A short article published in 2009 in the “International Journal of Epidemiology” began with a focus on iconic photographs—photographs of a Madonna-like mother holding tenderly her newborn baby.

The author—Ian Beesley—dug around in the national media archives in England in a search of photographs of babies. He discovered that babies were often photographed in an idealized pose, held and cherished in the arms of a caring mother. The images seemed to invoke Mary and the baby Jesus.

Where were the fathers of these newborn babes? Had the children been immaculately conceived? Was the typical absence of fathers in these same kinds of images telling us something that biology didn’t know about human reproduction?

Let’s venture that these children were, actually, the product of sexual behavior. Beesley speculated that one reason the fathers were rarely caught on film is because they were the ones taking the photographs. By capturing these kinds of images, perhaps the fathers shared in recognition of the primordial tie between the mother and child, and a deep appreciation for how their baby’s mother had already shaped the baby in utero and now in hand.

Beesley sought to capture another profile of the newborn babies—with their fathers. As part of the “Born in Bradford” project, a large cohort study of child development, Beesley took a series of photographs of fathers with their brand new babies. This is a diverse group of fathers—in age, cultural background, in dress. One of these “Born in Bradford” baby fathers is shown in the image accompanying this post. You can find a few more in Beesley’s article.

The photos counteract a view that children are the product of only one parent. It took two to make a child, and often lots of others (not just those two) will be involved in that child’s social development. A birth cohort study can help us learn about the various influences on a child’s social behavior and health, including the role of her/his father.

See? (http://www.borninbradford.nhs.uk/gallery/fathers/99/)

Reference:

Beesley, I. (2009). Born in Bradford: Madonna and child or? International Journal of Epidemiology, 38, 917-920. 

You know the story – he sold his pocket watch to buy her combs for her hair; she sold her hair to buy a chain for his pocket watch. The lovers discerned their partner’s greatest joy and gave up their own most precious possession to secure the other’s happiness. Sexlessness results from on figuring out what their spouse most desires and withholding it.

Over and over in my work, I've seen a sexless, loveless marriage reversed with the-gift-of-Magi-kind of sacrifice and generosity. Each must give what the other craves and love and sex will abound.

Example 1 - One woman craved words of appreciation. Insecure about her intellect, her mothering skills and her value, she ached for her partner to affirm her. From an impoverished, abusive childhood, her husband was also insecure about his place in the universe. A doubting Thomas, touch was the only reassurance that reached his soul.

1) Each spouse mistakenly believed that giving the other what they needed would result in personal bankruptcy. “If I give what my partner needs, they will simply take it, go their happy way and not care that I have needs too. I will be left with nothing.”  In fact, the couple's lack of care about each other's needs had gone on for years. Sex was utilitarian, dutiful, or non-existent. Emotional connection was fraught with criticism, agendas and arguments.

2) Selfishness is only a reflection in the mirror for couples. Each desperately hoards the very thing that would bring about their own desired change for the relationship. In this case, I knew she would blossom with grace and sexual generosity if he gave without counting the cost. I knew he would be gentle, kind and calm, if his desire to delight in the sexual playground was joyfully embraced. I had already seen evidence of their true and good natures in our work and glimpsed subtle changes due to their efforts. I saw it before they did.

3) Couples in sexless marriages offer the Anti-Magi gift; they figure out what the other most desires and withhold it.  Their withholding makes the relationship a dessert. Without growth and nurture, their love is depleted.

Let’s look at another couple:

Example 2 - He loved his wife’s fit, beautiful body. Anxious that she would let herself go, he told her early in the marriage that weight control was high on his list. Sex could have been more erotic but as long as he was visually excited, he figured he’d let that wish go and didn’t offer up his own fantasies and desires.

She was a talker. She could talk and wanted to talk just about everything to death. After a series of crises both physical and financial, the couple’s previous functioning dipped well below happy.

He clammed up. She turned to food and the children for succor and comfort. He withdrew sexually. She despaired, felt terribly lonely and hounded him within an inch of his life to figure out what was wrong. His silence punished her for forgetting his deepest need.

1)   Love and desire can be masked as threats and withdrawal during the power struggle. Extremely frustrated at their stuck place, she brought out a huge hammer and started to talk d-i-v-o-r-c-e. Without tools for change and little hope, he said, “Whatever you want.”  Of course what she wanted was for him to open up and fight for her, for them, and for their family.

2)    Truth hurts and frees. He didn’t dare risk telling her about his diminished attraction for fear of hurting her. Of course withholding his words was killing her. I agreed that telling a woman she was too fat and wasn’t desirable was dicey. Yet, I felt that with careful coaching about how to say it might direct a productive change in their lives. He was overweight too now.

3)   Try again. Both partners needed to change. It wasn’t just her weight but her nagging, ceaseless criticism, and negativity that crowded the space between them smothering every erotic impulse he had. I relentlessly had to draw her attention to the way she complained instead of asking directly for what she needed.  I encouraged her to give even though he seemed to be done.

4)   Every sexless marriage has a looping dynamic that keeps them stuck. He withheld his rather scintillating personality and clever conversation leaving her starved. She withheld the eroticism in both body and spirit that she admitted would have made her own life more exciting. They each insisted that the other should go first. “Change, so I CAN change,” argues the fool.  

Magi wisdom is a one-way commitment to love the other.

Link for therapeutic help and weekend intensives from Laurie Watson at SexTherapy in Raleigh, Cary, Greensboro and Chapel Hill, NC. Laurie’s book Wanting Sex Again is available on Amazon!

Please join her on FB!

