I only realized the other child even had a toy gun when he started playing with it in the car. No orange tip was on it either. I was quick to put an end to both behaviors- but the thought that anyone might tell me these beautiful children deserved to lose their lives is too ridiculous for me to imagine. 

They also are a flawless, picture-perfect rebuttal to the idea entertained by journalist Brandon Blackwell, who took it upon himself to figure out what was wrong with the victim of Cleveland police, Tamir Rice.

Twelve-years-old, playing alone at a park with a toy gun, aiming it *as one does* with a toy gun, Tamir was shot within seconds of the police arriving. Those who have viewed the video tape  of the killing have said it looked like a "drive by", so quickly was the child felled by the officer.

Being around children this age so often, the idea that a well-raised child would react to police orders in some predicatble way is, again, too much for me to imagine anyone believing. I'm only around well-raised children, and the thought that I could get them to obey some order if I screamed it and gave them under two seconds is laughable. It's absurd. 

Blackwell's rationale for associating Rice's biological father's domestic violence convictions with relevant "context" to the police killing of this young boy is as follows: "What did he experience growing up? Who were his role models? Did he have past interaction with police because of his parents? What were those interactions like? Did he grow up in a gun-owning household? How did he come to be randomly aiming a real-looking gun outside a Cleveland recreation center?"

Commenting on the story, which has been shared an amazing 8.000 times, a CASA volunteer (of all people!) has written that the violence of Rice's father has a relevance to his being killed. She assures us that children from "loving" homes don't act the way Rice did. 

My eyes didn't deceive me: I am not wrong about how children from "loving" homes act with toy guns. 

I just cannot imagine where this type of wishfulness about victims deserving it comes from. It is noticeable under any story about police aggression. I've written about it before. There's a percentage of the public that needs to think that no matter what, someone who is treated poorly by the police deserves it. I don't understand the psychological motivation for this type of outlook, but I do think I'm clear enough on how unethical it is to maintain. 

Brandon writes, "This context matters." I say back to that "yes," and trying so hard to put a 12-year-old at fault for his murder is a matter for context, too.

If we want to understand why history has always included so much injustice, we can see why in those who think a 12-year-old playing with a toy had it coming. 

 If everything could just kind of jingle this time of year, folks with panic disorder might be okay with all the increases in stimulation. The problem is there’s way more jangling – nerve jangling – than the sweet little jingling we prefer. As a result, this is a time of great suffering for many people with chronic panic attacks.When your nerves are already jangled with ever-present anxiety, the holiday season can easily put you over the top. I recall my most anxious times during my years with agoraphobia were from T-Day to New Year’s.  Now I understand that my environment of supposedly  cheery, festive occasions was loading up my fight or flight system. The colored lights, the crowds, the noise, the blurs of activity, were just increased stimulus as far as my amygdala was concerned.

If the same cycle occurs for you, I’d be interested to hear about it. Send an email if your panic attacks get much worse during the “holidays” and you want to hide from it all. I was nearly homebound on at least two of the Christmas/Thanksgiving periods. I recall feeling deep despair this time of year. Agoraphobes know they will most likely face demands to travel during the holidays, so their nerves get amped up by that threat.

You are expected to get things for people; online shopping makes life easier, but there are some things you’ll have to go out for. My increased anxiety level was probably also due to the contrasts between how everyone around me was apparently feeling – kind of happy and pepped up and bustling around – and the way I was feeling, which was desperately unhappy and frightened.  I remember more than one holiday season when I felt that I could just no longer go on… I mean go on. I did, and so shall you my friend.

What I needed during periods of heightened anxiety was something to focus on; something I could start doing that would demand all my attention and take my fears away. I didn’t have much to turn to in earlier years, but once I discovered art and clay I had something to go to and begin creating.  When you enter the creative process your fears will nearly or completely disappear. When you live fully focused on the present moment of creation, the past and future are just that.

My advice to you is to start making things for people. Make by hand every present you’ll give this year and enjoy the satisfaction of creation and the delight of discovery from the receiver. Your gifts could range from found and modified art to drawings/paintings/collage, to poems or stories or songs you write. Cookies! Your gift can be homely or lovely, but I guarantee that in the eye of the receiver your gift will be beautiful. You may discover a talent you weren’t aware of and begin pursuing whatever way you decided to make your own presents.

Schedule some daily breathing timeouts throughout the coming weeks and try to sit in meditation at least once a day. This would be a good time to transfer your extra stimulation to your journal. Make a holiday observation every day- remarking on particularly gaudy or tasteful things you saw or heard in passing, for example. Writing will help you focus on recovery.

Be extra mindful of everything around you this year. By focusing on one thing at a time you’ll greatly reduce your anxiety level. Study colored lights closely. Look at people’s faces and clothing with increased interest. Listen intently to each sound you hear and try to isolate it. Doing things of this nature will I hope make the task of being in holiday crowds easier for you.

Social isolation can be a serious matter for homebound agoraphobes this time of year. Reach out to others in whatever way you can – from writing nice letters to phone calls to visits. Stay connected with your world throughout the holiday time. Bake delicious things and invite people over. Give yourself the present of a comfortable holiday season for a change.

“I really like him,” is how a conversation began with a friend this past weekend over Bloody Mary’s at La Esquina in NYC. She sat in front of me twisting her celery stick and allowing the red froth to soak the giant ice cubes while recounting details of her latest crush. “But wait, didn’t you tell me that he flirted with 3 other girls in front of your face last weekend?” I replied, head tilted and eyebrows arched to the cieling. “Well now that I’m re-thinking the situation, he wasn’t really flirting. He was just chatting casually, I mean not unlike what we’re doing now," she recanted. 

It’s a wise tactic to re-frame situations so that your cocktail is half-full, but you also must be wary of what happens when your mind begins to actually misrepresent information. At this point, we know a lot about the memory. We know the hippocampus, located in the limbic system, is the area of the brain that controls our memories. We know that there are guerilla-memory tactics, like acronyms to enhance your mind’s ability to recall information. If King Phillip Came Over For Great Spaghetti wasn’t your saving grace when memorizing the animal kingdom’s classification system, you’re either lying to yourself or maybe you created your own acronym (in which case, please share).

But we also know that memory is malleable. And while you’re memory can act as your closest confidant at times, helping you remember what you need for school and work, or remembering important dates—it can also Benedict Arnold you. It can convince you that you saw something that wasn’t actually present. It can reconstruct entire scenarios. It can look you in your mind’s eye and lie to your face. It’s not that our memories are trying to attract us to the wrong person or make us sound silly when recounting romantic details. Rather, it’s that our memories and strong emotions are inextricably intertwined. One possible reason for the discrepancy in truth versus distortion is that how we appraise situations in the moment influence how we perceived what happened in the past. This is because our memories follow a principle called mood-congruency, whereby our current mood determines memory retrieval of a past mood. When you’re sitting with your friends recounting situations that were at one time painful, whilst simultaneously playing Sam Smith, it’s hard to retrieve a negative memory. Instead, your mind will grasp for positive associations that you’re currently exhibiting. How can you feel any sort of hashtag-hate when Sam is belting like that? 

Psychologists and memory connoisseur, Dr. Daniel Schacter, says that part of reconstructing events is due to the current hodgepodge of information in front of us when retrieving and recalling events. We’re biased by our current attitudes, knowledge, and moods. In a now famous memory study, Dr. Linda J. Levine had participants rate their emotional reactions to one-time Presidential candidate Ross Perot after he abruptly withdrew from the 1992 election. When he surprisingly re-entered the race, participants were asked to recall the initial emotions they first reported after his withdrawal. The study found that people could not accurately recall their initial negative feelings about Perot’s withdrawal. Participants’ memories were distorted by their current, more positive, attitudes about his re-entering the race.

Though reconstructing memories can sometimes be beneficial in easing anxiety or getting over grudges, we must proceed with caution. If might be a problem if you’re consistently distorting scenarios to believe your guy or gal was friendly chitchatting other bar patrons at Wilfie & Nell, when he or she was really compiling an inventory of digits. It can also confuse the way you feel about independent presidential candidates, and who wants that? One tactic we can use is doing our best to compartmentalize our emotions and memories when retrieving important information. We can also consult others who were present at the scene that might provide an objective social audit. When in doubt, consult the memory acronym-almanac for: F.D.L.F.M.L. (Friends don’t let friends’ memories lie). Now that's something to remember. 