Many mammals have a bone in the penis that augments stiffening for copulation. Comparative studies by Alan Dixson and colleagues revealed that copulation generally tends to last longer as the penis bone (baculum) increases in length. Mammals possessing a penis bone include the great majority of primates along with most bats, rodents, carnivores and insectivores. But a few scattered exceptions occur among primates. Tarsiers and some New World monkeys (e.g. spider monkeys) lack a penis bone, and the same is true of humans. As all apes possess a small baculum, the most likely explanation for its absence in humans is that it completely disappeared at some stage during the evolution of our lineage.

Was Adam’s “rib” his penis bone”?

In 2001, Scott Gilbert and Ziony Zevit proposed a new interpretation for the figurative biblical account of Eve’s creation with a bone taken from Adam’s body. In the English version of the Bible the ancient Hebrew word tzela (also rendered as tsela) was translated as “rib”, but it actually has a number of alternative meanings, including a strut of some kind. Gilbert and Zevit reasonably proposed that tzela possibly referred to Adam’s baculum instead. Whereas a man’s skeleton, just like a woman’s, has a complete set of twelve pairs of ribs, the penis bone is really lacking. (See my September 3, 2013 post: An Acute Sense of Loss?)

Biologically speaking, the new explanation for Adam’s “rib” suggested by Gilbert and Zevit has an immediate appeal at first sight. But, in my 2013 book on the evolution of human reproduction, I had to admit in all honesty to a potential flaw: How could the originators of the biblical story of Eve’s creation have known that humans are exceptional in lacking a penis bone? In addition to the exceptions among primates, numerous other placental mammal species lack a baculum. This is true, for instance, of rabbits, treeshrews, elephants, sea cows, all hoofed mammals (both odd-toed and even-toed), dolphins and whales. As far as domestic beasts in biblical times are concerned, many are hoofed mammals that consistently lack a penis bone. Although potentially relevant carnivores do have one, it is quite small in cats and conspicuous only in dogs. I concluded that the notion that a bone had been lost from the human penis could only have come from knowledge of the anatomy of dogs. Yet it was difficult to see how that connection might have been made.

Of serendipity and shamans

Two factors recently prompted me to reconsider my skepticism regarding loss of the human penis bone and the biblical tale of Eve’s creation. The first impetus came from reading a very interesting blog posting on the topic of serendipity, defined as “the occurrence and development of events by chance in a happy or beneficial way”. In fact, I am currently benefiting from a Fellowship at the Institute for Advanced Study (Wissenschaftskolleg) in Berlin, with plenty of freedom to probe more deeply into diverse aspects of human reproductive biology. The second, more direct, stimulus came serendipitously from a now completed translation project with my son Oliver. Over the summer, we joined forces to translate Jean Clottes’ book Pourquoi l’art paleolithique from French into English. In this fascinating text, Clottes presents a case for his controversial hypothesis linking Palaeolithic cave art to shamanic rites. Regardless of whether the reader is convinced by his carefully marshalled arguments, the book is an enthralling compendium of information from Clottes’ on-site investigations on five continents of surviving connections between shamanism and rock art. In the chapter reporting information from his extensive travels, Clottes mentions in passing that for a Siberian shaman the bear was the most important animal and that its penis bone was a symbol of power. Bears are widely regarded as rather special because of a tendency to walk around on their hindlimbs. Yet I had never considered bears as a possible source of ancient knowledge about penis bones in the Middle East.

Nowadays, no bears are present in Israel or neighbouring regions; but they did once occur there. The Syrian brown bear, a relatively small-bodied subspecies now classed as endangered, still survives in Transcaucasia and in Iran, Iraq and Turkey. However, it became extinct in historical times in Egypt, Israel, Lebanon and (more recently) Syria. In Israel, the brown bear was still present around a century ago and subsequently went extinct. In fact, bears are repeatedly mentioned in the Bible, so the animal was clearly well known in biblical times. So it is possible that bears once played an important part in shamanic rites in the Middle East in pre-Christian times, in which case ceremonies would surely have included their penis bones. It is therefore entirely conceivable that the absence of a penis bone in men was common knowledge because a relatively large bone was present in bears and actually used in rituals of a religious nature. No information is available on the size of the penis bone in the Syrian brown bear, but in brown bears generally it is about five inches in length. In an extinct Miocene bear found in cave deposits in Spain, five penis bones were recovered with an average length of nine inches. So ancient shamans using caves for ceremonies might possibly have come across unusually large bacula from fossil bears. In any event, the connection between shamanic rites and penis bones of bears does make the Gilbert/Zevit hypothesis far more plausible than I thought a year ago. Now that is serendipity in action.

References

Abella,J., Valenciano,A., Pérez-Ramos,A., Montoya,P. & Morales,J. (2013) On the socio-sexual behaviour of the extinct ursid Indarctos arctoides: An approach based on Its baculum size and morphology. PLoS ONE8(9): e73711:1-5

Dixson, A.F. (1987) Baculum length and copulatory behavior in primates. American Journal of Primatology 13:51-60.

Dixson, A.F. (1995) Baculum length and copulatory behaviour in carnivores and pinnipeds (Grand Order Ferae). Journal of Zoology, London 235:67-76.

Dixson, A.F., Nyholt, J. & Anderson, M.J.  (2004) A positive relationship between baculum length and prolonged intromission patterns in mammals. Acta Zoologica Sinica, 50:490-503.

Gilbert, S.F. & Zevit, Z. (2001) Congenital human baculum deficiency: The generative bone of Genesis 2: 21-23. American Journal of Medical Genetics 101:284-285.