A version of this appeared in Our Town Downtown. 

Despite universal notions and theories, at the end of the day, attraction remains idiosyncratic to the individual. Often, this works to a romantic’s benefit—you need only people watch in the Big Apple to validate the “there’s somebody for everyone” saying.

When it comes to attraction, our body’s reaction is often the most trustworthy measure. It doesn’t matter if your blind date is smart, successful, good looking and charming—if you don’t feel it in your bones, it ain’t a match. However, it is also possible that our bodies are not always a reliable gauge of whether we are truly attracted to someone.

The uniqueness of attraction is one of life’s most elusive and fascinating facets of study. There may be several types, but passionate attraction is what sets the stage for love. This may be characterized by two factors: first, that physiological arousal occurs due to an increasing heart rate and second, the notion that another person is the cause of our racing pulses. If our beating hearts are indeed due to the presence of a new love, our attraction to him or her is appropriate.

However, in the event that something else is to blame for our vibrating heartbeats, we may be experiencing a phenomenon known in psychology as the misattribution of arousal. This process usually occurs when we experience a rapid increase in heart rate from anything from running fast to participating in fear-inducing activities like skydiving or watching a scary movie. When in the presence of an attractive individual, we may mistake our beating hearts for indicators that we are attracted to this person. In other words, we’re misplacing the source of our attraction and our bodies are talking out of turn.

To test what sets our hearts aflutter, social psychologists, Dutton and Aron (1974), created two distinct situations. In a condition generated to induce arousal, men were asked to walk alone across a shaky bridge suspended by wire hundreds of feet above treacherous boulders. In the second scenario, men breathed easily as they strolled across a stable bridge placed just a few feet off the ground. In both circumstances, walkers were approached by an attractive female researcher who showed an ambiguous picture and asked participants to create a story based on his interpretation. Subsequently, the attractive researcher handed participants her digits and invited them to give her a ring if they needed to follow up.

The results indicated that men who walked across the precarious bridge reported higher levels of sexual content in their stories. Furthermore, these men were also more inclined to later call the research assistant. Although the men who walked across the safer bridge encountered the very same woman, they reported less to nearly no sexual imagery in their stories. Interestingly, those who walked along the stable bridge were also less likely to phone the woman. Evidently, the adrenaline bridge intensified feelings of arousal.

With this in mind, it should have come as no surprise when I frequented a different bridge for some heart-inducing exercise, a run, and instead found myself focusing on everyone’s body but my own. After completing a 7-mile trek, I noticed that I had never both been attracted to so many people in so little time. As my heart calmed and the sun shone brighter, I realized that perhaps I had been seeing things with adrenaline goggles.

The hottie in the hoodie seemed shorter than at first glance, and I could have sworn that the guy on the light-up rollerblades had been on a bike. Alas, perhaps it wasn’t “real” attraction after all, I sighed. There were other factors at play. However, even if my beating heart wasn’t due to the surplus of men around me but instead to my long run, perhaps this is OK. What if participating in more fear-inducing activities and enhancing our heart rates actually makes us take more risks and fall for people that weren’t initially on our radar?

At the end of the day, it might be difficult for psychologists and lay people to isolate the true source of attraction. But even if initial attraction is misattributed, perhaps it can evolve into real attraction. Since greater potential for love can be found via heart-pounding activities, I’ll see you on the tallest bridge in the city.

A version of this article appeared in Our Town Downtown.

A rite of passage for many American children is the parent-child sex talk. The awkwardness of “the birds and the bees talk” has been hilariously depicted in many movies, perhaps best so in the 1999 teen sex comedy American Pie:

Using evolutionary psychological theories as a guidepost, in a forthcoming publication in Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences with my undergraduate RAs and developmental psychologist Dawn K. Melzer, I explored the content of communications that parents have with their children about sex (Kuhle et al., 2014, June 30; for pdf click here). Our focal question was whether parents tell certain things about sex to their daughters and other things to their sons.  

The Daughter-Guarding Hypothesis

Most prior research on such talks failed to carve nature at its joints (Plato & Scully, 2003) by exploring the differential functions that parental sex-talks may serve for sons and daughters. We tested eight sex-linked predictions about the content of parental sex-talks and other messages that parents communicate to their children. Our predictions were derived from the daughter-guarding hypothesis which posits that, “parents possess adaptations with design features that function to defend their daughter’s sexual reputation, preserve her mate value, and protect her from sexual victimization” (Perilloux, Fleischman, & Buss, 2008, p. 219). We reasoned that parents may attempt to guard their daughters’ sexuality through strategic communication about sex because, relative to ancestral sons, ancestral daughters incurred greater reproductive costs (Buss, 2003; Perilloux et al., 2008; Trivers, 1972) from:

1. an untimely or unwanted pregnancy
2. rape and other forms of sexual victimization
3. damage to their long-term mate value as a result of early, pre-marital, short-term sexual experience

Daughter Guarding Examples

Examples of daughter-guarding can be found in anthropological, psychological, and popular culture outlets. Anthropologist Mark Flinn (1988) coined the term “daughter guarding” and documented examples of it by rural Trinidadian fathers who restricted their daughters’ movements, forced them to take chaperones, and threatened men who came to visit their daughters. In support of their daughter-guarding hypothesis, evolutionary psychologists Carin Perilloux, Diana Fleischman, and David Buss (2008) found that parents of U.S. college students were more likely to control their daughters’ than sons’ mating decisions, mate choice, and sexual behavior and reported greater upset over their daughters’ than sons’ sexual activity. On a lighter, popular culture note, comedian Chris Rock, whose stand-up material often reflects a sophisticated grasp of evolved psychological sex differences (Kuhle, 2012; see also this blog series), riffed about the importance of daughter-guarding in this bit from his 2004 HBO special Never Scared:

Predictions Derived from the Daughter-Guarding Hypothesis

Given previous theory and findings, we predicted that daughters would be more likely than sons to report receiving a parental sex talk and other parental messages that encouraged:

• abstinence (prediction 1)
• being discriminating in allocating sexual access (prediction 2)
• deterring, inhibiting, and defending against sexual advances (prediction 3)

 We also predicted that daughters would be more likely than sons to report receiving messages:

• to not emulate depictions of sexual activity (prediction 4)
• that defined when they were old enough to date (prediction 5)
• that curtailed contact with the opposite sex (prediction 6)

Additionally, given girls’ earlier age of pubertal onset (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1991) and greater reproductive costs associated with sexual activity (Trivers, 1972), we predicted that daughters would be more likely than sons to receive a parental sex talk (prediction 7) and to receive the talk at a younger age than sons (prediction 8).

Method

We administered an online questionnaire that tested these eight sex-linked predictions. Our participants were undergraduates from a Northeastern U.S. Jesuit Catholic university (n = 226) and young adults recruited through Facebook (n = 391).

Findings

With six of eight predictions confirmed, the results from this study largely support the daughter-guarding hypothesis (Perilloux et al., 2008) from which the predictions were derived. (The two predictive failures were that daughters were not more likely than sons to receive a parental sex talk and that they did not receive it at a younger age than did sons.) As expected, daughters more so than sons received a parental sex talk and other parental messages that encouraged abstinence, being discriminating in allocating sexual access, and deterring, inhibiting, and defending against sexual advances. Also as expected, daughters were more likely than sons to receive messages to not emulate depictions of sexual activity, that defined when they were old enough to date, and that curtailed their contact with unrelated members of the opposite sex.  It appears that our participants’ parents were more focused on guarding the sexuality of their daughters than their sons.

Although daughters were significantly more likely than sons to receive each of the predicted messages about sex from their parents, these findings are not due to daughters being more likely to receive any and all messages about sex. Sons were significantly more likely than daughters to be told to “have fun” and equally likely as daughters to be told other messages (e.g., “sex should be enjoyable”).  

Modern day American parents appear to socialize children in ways that fostered ancestral reproductive success through the communication of sex-linked birds-and-the-bees talks and messages.