Hosken, D.J., Jones, K.E., Chipperfield, K. & Dixson, A.F. (2001) Is the bat os penis sexually selected? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 50:450-460.

Martin, R.D. (2014) How We Do It: The Evolution of Human Reproduction. New York: Basic Books.

Ramm, S.A. (2007) Sexual selection and genital evolution in mammals: A phylogenetic analysis of baculum length. American Naturalist 169:360-369.

Stockley, P. (2012) The baculum. Current Biology22:R1032-R1033.

See also (particularly recommended):

Map of Life - "Baculum (penile bone) in mammals"
http://www.mapoflife.org/topics/topic_203_Baculum-(penile-bone)-in-mammals/

We men are grateful for pants. Yes, to keep us warm and protect our sensitive skin but more than that, to protect our sensitive self-esteem. We would be very stressed and distracted if, all day we had to compare our endowments to other men’s. Sure, a few would enjoy gloating, but for the rest of us, not so much.

Of course, maybe size doesn’t matter. Maybe it’s the wrong measure of male prowess.

Most of us, male and female, would find days stressful if we walked around with our IQ’s emblazoned on our shirts. A few would gloat. Mensa members sometimes do, but the rest of us would have a hard time.

Of course maybe IQ doesn’t matter. Maybe it’s the wrong measure of our mental prowess. Still, take any measure you like: EQ (emotional intelligence) for example, or Howard Gardner’s seven intelligences--would you like any objective measure of your mental abilities emblazoned on your shirt? Yes, if you had a high number, otherwise, not so much

We can’t help but notice that some people perform better than others. There are differences and they do make a difference. In a free society we’re ambivalent about comparing them.

Geniuses and fools use the same voting booth, enjoin the same debates, share control over our same collective destiny. In a democracy whether at home, at work or in politics, we’re torn between sharing the power with everyone or allocating it the smarter among us. We don’t trust people who pull rank saying “I’m smarter, so just give in,” nor are we OK with people saying “I get as much say as you” when they haven’t earned their say through smarts, wisdom and study.

It’s no more someone’s fault that they aren’t that mentally well-endowed than it is that their other endowments are modest. We feel compassion for the poorly-endowed. They didn’t choose to be poorly endowed. So we try to avoid comparing endowments. And yet we can’t entirely. We praise the efforts of the least among us, but we still prefer high performance to low.

I offer no solution to this tension that I think lives in all of us. I’m not smart enough to offer one, and I suspect that there just isn’t one. I do think there’s benefit to recognizing the tension and the way it tugs us in opposite directions. Understanding the tension makes us more compassionate with ourselves and others when our hearts give voice to either the collective embrace of everyone, or the selective embrace of the well-endowed.

Image labeled for re-use

Many people are stepping forward to roundly condemn the psychologists who assisted the U.S. Government in developing torture techniques. The current APA President wrote, “Regardless of whether it is an effective interrogation technique, torture is unethical, abhorrent and morally reprehensible.” She also said, “There is no place in the field of psychology for people who are not respectful of human dignity and committed to human rights.” One of the most trenchant critics of APA’s own role in condoning torture agrees with this last statement. I find myself agreeing that torture is reprehensible, but I don’t like the reasons given (human rights).

Two issues the critics repeatedly point to are the amount of money the torture consultants made and the composition of consultant groups asked to condone the practice. I don’t know whether these psychologists were overpaid; my point is that constantly referring to this signals that the critics do not think the human rights argument is strong enough and resort to an emotional disgust at making money which is, in a word, un-American.

APA is criticized for rounding up a select group of experts to condone the use of psychologists in the torture business, and President Bush is condemned for seeking legal opinions from lawyers who were disposed to agree with him. I can’t think of any individual who seeks legal counsel from a neutral authority, much less the President. The President’s lawyer is not the President’s boss, telling him what he can and cannot do. And APA is an old-boy old-girl network. I don’t think I could keep a straight face and complain about the composition of any APA committee, which always depends on whom you know. Instead of decrying the selection of individuals who condoned torture ethically and legally, the critics should be acknowledging that those who participated did so under a colorable argument of legitimacy. Ultimately, it would up to the Supreme Court to say whether “enhanced interrogation” was torture, and from what I’ve gleaned about that Court, from the Civil Rights Cases of 1883 to upholding the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War Two, I would not expect them to stray very far from the tenor of the times.

Truman brought together a group of scholars and humanists from different fields to weigh in on the morality of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. Like every other President who has authorized the use of force, he had to balance the rights of individuals (the Japanese citizens who would be killed or injured) against the needs of the many (the people of all countries who would benefit from ending the war, including the lives of the soldiers and civilians that would be sacrificed in an invasion). People still criticize Truman for his weighing, even though the bombs probably saved a million lives by ending the war.

In my view, Bush and Cheney were also balancing the rights of individuals against the needs of the many, which is what we elected them to do. I personally think they got it wrong, underestimating the unintended consequences of torture on our national morale and on the stiffening morale of our enemies, and overestimating its effectiveness in gaining good information. But as much as I disagree with them about the decision, and as much as I think it was a decision steeped in privilege, I don’t see any reason to doubt that it was made in good faith. (The great destroyer of privilege is to be put in the shoes of the unprivileged, and it is no surprise that John McCain, who was himself tortured as a prisoner of war, isn’t confused about how wrong it is.)

This “human rights” business is tricky. It sure sounds post-political and transcultural, but it isn’t. Our definition of human rights is steeped in our own cultural tradition. The fact that I agree with this tradition might mean I’m right, or it might mean that I grew up in America. We’re so quick to demean other cultures whose citizens swallow their cultural values that it makes me take pause when I am spouting my own.

Malaysia recently convicted President Bush of war crimes in absentia. If they get their hands on him, they could imprison or kill him. I imagine there are a lot of people who think President Obama has commit acts of terror and various war crimes. So what? If the Taliban ever does to our country what we did to theirs, I expect to be summarily executed for my own crimes against humanity, because from their point of view, anyone who has interfered with a person’s likelihood of entering Paradise has committed a crime against humanity. It’s remarkably easy to sound smug and self-righteous when you’re holding the guns.

You hear a lot about Nuremberg in this discussion, and many people still hold to the belief that the Nuremberg trials stood for the proposition that “just following orders” is not a legitimate defense, that one has to answer to a higher definition of human rights if your country gets invaded. Nuremberg was cited by APA when it changed its ethical rules in 2010, in response to the torture issue, from “psychologists may adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing legal authority” to “under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights.” But the law of your country represents what the body politic defines as human rights, and to hold psychologists accountable for behavior that supposedly violates these rights that are condoned by law is to claim that the APA Ethics Committee knows more about how things should be than our elected representatives do. That’s not exactly what I would call a democracy.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Harlan Fiske Stone, understood the Nuremberg trials perfectly as they were going on, calling them a “high-grade lynching party.” He said he could not care less what happened to the Nazis, but to hang them under color of law made a mockery of our jurisprudence. The Nuremberg trials stand for the proposition that “he who holds the gun makes the rules,” not for the proposition that there is some higher law we are obligated to. Because the latter sensibility raises the question of who gets to decide what that higher law is.

So, yes, shun the psychologists complicit in torture; don’t hire them; don’t shake their hands if you meet them. But spare me the sanctimony.

A recently released report by the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence focused on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  According to the report, among the “enhanced interrogation techniques” used in this program was sleep deprivation:

“Sleep deprivation involved keeping detainees awake for up to 180 hours, usually standing or in stress positions, at time with their hands shackled above their heads. At least five detainees experienced disturbing hallucinations during prolonged sleep deprivation and, in at least two of those cases, the CIA nonetheless continued the sleep deprivation.”

Since the release of the report, Americans have debated whether or not the methods used by the CIA can be properly called “torture.”  I don’t know about the other methods, but I do know that the methods of sleep deprivation reportedly used are clearly acts of torture.  In fact, prolonged sleep deprivation is an especially insidious form of torture because it attacks the deep biological functions at the core of a person’s mental and physical health.  It is less overtly violent than cutting off someone’s finger, but it can be far more damaging and painful if pushed to extremes.

Why is this?  Start with the fact that sleep is a basic biological necessity for all humans, indeed for all creatures on the planet.  There is some natural variability and flexibility in the sleep cycle, hence people can go 24 or more hours without sleep in the right circumstances, without any lasting harm other than additional “rebound” sleep the next time they are able to sleep normally.  However, if a person is deprived of sleep for longer than that, several mental and physical problems begin to develop. 

The first signs of sleep deprivation are unpleasant feelings of fatigue, irritability, and difficulties concentrating.  Then come problems with reading and speaking clearly, poor judgment, lower body temperature, and a considerable increase in appetite.  If the deprivation continues, the worsening effects include disorientation, visual misperceptions, apathy, severe lethargy, and social withdrawal. 

For ethical reasons, professional researchers have never pushed the deprivation process beyond this point with human subjects.  Researchers have used animals for more extreme experiments, and the inevitable result is that prolonged sleep deprivation will eventually kill a creature. Various behavioral impairments accumulate along the way as the deprivation continues, but if the experiment is pushed far enough the final result is always a widespread physiological failure leading to death.  The cumulative effects of sleep deprivation go beyond the loss of this or that specific function to a precipitous, ultimately fatal decline in all functions.

Part of the reason for this calamitous breakdown is that during sleep the immune system performs a host of vital regenerative functions that are absolutely necessary for a healthy mind and body in waking life.  When a person is deprived of sleep, the immune system becomes unable to perform these functions.  The negative effects become much more intense when people are already sick, injured, or traumatized.  Whatever bodily damage they have suffered will not heal as fast.  Whatever pain they are feeling will get worse.  Whatever new bodily damage threatens them will be harder to defend against. 

Forcibly depriving a person of sleep is a profound assault on the entire biological system at the foundation of that person’s mind and body.

Some have argued that torture, although morally reprehensible, may in some cases be worth it if the information gained helps to save innocent American lives. 

Again, that may or may not be true with other torture methods, but it is almost certainly false in cases using sleep deprivation.  One of the first symptoms of sleep deprivation in humans is a disordering of thought and bursts of irrationality.  Beyond 24 hours of deprivation people suffer huge drops in cognitive functions like accurate memory, coherent speech, and social competence. Eventually the victims suffer hallucinations and a total break with reality. 

Whatever sounds come out of people’s mouths at that point, whatever words they may seem to be saying, have to count as the least reliable kind of information one could possibly conceive.  A mind tortured to that extremity will not provide anything that can be trusted as relevant to the real world.  Even if the person really knew some vital bit of information (e.g., the location of a ticking time bomb), prolonged sleep deprivation will make it less likely the person could accurately and meaningfully communicate that information.  Beyond a certain point the sleep deprived individual can no longer maintain enough cognitive coherence to say anything useful to anyone.