Connect with me on Facebook and Twitter. 

References

American Academy of Pediatrics. (1991). Caring for your adolescent. New York: Bantam Books.

Buss, D. M. (2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating(revised edition). New York: Basic Books.

Flinn, M. V. (1988). Parent-offspring interactions in a Caribbean village: Daughter guarding. In L. Betzig, M. Borgerhoff Mulder, & P. Turke (Eds.), Human reproductive behaviour (pp. 189 - 200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kuhle, B. X. (2012). It’s funny because it’s true (because it evokes our evolved psychology). Review of General Psychology, 16, 177-186.

Kuhle, B. X., Melzer, D. K., Cooper, C. A., Merkle, A. J., Pepe, N. A., Ribanovic, A., Verdesco, A. L., & Wettstein, T. L. (2014, June 30). The “birds and the bees” differ for boys and girls: Sex differences in the nature of sex talks. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000012

Perilloux, C., Fleischman, D. S., & Buss, D. M. (2008). The daughter-guarding hypothesis: Parental influence on, and emotional reactions to, offspring's mating behavior. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 217-233.

Plato, & Scully, S. (2003). Plato's Phaedrus. Newburyport, MA: Focus Pub./R. Pullins Co.

Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871 - 1971 (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine.

Sources for Images:

http://www.jennamccarthy.com/the-birds-and-the-bees-and-omfg/

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2013/11/13/columbus-know-your-kids-birds-and-bees.html

Copyright © 2014 Barry X. Kuhle. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect the views of Psychology Today and the University of Scranton, or my friends, family, probation officer, gut bacteria, darkest thoughts, and personal mohel.

I've had a love affair with Netflix for a few years now. I haven't had cable TV in years and am not a fan of crowded movie theaters (people always seem to decide to open ridiculously loud cellophane-wrapped snacks right at the most pivotal, gripping cinematic moment). How wonderful, then, to be able to choose from a huge selection of movies and get personalized recommendations for content I'd probably love to watch.

Lately, though, I've started to feel uneasy. I'm not alone, either. Last night I met with some members of my year-long Live a Life You Love Club program, and we talked about how addictive the endless access to entertainment really is. The providers of the endless entertainment aren't to blame here, though...it's our own human propensity to get addicted to things that offer sweet, numbing escape.

I find I'm particularly vulnerable to multi-season TV programs. If I watch a movie, it takes up a couple of hours of my time at most, and when it's done it's done. But with a TV series, each episode ends with some sort of cliff-hanger, and I can instantly find out what happened next, by clicking on the next episode. And the next. And the next.

Lately I've watched a couple of series where I've gotten so involved in the lives of the characters over multiple seasons, that on some occasions I've caught myself wishing I could just go hang out with them, rather than invest time and effort hanging out with the real people in my life! That realization really alarmed me. The escape into the fictional worlds is so rich, so complete, that I get to completely avoid whatever is stressing me out at the moment. I can completely escape from any responsibilities I have, any worries that might otherwise preoccupy me, and I can very pleasantly avoid any less pleasant tasks I really should be doing.

Do you relate to this?

Way back when I'd had cable, I'd never gotten sucked into hours of TV watching, because I'm picky about what I watch and I found few shows to be worth my time. I was always proud of this, I'll even admit that I felt superior to "couch potatoes". Netflix, however, has an unending supply of things I might like to watch, and I've been shocked to discover the couch-loving screen-addicted potato that lurks within my "wellness expert" exterior.

Here's the problem. Beyond the obvious negatives of prolonged couch-sitting and TV-watching (lowered metabolic rate from sitting in a trance, increased tendency to mindlessly snack, the impact of the screens on melatonin secretion and other negative neurologic effects, etc.), life is being lost.

Last night as I was talking with my coaching clients, we remembered what life used to be like before these endless streams of entertainment were available. Back in my no-cable days, I used my evenings and down time to play with photography, read inspiring books, dream of and build my coaching business, conceive of and write a book, try new recipes, go out dancing midweek, take classes, the list goes on and on. I was so much more creative, there was so much more play in my life.

Now, when I'm tired after a busy day, I count the hours until I can just curl up and watch a good show. The hours pass on the couch, and it feels so delightful, entertaining and relaxing, but what am I giving up in exchange?

I fear the impact on my brain of so many hours watching screens, instead of reading great non-fiction books like I used to. Books that stimulated my mind and filled me with new knowledge and ideas. Books that inspired me to try new things, to believe in my dreams, to become the best I could be.

I fear the impact of so many sedentary hours, for someone who prides herself on being active. Many nights I stay up much later than I should, and don't get the essential hours of sleep I need, just because I can't tear myself away from what will happen next on the show.

Even though I prefer watching something at home, it's probably healthier to go watch a movie in the theater, taking the time to dress up and go out and sit with your friend or spouse, surrounded by other humans, despite feeling mildly annoyed by people who don't know how annoying it is to unwrap something loud at a critical moment.

One of my clients is so concerned about how much she has avoided life in this fashion, that she is considering canceling her home internet connection altogether. Unimaginable, but she rightfully pointed out that she could answer all social emails by staying a little late at work, and then come home to a totally unplugged life. A life where she might finally start doing all the wonderful things she longs to do. The things that have been replaced for too long by too many evenings spent hanging out gazing at her iPad.

"I'm getting older," she said. "I don't know how much life I have left, and I can't keep losing hours of life every night, like I have been. "

This was very sobering for me, and reinforced this sense of unease that has been growing about my Netflix habit. Yes, it's so important to relax. And I absolutely love a good storyline, or a great documentary. There is still a place for that, somewhere in my life. But there is so much more to life, and when movies or shows start to take over your life outside of work, it may call you to some deep consideration about what's really happening to your life.

Add up the hours of life you spend watching Netflix or TV, or mindlessly surfing the internet, in a typical week. What else could you be doing with those hours, or at least some of those hours? How might your mind and life be better if you chose to do something else?

I don't know if I'm ready to go cold turkey, but I'm seriously thinking about it. Today, as I finish writing this post, I came to the end of the final episode in the latest TV series that had totally ensnared me (I had watched it while eating my lunch). Seems like a perfect time to stop the madness, no? Something's got to change, and I'm ready to do it. Will you join me?

(For information on joining me and other women from around the world for my 2015 Live a Life You Love Club, click here)

Dr. Susan Biali, M.D. is a medical doctor, health and happiness expert, life and health coach, professional speaker, flamenco dancer, and the author of Live a Life You Love: 7 Steps to a Healthier, Happier, More Passionate You, dedicated to helping people worldwide get healthy, find happiness and enjoy more meaningful lives that they love. Dr. Biali has been featured as an expert on the Today Show as well as many other major media outlets, and is available for keynote presentations, workshops/retreats, media commentary, and private life and health coaching.

Contact: write susan@susanbiali.com or visit www.susanbiali.com to receive a complimentary Ebook:Ten Essential Easy Changes - Boost Mood, Increase Energy & Reduce Stress by Tomorrow.

Connect with Dr. Biali on Facebook and Twitter

Copyright Dr. Susan Biali, M.D. 2014

Last week I headed to Dean & Deluca, making my daily jaunt for java, until I sensed something wasn’t quite right. I quickly realized my dress was inside-out, revealing every seam and stitch. I call these days a wash. The days you catch every red light and your brain feels like viscous jelly whose working memory can’t hold more than your first and last name.

“I’ll just get some sleep and start fresh tomorrow,” I tell myself. But what if something impedes us from racking up those hours of rest? The time you relinquish consciousness on your cushy pillow is surely one of your inalienable rights. But with every self-evident truth, there lie potential obstacles. In the case of sleep disorders, there are over 80 on the horizon, wreaking havoc on handfuls of tired eyes.

Dysomniatic disorders, like insomnia and narcolepsy, are the most common. These ailments affect a person’s quantity and quality of sleep. Acute insomniacs only suffer from sleepless nights for less than a month, and symptoms are transient. Nearly 40 percent of the population has experienced acute sleeplessness at some point. Chronic insomniacs comprise 10-15 percent of the population and problems sleeping must last longer than one month. To qualify for a diagnosis, one’s sleep disturbance and daytime fatigue must cause significant impairment to one’s life. Other qualifications include significant daytime fatigue, irritability and excessive anxiety about sleeping.