Extreme sleep deprivation of the kind reportedly practiced by the CIA is torture, by any reasonable definition of the term.  Furthermore, it is probably an especially useless form of torture, since the likelihood of gaining “actionable intelligence” from people will diminish the longer they are deprived of sleep.

Since I have been writing this series of blogs about Neurofeedback for Psychology Today, there have been recurring questions about which method of neurofeedback is best for a specific symptom, such as headache, fatigue, memory, stress or sleep problems.  Many have also wondered about which method would be most beneficial for those coping with brain related issues, such as concussion, stroke, MS, and Parkinson’s Disease.

Custom Neurotherapy Based on Dr. Diane's® 5 Prong Approach

I have a neurofeedback patient who recently asked me about LENS (Low Energy Neurofeedback System), because she heard that it is suppose to be the most effective method of neurofeedback, and wanted to know why I wasn’t using it on her. I thanked her for the question and told her that she had inspired me to write this blog about neurofeedback. My answer to her, and my reason for writing this blog, is because one method doesn’t fit all, even if two patients have the same symptoms or brain related issues. It really depends on the person and their whole background.

In prior blogs, I explain that biofeedback is the overall term for various methods that uses information gained by monitoring the brain or body to promote control over what would normally be an involuntary process, such as your body temperature, blood pressure, heart rate or brain waves. The term biofeedback is similar that in the same way that all fruits are similar; apples and bananas are two different types of fruit, but they are both fruit nonetheless. Just like different pieces of fruit, there are different methods of biofeedback.

The four major groups as mentioned above are thermal, heart rate, muscular and brain. Thermal help your control your body temperature, while heart rate variability (HRV) helps you to relax and reduce the fight/flight reaction of Post Concussion Syndrome and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  The basic method of training your brain is very similar regardless of equipment or method you use.  HRV is one of the core methods for teaching people internal or self control over your involuntary nervous system. In previous blogs, I noted that I emphasized about internal (self) control verses external methods of training such as various use of equipment, medication, herbs, aroma, and even food.

Muscular biofeedback called electromyography (EMG) is a technique for evaluating and recording your muscular activity in your body and provides feedback to retrain the injured or paralyzed muscles. This method is extremely effective with patients who are paralyzed due to a stroke or back injury.  When I had my 60 mile-an-hour head-on auto accident, I injured three cervical, four thoracic, and three lumbar discs.  Also, from my stroke, I had hemiparesis, which means I was not paralyzed, yet experienced weakness on one side.  I was in chronic pain for almost seven years.  EMG biofeedback truly was a life-saver allowing me to regain my physical ability and movement again, along with the Burdenko Water therapy.

Hemoencephalography (HEG) measures brain blood oxygenation and facilitates training to provide greater blood flow to the frontal lobes, thereby enhancing concentration, memory, and emotional control. It is also extremely effective for headache pain.  Even in this category, there are two of methods.  One method is near-infrared (nIR) spectroscopy and the other is passive infrared (pIR).  While both types measure cerebral blood oxygenation, they vary in the way they are done.

The last major category under biofeedback is neurofeedback, which is also known as electroencephalography (EEG) biofeedback, also known as neurotherapy.  In this category, or subdivision of biofeedback, there are a wide variety of methods with subdivisions and protocols under each method. This is similar to discussing, for example, apples. As you know, some are sweet and some are tart. Some are great for eating, while others are great for baking. Personally, I like New England Greeny for my apple pie.  Now if you live in other parts of the U.S. or the world, you know there are varieties of apples that are only native to your area that make great apple pie or apple sauce.  I personally like warm Macintosh apple sauce.

So, too with neurofeedback, there are a wide variety of methods that do a wide variety of ways of helping your brain to become regulated and to function better.  The ten subcategories are:

• Traditional neurofeedback
• Z-score training
• LENS (Low Energy Neurofeedback System)
• Low frequency training
• Loretta training
• pEMF training
• pRoshi
• NeurOptimal training
• CES (cranial electrotherapy stimulation and self-controlled energy neuro adaptive regulation (Scenar)

Of this list, the CES and pRoshi do NOT have specific protocols.  The CES machine is a FDA approved medical device for depression, insomnia and anxiety. NeurOptimal training and pRoshi methods are based on the brain's ability to return to self regulation. Neither of these methods have specific protocols for a specific symptom or brain related issue. Each of the other seven areas has a wide variety of protocols for specific symptoms or brain related dysfunction or for enhancing specific functions, such as the ability to boost memory.

Providers and Training

The average clinician spends many hours in training to learn a specific method. Training includes positioning electrodes, learning what frequency effects specific symptoms, such as sleep issues, and how to enhance an area, such as increase in recall or to help enhance athletic performance. 

Most clinicians have learned one method and when they have achieved a specified amount of training, they are posted as a provider for that specific method.  Some clinicians have taken specific training and education to obtain a BCIA board certification. Others have their Doctorate in Neuroantomony and are trained in a specific method.  Lastly, there are a vast number of neurofeedback providers who have been trained in many methods and have learned a wide variety of protocols from each.

I personally do not believe there is one method that provides everything to every person because I believe each person is unique and each symptom and brain related issue is just as unique and the individual.  I decide what method or approach I’m using based on my 5 Prong approach and where the patient is at physically and emotionally on the specific day I'm treating them.

This past week a patient of mine, who is paralyzed on the left side from a stroke, was experiencing severe pain.  In the past weeks, I’ve been using low frequency training to help provide him with some mobility. Prior to his working with me, he had not been able to move his arm or leg in three years, even with physical and occupational therapy. The low frequency training has been very successful for him, and he now has sensation in both his arm and leg. He is even able to move his leg and briefly stand on it. During his appointment this week, he complained of experiencing pain in the back of his left leg. Hearing this, I switched my procedure to match his complaint and used a pEMF equipment with a Nogier protocol which indicated he was having gastrointestinal problems. When I shared this information with the patient and his wife, they both laughed and said he was up all night the prior night with severe stomach pain from the Italian food he had eaten. They had failed to mention this when they arrived. We all laughed about this and at the end of the treatment. He left releived from both stomach and leg pain. If I had continued with the prior low frequency treatment, more than likely he would have left my office still in pain.

It is this type of flexibility that is often needed when deciding how to treat patients, yet for some issues and symptoms, one method does work perfectly well.  In next week’s blog, I will present the various methods as they apply to various symptoms, such as sleep and memory problems and brain related issues, such as stroke, concussion, ADHD. 

Hopefully with this information, you can be an educated consumer and find the appropriate clinician and methods for your specific needs.  For more of neurofeedback, please visit my website at www.drdiane.com.

Remember---- There is a Way!®

Copyright © 2014 Dr. Diane Roberts Stoler, Ed.D.

This year's gift guide isn't about what to buy other introverts; it's about gifts you can give yourself that will benefit you through the coming year and ever after. Even better: They don't cost a dime.

A moment: Once a day, step away. Make a point of getting away from everything at least a few minutes every day. Leave the phone behind and go outside, soak in the natural light (even if it's moonlight), look at the sky, look at the trees, feel the air on your skin, and let the rattle in your head dissipate. It doesn't have to be a long time; just a few minutes of nothing in particular is a balm for the mind. If you do have time for a nice stroll, though, better yet. And while I often hook up to music or podcasts when I walk, sometimes nothing but silence will do. Sweet, sweet silence.

The present: No, not A present. THE present. Right here, right now. I know how easy it is to be in love with our own thoughts. We're just so darn interesting. But thinking, thinking, thinking all the time takes you out of the here and now, and life just slips by while you're rummaging around in your own brain. I wrote about overthinking in my last post, "Five Strategies to Help You Stop Overthinking." If you want to explore that in more depth, check out Women Who Think Too Much by Susan Nolen-Hoeksema. Even if you're a man. Even better yet, take up meditation. A lesson or two can help. Or look for free guided meditations (I'm a fan of Tara Brach.)

The right words: Come up with stock phrases you can pull out and use whenever you need them, so you're not grasping for words every time you need to set a boundary. Things like, "Thanks, but I'm going to pass on this (party, game, round of the hokey-pokey, etc.)." Or, "Can we back up a minute? I had something to say about (subject that extroverts chattered past minutes ago)." Or, "I think I'll stay in tonight." Or, "I turn into a pumpkin at midnight, so I better head out now." Invent phrases that suit your style and use them without shame or apology.

Energy for friends: Just 'cause we're introverts doesn't mean we don't need friends. In fact, we need them badly—the quality ones—because we don't go for quantity in friendships. Having fewer friendships makes it all the more important that we nurture those we value. We have to be sure we don't always make those people reach out to us, that we show up when we say we will, that we don't cancel plans too often (occasionally is OK), that we get out of our own heads long enough to get into others' when it matters. This post, about a common habit that can lose you friends, struck a chord with a lot of introverts who visit my Facebook page. Take a look.

Permission: What do you want that society (or family or friends) says you shouldn't? To ignore the phone when it rings? To take a vacation alone? To shut yourself in the house all weekend and watch John Hughes movies? You don't need anyone else's permission to do any these things, so what's stopping you, or making you feel guilty or ashamed? Are you judging yourself? Well...quit it. Give yourself permission to indulge these introvertish desires. And even extrovertish desires, should they arise. Are you nuturing a secret yen to audition for community theater? Why the heck not? Let yourself out of whatever box you've constructed. You have my permission, do you have your own?

If these gifts aren't enough, then buy yourself (or anyone else you love) a copy of my book The Introverts Way: Living a Quiet Life in a Noisy World.Or pre-order my new book Introverts in Love: The Quiet Way to Happily Ever After, which will be available January 6, 2015. Note that anything you buy from Amazon by clicking through from this blog post will earn me a few cents commission.

Chris Guillebeau is the most unassuming leader of a revolution you might ever meet. A prolific writer and world traveler, the soft-spoken Guillebeau is the founder of the popular World Domination Summit, a conference held in Portland, Oregon each July.

It has quickly built a reputation for its quirky activities (like setting a world record for the largest mass yoga exercise) and rabid following among its attendees who are interested in figuring out how to “live a remarkable life in a conventional world.”

In the midst of organizing his 5th annual World Domination Summit this coming July 2015, Guillebeau also recently published The Happiness of Pursuit, his 3rd book.

I recently caught up with Chris and asked him to share his thoughts on how a community of non-conformists have helped fuel his success.

Corcoran: In about 5 years, you’ve published 3 books, created a popular annual conference, created numerous digital products and travel guides, and kept up a popular blog — all while traveling to dozens of countries per year. How?

Guillebeau: I’m very fortunate that I do things I enjoy most of the time. I also believe in working hard for something you believe in. I work everywhere I go and don’t rest much.

Practically speaking, at the end of every year I spend a whole week on an “Annual Review” where I identify all the goals for the next year, and make a plan for how I’ll achieve them. I certainly don’t succeed in all cases, but I do try to do what’s important to me.

Corcoran: You have a reputation for keeping in touch with a large network of other bloggers and entrepreneurs all around the world. How do you manage to keep in touch with your large network of connections and make sure those connections remain warm?