Sleep specialists can typically discern whether the disorder is related to another ailment like depression or stress or if it’s a problem on its own by conducting clinical interviews. For ideal results, the most effective treatment is a combination of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and a process known as sleep hygiene.

With CBT, patients are taught how sleep cycles work and techniques to change negative sleeping attitudes. Patients learn to substitute sweeping statements like “I have to get seven hours of sleep tonight, or I won’t be able to go to work tomorrow” with positive and realistic views like “I can still go to work tomorrow, and I’ll make up for the lack of sleep tomorrow night.”

Sleep hygiene behaviors also help treat insomnia. Patients are taught sleep-promoting behaviors like exercising regularly except three hours before bedtime and going to sleep at the same time each night. Clinicians also say it’s important that sleep isn’t forced—if it’s been longer than 30 minutes and you feel restless, remove yourself from bed and retreat to a different space while undertaking a relaxing activity, like reading, until you can’t keep your eyes open. Since the bedroom often becomes a source of anxiety for insomniacs, doctors also suggest techniques that help soften muscles, like yoga and meditation. Medication should be the last resort for chronic insomniacs, since the problem might persist for years.

And while insomniacs wish they slept a little more, those suffering from narcolepsy would like to sleep less. You know that feeling on Thanksgiving when you feel like you’ve overdosed on turkey tryptophan and you might hunker down at the dining room table? Narcolepsy is like Thanksgiving every day minus the thanks.

These sleepers suffer from excessive daytime sleepiness and periodic sleep attacks and usually loss of muscle consciousness, known as cataplexy. Sudden emotions like laughter or anger precipitate cataplexy, and in these instances you might be mid-argument and lose all feeling in your legs and collapse to the floor. These episodes last nearly 30 seconds and make the diagnosis easier, since cataplexy is unique to narcoleptics.

Those who lack cataplexy make diagnosis trickier, and some of these narcoleptics are often left undiagnosed for years. To find out whether one qualifies, diagnostic testing in a sleep disorder center is necessary. Patients who lack cataplexy but suffer from excessive fatigue to the point where they can’t perform at school or work would perhaps benefit from seeing a sleep specialist. Currently, the best treatments are stimulant medications.

Our bodies need sleep like we need water, which makes finding the right treatment essential. In fact, those who are deprived of sleep for longer than 100 hours experience hallucinations, paranoia and behaviors resembling mental illness. But getting too much shut-eye isn’t productive for one’s social life, either. It’s important to seek help in any capacity so that when the moon rises and it’s a new night, we’re able to attain what this nation stands for: life, liberty and the pursuit of sleep.

This article originally appeared in Our Town Downtown.

Distinction 1:

• Passionate people are win-win.
• Opinionated people are “zero sum.”

Distinction 2:

• Passionate people are focused on what feels true and right for them.
• Opinionated people are focused on being right more than what feels right to them.

Distinction 3:

• Passionate people don’t take it personally nor do they take offense if you disagree with them because they would rather continue focusing on what they’re passionate about than engage in an argument with you.
• Opinionated people do take it personally and take offense if you disagree with them; in fact the most opinionated people will react that way if you don’t enthusiastically agree with them.

Distinction 4:

• Passionate people are more secure because they are satisfied in just doing their thing.
• Opinionated people are less secure in that they too often are trying to prove or show that they’re right and that if you differ, you’re wrong or even stupid.

Distinction 5:

• Passionate people are more aspirational and are lifelong learners.
• Opinionated people are more ambitious and are lifelong competitive and focused on winning and not losing.

Distinction 6:

• Passionate people are lower maintenance, i.e. easy to please (just let them do what they’re passionate about) and difficult to upset (unless you’re aggressively thwarting what they’re passionate about).
• Opinionated people are higher maintenance, i.e. difficult to please (because they’re also often obsessive and compulsive about their POV) and easy to upset (if you disagree or just see things differently than them).

Distinction 7:

• Passionate people have an easier time with aging because they don’t mind as much when life begins to say, “No,” to them with regard to health and other limitations.
• Opinionated people have a tougher time with aging, because all through their lives they have had a tough time accepting, “No,” for an answer and when life inevitably begins to say it to them, they often go into a funk.

Now of course the above is just my humble -- but passionate -- opinion.  Therefore I am open and in fact welcoming of yours.

A warm welcome to our guest blogger, Dan Oren, psychiatrist and clockwatcher extraordinaire. Dan’s clinical work and research on biological timing, at Yale and the National Institute of Mental Health, is a model of creativity, and a forceful challenge to status quo thinking. He is co-author of the classic paperback, How to Beat Jet Lag: A Practical Guide for Air Travelers, and a Board member of the Center for Environmental Therapeutics. Here is Part I of his two-part series.

***

Most everyone who’s travelled across three or more time zones has experienced jet lag, aka “desynchronosis,” the cluster of symptoms including feelings of drowsiness or lethargy, and a tendency to fall asleep during the day, inability to fall asleep at night, and waking up too early in the morning. It may be associated with physical symptoms that result from having to stay awake when your body tells you it’s bedtime. It can also result in difficulties in thinking and concentrating that can impair efficiency and judgment.

Most of us end up just grinning (or grimacing) and bearing it, while others resort to a variety of remedies that have come on the market, such as the hormone melatonin. But these are sold in the U.S. (as well as extensively in Europe and elsewhere) as an unregulated supplement, thereby providing no assurance of drug dosage or quality, and placebo-controlled trials of melatonin for the treatment of jet lag have yielded unclear results even though some users swear by it.

The Circadian Rhythm Shift

Instead we will focus on how to use the primary “zeitgebers” (time-signals) of light and darkness to shift disrupted circadian rhythms. Jet lag severity depends on several factors, most importantly the number of time zones crossed. Our bodies easily and quickly adapt to one- or two-hour changes in our sleep and activity cycles, but on flights across oceans and between, say, Europe and Asia, severe and lingering symptoms may result. In one study it took travelers who crossed this number of time zones an average of 12 days before they recovered completely from their jet lag.

A second factor is the direction of travel. Travelers flying eastward tend to have a harder time adjusting to the new time zone that those travelling westward. Going east, you need to set your watch ahead to a later time, night will come sooner than in your time zone of origin, and you’ll need to go to sleep earlier and wake up earlier than if you hadn’t taken the flight. For the first several days after arrival, though, your body rhythms will tend to make you want to go to sleep later and wake up later than those living in your new time zone. So it’s necessary to shift your rhythms earlier to bring them in sync with the new time zone—and the sooner the better. It’s more difficult for most people to go to sleep earlier than usual than it is for them to stay up later, which is necessary when one travels in a westerly direction.

The body’s clock has a rhythm of its own. Even if you were to stay in a dark cave for many days without any access to the outside world and without knowledge of the time of day, the body clock would continue to dictate a pattern of sleeping and waking in a rhythm of slightly longer than 24 hours. It is this tendency for our intrinsic rhythms to exceed 24 hours in length that makes it easier for people to shift their rhythms later rather than earlier and to adjust to westward as opposed to eastward travel. If you were completely isolated from all external time cues, your biological rhythms would, over time, drift out of sync with the daily rhythms of the outside world. Under normal circumstances, these rhythms run in sync with the 24-hour day-night cycle because environmental influences, especially light and darkness, reset the clock each day and keep them in harmony.

To shorten the process of adjustment to local time, we can take advantage of what we know about the influence of internal time cues on our clock and their effects on our biological rhythms.

The Importance of Light and Dark

Exposure to light versus darkness at different times of day results in different degrees of change in the biological clock. Based on early research of this principle, Drs. Alfred Lewy and Serge Daan used their predictions about the effects of bright light on human circadian rhythms to modify the symptoms of two individuals who travelled to Europe nine time zones from the West Coast of the United States. They treated one with a carefully timed regimen of light and darkness that was intended to enhance adaptation to the new time zone, and the other with a regimen calculated to delay adaptation. Their predictions were borne out when the first of the two subjects adjusted to the new time zone within six days, whereas the second took more than 12 days to adjust. This essay follows the timing principles developed by Lewy and Daan (though other regimens may also be effective).