Guillebeau: I’m not sure I always “keep in touch with a large network.” I do try to be available and helpful wherever possible, but that’s different. I fall behind as much as anyone else.

Corcoran: You built a conference, World Domination Summit, which now sells out months in advance. It is also a huge undertaking which I imagine requires coordination of dozens of organizers and volunteers. Tell us about the relationships you’ve built to be able to put on that event each year.

Guillebeau: Yes, it’s definitely not a one-man show. We have a core team of about 8-10 people and then another 100+ volunteers and partners as we get closer to production.

I believe that if you issue a challenge and invitation to be part of something rewarding and meaningful, you’ll get much more commitment out of people. The group that’s worked on WDS hasn’t changed substantially since we started. Many of our volunteers return year after year, and we certainly couldn’t do it without them.

Corcoran: What recommendations do you have for someone who is just getting started with blogging? Should they spend more time writing for their own site or for other sites, or building relationships with other bloggers, or something else?

Guillebeau: All of the above! But if you have to choose, focus on writing for your own site and building a portfolio. Ultimately the most valuable relationships are with your readers, not other bloggers or anyone else.

Always choose your readers over any other concern or interest.

Corcoran: Your new book, The Happiness of Pursuit, documents your quest and others’ quests and also discusses the importance of pursuing adventure in our lives, in whatever way we can. For people who cannot pursue larger quests such as traveling around the globe, how can people implement more adventure in their day-to-day lives?

Guillebeau:“Implementing adventure” is a great way to look at it. Everyone, no matter their situation, can find a way to embrace the value of adventure in their own lives. Some of my favorite stories in the book have nothing to do with running marathons or roaming the earth.

There’s a woman who is cooking a meal from every country in the world—right from her kitchen in Oklahoma. There’s a guy who wants to become a ninja (it’s a long story).

The point is, adventure is for everyone, and adventure is good for us.

Corcoran: Please tell us about a few of the relationships you credit for your success – mentors, friends, business associates, colleagues, other bloggers, etc. These are the people who have been instrumental to your progress and success along the way.

Guillebeau: I give more credit to my community of friends and readers than any mentor. Ultimately, they are the people who have nurtured and supported my projects along the way.

Of course, I’ve learned from plenty of folks, and I’m grateful for them—but a big part of the Art of Non-Conformity message is that you don’t need a mentor or someone to tell you what to do.

John Corcoran is an attorney and former Clinton White House Writer. He writes about how to increase your revenue by building relationships. You can download his free, 52-page ebook, How to Increase Your Income Today by Building Relationships with Influencers, Even if you Hate Networking.

During this holiday season it’s appropriate to share some thoughts on giving and getting. I live in NYC and during these weeks the streets and avenues, stores and outdoor markets are even more crowded than usual—jammed, really—with people shopping. It is, indeed, the “giving” season. The giving is, of course, orchestrated by retailers and their parent companies and the media. The pressure to make your lists, figure your budget (and no doubt spend over it) is very, very strong. I personally don’t participate in it, preferring to give gifts at any time of the year when it feels right. And yet, my friends and relatives who do participate in the holiday tell me that they greatly enjoy the activity of giving to their loved ones at this time of year. I hope that even the most frenzied and the most economically strapped among us feel good about giving.

But psychologically speaking, there’s a lot more to be gained from being giving to others. And each of us has a whole lot more to give than a gift you bought or made for someone this holiday season or some other special occasion. It turns out that giving is psychologically healthy. It can help us grow emotionally and socially—at any age. 

I learned this from the philosopher-therapist Fred Newman. Newman believed that giving was an active sharing of whatever we have, rather than a ritualized transaction. For him, this includes sharing what we think of as “our emotional possessions”— our pathology, our pain and our humiliation.

Newman learned this from his group therapy practice. He saw how hard it was for clients, especially when they were in emotional pain or crisis, to give and let others give to them. But when they did, it was emotionally transformative, not only for them but for their entire therapy group. People felt differently and spoke with each other in new ways. A hallmark of Newman’s therapy, social therapy, is to support people to give their emotionality to others and to help them learn to let others give to them. 

Newman was a social critic whose understanding of how society and culture shape our emotionality informed his practice. His belief in the developmental power of giving was informed by his analysis of the kind of world we are socialized to. To Newman, we live in a “culture of getting.”  In his book, Let’s Develop! A Guide to Continuous Personal Growth(written with Phyllis Goldberg), he devotes an entire chapter to “Giving in a Culture of Getting.” Here he describes the getting culture and how it keeps us emotionally underdeveloped, and he shows how we can all get emotionally smarter if we organize our lives around giving. In other words, even while living in a non-developmental culture of getting, we can still develop by creating our own “subversive” giving culture.

Newman begins the chapter this way:

“Whether or not we believe in the abstract that it’s more blessed to give than to receive, in our everyday lives most of us are practitioners (more or less successful) of getting. Getting is not only a totally legitimate activity in our culture, it’s highly valued. People who are good at getting  (the go-getters) are admired and rewarded. Those who aren’t often become objects of pity or blame; they don’t ‘get it,’ they’re losers, unhip, failures.

We are trained from early childhood to play the getting game. The object of the game is to get as much as you can while giving as little as you can. Although you can’t expect to get something for nothing, the rules of the game say that you give only in order to get. Giving more than you get, or giving anything away if you can get something for it, is a sign of poor judgment—or worse.”