It’s important that these interventions be carried out at just the right times, since exposure to light (or darkness) at the wrong times can actually make your jet lag worse and delay your adjustment to the new time zone.

The general principle of what is called a PRC (a phase response curve) is that exposure to light in the early part of the night tends to delay circadian rhythms—that is, to push them later so that you want to go to sleep later. On the other hand, exposure to light in the later part of the night and early part of the morning tends to advance circadian rhythms—that is, to push them earlier so that you want to sleep earlier.

At some time during the night the so-called “switch point” occurs—the point that separates the time when light delays circadian rhythms and the time when light advances them. In most people, the switch point of the PRC probably occurs around 4 A.M, although in some it will be earlier and in others later. Just before the switch point is the time when exposure to light leads to the most profound delays in circadian rhythms. In other words, if you are exposed to bright light at, say, 3 A.M., then over the ensuing days you will tend to wake up and go to sleep later than you would otherwise have done. Conversely, just after the switch point is the time when exposure to light leads to the most profound advances. In other words, if you’re exposed to bright light at, say, 5 A.M., then over the ensuing days you’ll tend to go to sleep and wake up earlier than you would otherwise have done.

Clearly then, an understanding of this switch point, and the opposite circadian effects of exposure to light on either side of it, is central to developing strategies for averting or minimizing the jet lag that ordinarily occurs after you fly across time zones.

At this point, it would be useful to understand what it means to be exposed to light or to darkness. Light exerts its influence on the biological clock via direct nerve connections between the eyes and the brain. It is the exposure of your eyes to light or to darkness that influences your circadian rhythms and therefore affects your adjustment to a new time zone.

Cautious Light Exposure

Never stare directly at the sun or at very bright incandescent lights, such as halogen lights, since this may be harmful to the eyes. Artificial light not diffused by a screen is concentrated in very bright “hot spots” that can injure the eyes. In addition, some people suffer from certain eye conditions, particularly those involving the retina, which can be made worse by bright light. If you believe you may be suffering from such an eye problem, be sure to consult your doctor before exposing your eyes to bright light of any type. In all situations, considerations of safety should be given priority over those involving minimising the symptoms of jet lag.

Indirect natural sunlight is the best type of bright light for resetting your biological clock and helping you to overcome jet lag. It is often possible to be exposed to natural sunlight at those times when such exposure will help you avoid jet lag.

During times when avoiding light is called for, the darker the environment, the more likely it is to have the desired effect on your circadian rhythms. During daylight hours, you could wear an eye mask when you sleep, or a pair of dark glasses (preferably the wrap-around type) when you’re awake. However, do not wear dark glasses in any situation where it is critical that you be able to see clearly.

***

Check back next week for Part II, when Dan delves into the role of activity/rest in jet lag, and offers a plan of action. Visit the nonprofit website of the Center for Environmental Therapeutics for more information about biological rhythms, free, personal self-assessments you can take online to find out about your own rhythms, and ways to improve the match between your rhythms and the world around you. For Michael and Ian’s take on jet lag, see Racing the Clock, Racing the Sun in Reset Your Inner Clock.

Our thanks to David Appell and José Balido (Board member of the Center for Environmental Therapeutics) for developing Dan's essay for blogging, and posting it originally on their website, Love2Fly.

Since I put up a post describing pure obsessions, a considerable number of readers have written to ask me if I know of a treatment center in their area. Usually, I do not. I recommend contacting The Obsessive-Compulsive Foundation. They know of trained therapists in different areas of the country.

But there is no standard treatment for this condition, so I feel I should describe what I do. Let me remind the reader, pure obsessions are intrusive thoughts that are often the worst sort of things that that person can imagine. They are unaccompanied by compulsive behaviors, except, perhaps, to avoid situations where those thoughts are likely to be most troubling. They fall more or less into a few distinct categories:

1. Violent thoughts, often against helpless individuals. An example might be stabbing a child in the eye with a scissors.
2. Forbidden sexual thoughts, usually homosexual. “Wouldn’t it be awful, if I suddenly kissed that person bending over me?”
3. Just plain disgusting thoughts, such as drinking urine from a puddle on the floor. Or kissing someone’s behind.
4. Sacrilegious thoughts, such as picturing the Virgin Mary with a penis.

These obsessions have a few elements in common:

1. They are unwelcome and come repeatedly and are very upsetting. Usually the obsessive person worries (some, at least) about actually engaging in these behaviors. That person almost always thinks that these thoughts must come from some unconscious urge and that only a despicable person could have such a thought.
2. In fact, no such awful behavior is ever engaged in by these individuals.
3. Besides being appalling, these thoughts are often ridiculous to everyone except the person having them.
4. They may get worse if the affected person is stressed or depressed.
5. Like all fears, they get worse with avoidance.

My experience is that after a number of months of treatment these awful thoughts tend to subside. But, frankly, as happens sometimes in treatment, it is not always clear to me exactly what has helped the patient. Anyway, this is what I set out to do:

1. It is important to communicate successfully that these behaviors are never engaged in by an obsessional person. (Other people who do not wince at these thoughts, or dread them, do, indeed do such awful things. But they are a different sort of person.)
2. These thoughts seem designed to reprimand the affected person. They occur, in my experience, in people who never give any evidence of behaving in such hostile ways—or in other such embarrassing ways.) I try to convince the patient that these thoughts, therefore, do not represent an unconscious urge to be a terrible person. (I do think they may occur in people who are especially bound to ethical ideas, and they may represent a desire to be less rigid.)
3. I talk calmly about the details of the obsession. Awful fantasies, (like fantasies, in general,) tend to lose their ability to excite or frighten when they are made explicit by talking about them. I try to get the patient to see the fantasies as others see them, as outlandish and ridiculous. If possible, as funny.
4. In situations where the patient can be made to approach the feared situation, I will encourage confrontation--for example, by tying a scissors around the neck of the affected person so that there is always an opportunity to stab someone with it.  That is a statement, first of all, of my confidence in her not doing it. Secondly, the patient can see for herself that she will not impulsively engage in such an act.
5. Sometimes I will make a special effort to make the thought specific and ridiculous by asking the patient to write it out with colored pencils.
6. Finally, I do, as I usually do in therapy, end up talking about important matters: work, relationships and so on; and I think doing so allows these other thoughts to seem unimportant, as they are.   (c) Fredric Neuman   Author of "The Wicked Son."

In olden times we always knew who were rooting for when we went to war. We rooted for us. Just like now. But back then we also knew who we were fighting against. We were fighting the Nazis and their friends, the Japanese, known as “the Japs.” Together they were referred to as “the axis.” Nowadays, things are much more complicated. The saying “the enemy of our enemy is our friend,” no longer applies. A better way of putting it now would be, “The enemy of our enemy is our friend unless he is also the friend of a different enemy who is fighting one of our friends or the friend of one of our enemy’s friend’s.” It is all very confusing. We can still root for us during the Isis Crisis, but it is no longer clear whom we should root against. Sometimes we are rooting for someone we think is a friend, but we are forced to fight the same guys only a few miles away. As a public service, I offer the following guide to the major players:

Iran.       Iran, which used to be one of the good guys when the Shah ran it, is one of the bad guys now. They are trying to build a nuclear weapon. No one wants them to have nuclear weapons, including Russia, which is a nearby country and vulnerable to a nuclear strike. Russia is on our side in that respect and is participating in a boycott of Iran.

Russia.    On the other hand, Russia is trying to recover pieces of the Ukraine it used to have, even though the Ukrainians (and everybody else) wants them to stay away. Nevertheless, they are invading (just a little). Consequently, the Americans and the Europeans are conducting a partial boycott of some Russians and some Russian companies.

Syria.      Syria (the Assad regime) is close friends with both Russia and Iran. Both countries are very supportive of Syria even though that regime has evicted or killed millions of its own citizens. Everyone else is horrified. A rebellion has developed, supported, in theory, at least, by the United States. “Assad has to go,” is the American position.  However, it turns out that some of the groups in the rebellion are also our enemies. More of this later.

Iraq.     Iraq used to be one of our worst enemies. We invaded Iraq in order to establish a democracy, or, at least, to prevent Iraq from invading other countries, like Iran, or poisoning their own citizens, such as the Kurds. With our aid, Iraq has become one of the good guys, more or less.  The Shiite militias in Baghdad fought us for a while, as did the Sunni tribes, but that is mostly over now. The Sunni tribes fought Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which existed in Iraq Sunni territory for a while, until they morphed into the group now known as ISIL or ISIS. ISIS is composed of very, very religious Sunni. Their army is being led by secular elements of the previous Iraqi government. The Shiite militias are fighting with us (or pretending to) against ISIS in order to preserve Iraq as a country, although the Iraqi Kurds are administering their own provinces in expectation that they may form their own country, perhaps in alliance with some Turkish Kurds (The Kurdistan Worker’s Party or PKK) who have been labelled by the United States as a terrorist group.

Turkey.    Turkey is a member of NATO and is, by definition, one of our friends. Initially, they promoted ISIS and other enemies of the Assad Regime because they identified with the aspirations of the Sunnis, who have been persecuted by Assad. However, ISIS has behaved so abominably-- murdering raping, burying children alive, etc.—that President Erdogan of Turkey has taken some tentative steps to oppose them. These steps are tentative because he does not want his restive population of Kurds to ally with the Iraqi Kurds and separate from Turkey. Consequently, he has bombed his own Kurds. The United States is angry at President Erdogan for not moving more quickly in the fight against Isis. On the other hand, Turkey is thinking of opening up its airfields for use by Americans, Europeans and the United Arab Emirates.

Lebanon.   Lebanon is composed of a number of separate groups, including Hezbollah, which is Shi’a and a very powerful terrorist group that came together initially to fight against the Israelis, one of our  closest friends. They have recently invaded Syria to help Al-Assad, who is an Alawite, a branch of Shiite. The Hezbollah are still fighting the Christian Lebanese and the Palestinians (sometimes) and the Lebanese police when they get in the way.  Of course, they are also fighting ISIS. Occasionally, they lob mortars into Israel.

India and Pakistan. Both of these countries are our allies, but they hate each other and have been conducting a war in Kashmir that has been smoldering for generations. Pakistan is allied to some extent with the leaders in Afghanistan but also the Taliban, who are rebelling against the elected government. (Actually, the elections were tied so that Afghanistan has two leaders.) We are fighting in Afghanistan against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in our country’s longest war.  Pakistan is fighting its own branch of the Taliban. But they object publicly when we try to help them with drones.

Egypt. The military has ousted an Islamic, democratically elected government in a coup. They are inclined for their own purposes to favor the Israelis in their dispute with the Palestinians, particularly Hamas, which is a terrorist organization and an offshoot of the Islamic Brotherhood, now banned in Egypt. This makes Egypt one of the good guys now. In a way.

Libya. Libya is no longer a country now that Gadhafi has been overthrown. Various tribes are fighting each other, including Islamic tribes which are being bombed surreptitiously by the United Arab Emirates and perhaps the Egyptians. Some of these Islamic terrorists kill Americans when they can.

The conditions in Iraq are too fluid to characterize accurately; but the newspapers say that some of their armed forces have been infiltrated by groups strongly allied with Iran. They are Shiite, and they are holding back in the fight with ISIS hoping the United States will re-invade. (Which Iran says it does not want.) Some of the Shiites in government are fighting amongst themselves.

An obvious background to all these quarrels is the fundamental dispute between the Shi’a and the Sunni. This death struggle, which has been waxing and waning since the fifth century, started in an argument over who was the proper successor to Mohammed. This disagreement has not proven amenable to compromise over the succeeding fifteen hundred years.

Reading about all of this—between one thing and another—a great dissatisfaction has grown up in this country about Obama’s leadership. He’s been in office for six years, the complaint goes, and he should have been able to straighten out this mess by now.  (c) Fredric Neuman    Author of "Come One, Come All."

Everyone recognizes there is a value to assertiveness. Achieving goals—any sort of goal—is more likely when someone reaches out to achieve them, rather than waiting around for “the right circumstances.” But sometimes assertiveness is confused with aggressiveness. For example, patients in the middle of a contentious and bitter divorce often reach out for a lawyer who they think will be “tough.”  “Tough” is usually recognized by a blustery and food-stomping manner. The fact is, of course, that belligerence is not necessarily, or even usually, a reflection of competence. Sometimes, in the divorce courts, it is a kind of game, where lawyers play to the audience—namely, their clients—without speeding up the divorce proceedings or in any other way furthering the real interests of that client.

Some people conduct their own lives along similar lines. They interact with others as if they are trying to score points rather than achieve any particular purpose. Every encounter becomes a contest with a winner and a loser. But even if they win a particular argument by being more insistent, or more threatening, they lose influence with those who are close to them since their behavior will be resented. No one likes to be yelled at all the time.

There are some with particular problems that are likely to make them overly aggressive:

Individuals who think someone is always taking advantage of them:

An elderly widow used to call up her daughter and complain that she was not invited over to her house as often as her in-laws were.

“You should be having me over twice as often since I am a widow,” she told her angrily.

The consequence of her repeated demands was that her daughter dodged her phone calls and spoke to her as infrequently as possible. When I pointed out that she was not achieving her purpose by these strident remarks, she replied: “If I don’t stand up for myself, who will?”

She similarly scolded tradesmen and deliverymen and others who seemed not to accord her the respect she thought she was entitled to.

Another man wrote anonymously to all his neighbors complaining about garbage piled up on their front lawns, or cars parked too closely to his driveway, or parties that  went on too late into the evening. He threatened to contact the police. Most of his neighbors ignored him, but one went out of his way to play his radio loudly late at night.

There are others who complain about the phone service, the unreliability of the electric grid, and about public services in general. They complain to the wrong people, though, usually to a deliveryman or a postal worker, as if these individuals, themselves, were responsible. They fight back against the various injustices they suffer every day in a diffuse and ineffectual manner. Sometimes they make trouble for themselves. Drivers who feel that they have been singled out unfairly for reprimand by a policeman argue and annoy the officer with the result that they are given a ticket instead of being let off with a warning.

 I remember one young man who had been admitted into a psychiatric ward without adequate reason—in his opinion. He expressed his disagreement by physically resisting nurses and attendants and, consequently, was tied to a stretcher overnight. In particular, I remember a young husband who came before a judge in a divorce proceeding. He was a very bright man who had researched the legal issues in his case. When the judge made a legal error, he pointed it out to him and then refused to remain silent when instructed to do so. He spent the night in jail. The judge did not go out of his way to favor him during the subsequent course of his divorce.

Being aggressive is often ineffective. Commanding assent will not insure a favorable response.

There is another sort of person who mistakes aggression for assertiveness. These are Individuals who have always considered themselves too inclined to “give in.” They think of themselves as cowardly.

These are individuals who have grown up afraid of others. They remember numerous incidents when they did not stand up to someone—another student, perhaps or an adult—who was pushing them around. They have resolved in the present to assert themselves more effectively—which in their minds usually means having a retort ready if someone speaks to them dismissively or rudely. They think that if someone gets angry at them, they should get angry right back. They are likely still, by virtue of habit, to respond softly and agreeably, but they tend to ruminate afterwards about what they should have said. In their minds an ideal response would be tough and uncompromising. When they do finally speak up their response is often exaggerated and out of proportion to the circumstances. They seem defensive. Often they imagine themselves being disrespected when all they have really experienced is disagreement.

Let me suggest a different definition for assertiveness: being assertive means behaving in a way that is most likely to achieve one’s purpose. By that standard most successfully assertive persons will have a repertoire of ways of acting depending on the circumstances. There are times when the right thing to do is to be conciliatory. There are other times when it is appropriate to be resistant and insistent. If someone is actually attacked, verbally or otherwise, it is appropriate to respond by resisting forcibly. There are times when the sensible thing to do is to appeal to others for help.

Let me give just two examples:

 A worker having to deal with an overly critical boss. Assume the worker has the goal of doing well and being promoted. It may very well be appropriate initially to agree without argument with the boss’s complaints, however unreasonable they may be. If those complaints become serious, it may be appropriate to argue back. If those complaints are rude, it may be appropriate to point that out angrily, or even to leave the room. If the boss cannot be satisfied, asserting oneself might mean complaining to a higher boss, or even planning to leave the job for another. Being conciliatory when being taken advantage of systematically would certainly not be appropriate. On the other hand, arguing too readily might seem to others that the worker has a chip on his/her shoulder. Certainly, answering back just to “get something off my chest” is never advisable in a work setting, and is certainly not an example of asserting oneself.

A woman anxious to maintain a faltering relationship. A lover becoming more distant and less affectionate is a situation familiar to many. Assuming the goal of the partner is to reconstitute that relationship, it would not be assertive to scold the lover for being inattentive. Such behavior would be likely to drive him/her further away. Patience is usually called for. Being hurt is natural, getting angry overtly is not usually desirable; and it is controllable. On the other hand, overt betrayal should not be handled in a patient or dismissive way. Otherwise further such behavior would be encouraged. Judging exactly how patient one should be in this situation is difficult. There comes a time when it is best to walk away. Sometimes walking away is the most assertive thing someone can do—and, incidentally, sometimes the thing that is most likely in the future to encourage resumption of the relationship.

Of course, there are many other reasons why someone might react in certain situations too aggressively. Someone may feel threatened when no such threat exists. Someone else in other situations may respond angrily in order to compensate for feeling guilty about having done something wrong. Still, in all these situations, it is appropriate to ask oneself, what is my goal in this situation? What do I want to accomplish? And then, insofar as it is possible, to behave in a way that accords with achieving that objective. God knows, it is hard enough to succeed in life without antagonizing everyone along the way. (c) Fredric Neuman Author of"Worried Sick?"

Women talk about everything and anything. You name it. Women will reveal their insecurities, their latest diet, the trials of their uterus, their dreams the list goes on. Any topic is fair game. Two women strangers sitting next to each other on a two-hour plane ride will arrive at their destination knowing how many children each has, their marital troubles, any school dilemmas, and what kind of birth control they each use.

Another popular chick topic is the blues. Women talk freely about their troubles personnel or personal. They’re not afraid to discuss fears or self-doubts. “Get me out of here,” men scream. “Geez, I don’t want to hear it.”

Chick topics are the same ingredients as “chick flicks.” Why do you think Sex and the City was so popular among women and loathed among men? When the movie came out, men all but hid under couches to avoid it. But it was like home for women, where they could laugh at Miranda’s overgrown bikini line (“Jesus, honey? Wax much?”) and empathize over Carrie’s broken heart. And the movie’s biggest problem: when Miranda didn’t tell Carrie something. Alas! That’s so not okay among girlfriends.

No male version of Sex and the City exists, and moreover, there’s no demand for one. Men tend to talk about “safe” topics: sports, finances, and work. Can you imagine two men discussing their qualms with Viagra? Yeah, right. The level of disclosure is higher among women than men.

In one of our training programs, one woman said she talked to her sister on the phone for an hour, and when she was done, her husband exclaimed, “You just talked to your sister about nothing for an hour!” Those “nothing” topics? Her aging parents, the trials of raising teenagers, and at what house they would spend the holidays. Not her husband’s favorite topics. Not to mention an hour-long phone call. But for women, this is the stuff of life.

Psychologist and corporate consultant Dr. Judith Tingley once described the differences in women and men’s conversation topics. It stemmed from a sailing lesson she took with four men and a male instructor. In Tingley’s words: “The majority of the conversation centered on business and money.  There was no discussion of people, feelings, or relationships. No one mentioned a wife, a child, a brother or sister, a mother or father. The conversation was almost totally about each individual man and what he had done or seen or been, relative to sports, business, or money. Men are private about anything having to do with relationships, feelings, and emotions. They usually only disclose to significant others the private aspects of their lives.”

You’ll Never Guess What Happened to Me Today

In Nice Girls Don’t Get the Corner Office 101, Lois Frankel says women need to practice beginning their sentences with declarative “I” statements, such as “I think,” “I feel,” “I believe,” “I intend,” and “I need.” Women often feel the need to almost trick the listener into listening to them. Instead of tricking the listener, women need to use the more assertive “I,” taking ownership and putting opinions on the table. No behind-the-scenes strategy.

Do Women Talk Like Little Girls?

This brings us to another common linguistic pattern that women and children share: they tend to use “attention beginnings” to bait the listener. For example: “You’re not going to believe this,” “D’ya know what?” and “I had a crazy thing happen on the way to work today.” These intros sounds like teasers on television news programs: “Stay tuned, because you don’t want to miss the next report!”

It seems like women need to coax the listener’s attention. A woman simply cannot get the floor and gain the listening ear unless she entices the listener.

Women and men are two different speech communities. From the college classroom to the corporate world, women typically use forms of speech that you rarely hear from men, such as “qualifiers,” embedded with disclaimers.

Disclaimers are apologies and excuses that women offer before they make a point. Women use this to distance themselves from the claim they are about to make rather than take ownership for it. After all, if a woman is wrong or someone doesn’t like it, hey, she warned you first don’t hold it against her. Disclaimers are a form of protection, as well as an apology for speaking.

A classic qualifier sounds something like this: “Um, I don’t know if this is a good idea (disclaimer), but I thought we could  (hypothetical, not a direct request)” or “This probably sounds stupid (disclaimer), but I thought one way we could handle this  (once again, just a suggestion).” Starting a sentence like this pads it with unnecessary verbiage.

This is a strategy to make an idea more acceptable to the listener, but in the process women, pull the rug out from underneath their own credibility. As soon as others hear the words “This might be stupid ,” they disengage. If you think it’s stupid, don’t waste our time with it. They write off the idea and the speaker. They don’t listen.

Many men agree: women can’t just say something; they need to say something before they say it.

When women qualify their statements, they do sound less categorical, making them less likely to offendthe listener. Qualifiers have their place. Use qualifiers when you want to convey politeness, connection, or thoughtfulness. However, a word of warning: if use you qualifiers too much, they become your crutch. And when you need to take a strong stance, this crutch will get in the way. Listeners will view you as too soft. You don’t sound authoritative, and you have diminished your credibility.

We once had a woman in a seminar ask why men sound like they know it all. She went on to say that men talk with such authority and certainty that no one would think to question them.

This is taking charge. A man like this is assertive and acts confident, even when he’s uncertain. He has learned the lesson that you must fake it until you make it. And his image is on the line. For men, these verbal efforts at control start when they’re young boys.

When taking piano lessons in elementary school, I was introduced to the concept of the rest note—an interval of silence within a piece of music. A rest note creates a deliberate pause, a temporary break in the action. Although they often pass by unnoticed, rest notes are a vital part of musical structure. They keep the other notes from stringing together in a breathless and chaotic way. Our written language includes these rest notes as well: We place periods at the ends of sentences, and we use breaks between paragraphs that convey different ideas.

In life, too, we need these spaces for rest. We have our daily need for sleep, of course. But even our regular weekly rhythm includes a weekend. In addition, some faith traditions strongly endorse the practice of a day of rest. In the Bible, for example, the idea of resting after six days of work was modeled by God (Genesis 2: 2-3) and actually became a commandment for people to follow (Exodus 20:8). In psychological terms, taking some space to rest during the weekend is like placing a period at the end of one week before turning our attention to the next one. Without that space of rest, we can start to feel like our days and weeks are blurring together. 

In addition to physical sleepiness, here are some signs that you might need a rest: 

Inefficiency and procrastination. You might start to put things off or to work inefficiently, picking around the edges of tasks rather than really diving in. (I notice this a lot when I try to put in a full day of effort on Saturday after working all week.)

Poor decisions. You lapse into tunnel vision, desperately trying to get closure on whatever task is at hand. Too fatigued to evaluate the importance of your current goal, you compulsively pursue it so that you can finally check it off your list; but later you look back and see that most of your day is now gone, with other, more important things left undone. 

Irritability and resentment. You start to get grouchy because it seems like you are running from one “should” to another, and your own personal needs are being left in the dust. Over time, this lack of attention to your own needs starts to feel more and more unfair. You're gritting your teeth to get through the day. And then if someone comes to you with another request or a problem, you’re likely to resent the intrusion much more than you normally would. You might find yourself getting unusually impatient or frustrated with other people or tasks.

Under these conditions, it might seem pretty clear that you'd benefit from a break, a chance to step out of that stream of activity. But what might that much-needed rest look like? For most of us, some additional sleep would be in order. But perhaps more central to the idea of rest is time off from our usual goal-related pursuits, especially those that feel burdensome. Depending on the circumstances, your rest could take the form of a half-hour break during a busy day, a whole day off, or a longer vacation. 

Regardless of how long it lasts, a rest note will ideally allow you to meet some of your personal needs. Since you'll be seeking restoration and replenishment for your soul, it’s worth being mindful about where to focus your attention. The simple fact that you’re not working doesn’t necessarily imply that you’re resting. If your “break” involves reading gloomy news stories, watching movies with dark themes, or having lunch with a friend who needs a lot of support, then it’s worth asking yourself: Am I really getting a rest here?

In terms of recharging yourself mentally and emotionally, it's valuable to go beyond simply taking a break from work. For at least part of your time off, try to turn your attention toward something positive: something that you find enjoyable, beautiful, or refreshing. Depending on your personality and interests, you might seek out family or friends, an engaging book or movie, or a delicious meal. You might choose to indulge yourself with your favorite music or a beautiful view. (Even if you can’t easily go somewhere with eye-catching scenery, you might be able to partly meet that need with scenic videos or photos, or by imagining yourself in a lovely place.)

Yet even if convinced of the benefits of rest, many of us have trouble allowing ourselves to take a break. If this is a problem area for you, stay tuned: Next month I’ll focus more specifically on this topic.

Just after the First World War a big American company put out a ‘policy memorandum’ entitled “Forbidding discussion among employees of salary received. It threatened to “instantly discharge people” who disclosed their ‘confidential’ salary in order to avoid invidious comparison and dissatisfaction.

The staff would not accept this. The next day the staff walked around with large signs around their necks showing their exact salaries. They refused the idea of secrecy/

The same issue continues to this day. People are warned that pay discussion simply fuels ‘hard feelings and discontent’. In some organisations “confessing your salary to others” is a sackable offence. It is in the work contract

So why do bosses want pay secrecy? Or do they? What are they trying to cover up? Does pay secrecy lead to lower motivation and satisfaction or the other way around?

There have been studies on this topic that show that secrecy is prevalent in most organisations and that workers actually want it. It may be illegal in some places.

Pay secrecy is however rather complex. An organisation may keep information back about an individual or levels of pay, but and or provide ranges or average pay rises. Or it may restrict the manner in which pay information becomes available. Or it may threaten heavy sanctions for disclosure and discussion.

There may be secrecy about pay level and structure as well as the basis and form of pay. Some employers very actively restrict the way pay information is made available. But of course it is pay level that is the really hot one.

Pay secrecy is not an all-or-nothing. There is a continuum from complete secrecy to complete openness. For many pay secrecy is about respectful privacy. And pay secrecy is about individualism.

In a 2007 Academy of Management Review Paper (Vol 32, 55-71) four American business academics looked at the costs and benefits of pay secrecy. They argued that there were various costs:

 Employee judgements about fairness, equity and trust may be challenged. If people don’t know who is paid what they surely infer or guess it. But uncertainty generates anxiety and vigilance about fairness. People believe that if information is withheld it is for good reason. This in turn affects three types of justice judgements: informational (it being withheld); procedural (lack of employee voice and potential bias) and distribution (compressing the pay range).

 Judgements about pay fairness will, if they have to, be based on a general impression of the fairness in the organisation. People see all manner of things (hiring, firing, perks) that are vivid and memorable examples of “fairness”. So even if they have a “fair but secret” pay policy it will be judged unfair if other, perhaps unrelated, actions do not look fair.

 Secrecy breeds distrust. Openness about pay signals integrity. Secrecy may enhance view about organisational unfairness and corruption. Further it signals that the organisation does not trust its employees. So secrecy reduces motivation by breaking the pay for performance linkage.

 People need to have, and perform best when given goals/targets/KPI linked to rewards. But if they do not know the relative worth of the rewards (i.e. in pay secrecy) they may well be less committed to those goals.

 Pay secrecy could affect the labour market because it could prevent employees moving to better-fitting and rewarding jobs. Pay secret organisations may not easily lure or pull good employees from other organisations. Secrecy makes the market inefficient.

But on the other hand pay secrecy can deliver real advantages to the organisation:

 Secrecy can enhance organisational control and reduce conflict. Pay differentials can cause jealousy. Thus hiding them may prevent problems in the esprit de corps. Making pay open often encourages managers to reduce differences. That is, the range distribution is narrower than the performance. So, paradoxically, secrecy increases fairness in the equity sense, because people can more easily be rewarded for the full range of their outputs.

 Secrecy prevents “political” behaviour, union involvement and conflict. Openness is both economically inefficient and likely to cause conflict.

 Pay secrecy allows organisations more easily to “correct” historical and other pay equity. Again paradoxically managers can both minimise unfairness and discrimination as well as perceptions of those matters more easily by secrecy.

 Secrecy benefits team work, particularly in competitive individuals, organisations and cultures. It encourages interdependence rather than “superstardom”.

 Secrecy favours organisational paternalism in that they can (and do) argue that employees themselves want secrecy, and to reduce conflict, jealousy and distress at learning about others. It can even be suggested that workers might make irrational decisions if they know what their colleagues are (really) paid. So paternalistic secrecy increases control and the “feel good” factor.

 Secrecy is another word for privacy, of increasing concern in a technologically sophisticated surveillance society. Perhaps this is why surveys show people are generally in favour of secrecy, because they do not want their own salaries discussed by their co-workers. People are willing to trade-off their curiosity about the pay of others for not having their package made open.

 Secrecy may increase loyalty, or put more negatively labour market immobility. If people can’t compare their salaries they may be less inclined to switch jobs to those which are better paid. So you get what is called continuance commitment through lack of poaching.

Clearly the cost-benefit ratio depends on different things. Much depends on the history of the organisation. It’s pretty difficult to “re-cork” the Genie if it has escaped the bottle. It also depends on whether good, up-to-date, accurate industry compensation norms really exist. What is - on average - a senior partner in a law firm, a staff-nurse, a store manager paid? The public industry norm information can have a powerful effect on organisations that opt for secrecy or privacy.

The next issue is how the organisation does or claims to, determine criteria for pay allocation. Do they increase payment for years of service, for level, for performance on the job, or for some combination of the above? The more objective the criteria (number of calls made, number of widgets sold), the more difficult it is to keep things secret. Next appraisal systems strive to be objective, equitable and fair. The more they are, the less need for secrecy. Where objective criteria are used staff have less concerns for secrecy. So subjectivity and secrecy are comfortable bed-fellows. People don’t know under pay secrecy what their pay is based on. And secrecy means they can’t predict or believe that in any way they can control their pay usually by increasing it.

When their pay is secret people have to guess how they rank relative to others at the same level. That, no doubt, is why high performers want secrecy more than low performers; they believe they are equitably being paid more and want to avoid jealousy and conflict. If you believe you are well paid because of your hard work then all is well with secrecy. But what if you don’t?

When pay secrecy is abolished some people not only feel angry, they feel humiliated by exposure to relative deprivation. They feel unfairly dealt with and their easiest means of retaliation is inevitably to work less hard.

Pay secrecy is not just an HR issue. It relates to an organisation’s vision and values as well as individual job motivation. Secrecy can lead to more management control, bigger differentials and less conflict. But can you enforce it? Paradoxically the more enthusiastically an organisation tries to enforce secrecy, the more employees might challenge the notion. Individuals and groups chose to talk or not

Three things are clear. Once you have abolished or reduced secrecy the path back is near impossible. Next, if competitors have openness and you have secrecy they might undermine your system. But most importantly, for openness to work you need to be pretty clear in explaining how pay is related to performance at all levels and to defend your system. Otherwise you open the most evil can of worms!