And why give? Because, according to Newman, in such a culture we are actually helped more by giving than we are by getting. Always playing by the rules of the getting culture can leave us socially deprived and emotionally limited. He described his practice this way:

“The social therapeutic approach helps people to break out of the getting mode, to put aside the getting principle (where appropriate) in favor of a more sophisticated and gratifying method for living.”

When people manage to do so, it is usually and not surprisingly, with great conflict.

“…being unusually giving violates a fundamental principle of our culture. So people tend to worry that they’ll be ripped off. In our culture of getting, people are getting ripped off, emotionally speaking and otherwise, much of the time. Paradoxically, it’s only when you’re unconditionally giving emotionally that you can’t get ripped off at all. (Someone named Jesus said that!) What’s more, the more you give, the less time you have to spend and the less mental energy you have to exert worrying that you’ll be ripped off or resenting that you have been. What a relief!”

Becoming a giver in a culture of getting is, among other things, a wonderful process of discovering something about yourself.

“How do people who have been socialized in the culture of getting come to see themselves as having something to give? By giving.They give, and in doing so they discover that they have something to give—not the other way around.”

Our emotional health as individuals and a culture could be greatly enhanced if “that most wonderful time of the year” could go on for 12 months. 

Let’s Develop! A Guide to Continuous Personal Growth is available at https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/lets-develop!/id452416603?mt=11

http://eastsideinstitute.org/resources/bookstore/

http://www.lulu.com/shop/fred-newman/lets-develop/paperback/product-12995483.html

Exams are over and hundreds of thousands of students are heading home for the holidays! Yes, sleep deprived, hungry, laundry-bearing college students are on their way home to enjoy a nice long winter break. Most of them are looking forward to catching up with friends, ransacking the kitchen, and the best part of all… doing nothing for the next few weeks. If you are a parent of one of these students, your holiday excitement may be met with some apprehension, especially if you haven't the privilege of having your college student home for an extended break. How do you survive this holiday bliss while keeping your sanity? Below are five tips to help you enjoy your college student’s visit:

1. Be Ready.

Your day-to-day routine is getting ready to have a monkey wrench thrown right into it. Go ahead and head for the grocery store. Be stocked and ready for your college student because he/she is going to want to check the pantry for all of the favorite foods. Aside from food, your view of the visit may be different from your college student's. He/She may sleep all day and stay up all night. So brace yourself and be prepared to go with the flow. If you go into the visit with an open mind, you'll enjoy it a lot more than if you expect things to revert back to the way it was before your student left home.

2. Be Realistic

It's okay to have rules that you would have for other guests in your home, but if you try to put old rules back in place they may be met with resistance. Your college student has had a taste of independence, coming and going when he/she wants, going to bed whenever, and eating whatever. While your college student needs to be respectful of being at your house, he/she also needs to have some private and personal space. If you try to set a curfew, or put unrealistic rules in place to show that you’re the boss, you may end up with a Scrooge. So, go ahead and speak openly with your son or daughter. Let him/her know that you understand life has been different over the past few months. Establish some basic rules, like asking you before having friends show up at your home, letting you know if he's/she's not coming home that night, or letting you know what time to expect him/her. If the lines of communication are clear from the get go then things will go much smoother.

3. Be Aware (you're not the only one adjusting)

You are not the only one having to adjust to change. Your college student has lived on his/her own for the past several months. In his/her mind he/she may be looking forward to everything being the same as it was before.  It’s not uncommon for a younger brother or sister to enjoy the extra space that a sibling leaves behind when he/she heads off to college.  The bedroom may also have become that extra storage space. Understand that if this is the case, your college student may feel displaced and like he/she doesn’t belong any more.

While college students adapt to changes in their own lives, they may not think about how things have changed at home since they left. This can be a rude awakening if they come home and find their space has been invaded.

4. Be Flexible 

You may be bombarded with requests like "Hey mom, can I borrow the car?" or "Do you have some money?" or "Did you get a chance to wash my clothes?" Yes, they're back!  Be ready, your house may become the reunion spot. Of course they’ll promise to be quiet, but you may hear the microwave beeping in the wee morning hours, with hushed laughter erupting, and car doors slamming. Just take a deep breath and remind yourself to remain flexible and that “this too shall pass.”

5. Be Thankful

Take time to step back and see what's really happening. Your young college student is transforming into a young adult right in front of your eyes. While you may still look at him/her as a child, he's/she's not; at least not in the rest of the world's eyes. You have done a good job of getting your son or daughter to where he/she is today. Now it's up to your college student to put all of those tools you've taught throughout the years to use. Be sure to take some time to cherish the moment and congratulate yourself on a job well done.

It won't be long until your college student will pack the car and be ready to head off again. Believe it or not, in those few short weeks you'll begin to adapt to his/her life style. The noiselessness of the house and the empty rooms may leave you feeling a little blue. In the end, your college student will go back to his/her life and you'll go back to yours. And in just a few weeks, you'll be preparing for the next big visit. Treasure these moments for they are short-lived. A few weeks of total chaos may well be worth the special moments you've had. Have a happy holidays!

‘When my cat comes up for cuddles, negative thoughts just go.’

‘Dogs see deep into your soul where humans don't.’

When I founded an online support group for people with anxiety and panic disorder, I didn't think so many members would prove to be such animal lovers. Yet time and again they say their pets are a great source of comfort, and help them feel less worried and stressed. So why, exactly, is having an animal so therapeutic?

1. Pets teach us empathy. Being given responsibility for a hamster or guinea pig is often one of the first ways we discover how to care for another living being, but whether we’re seven or seventy, it’s good to be reminded that we are not the centre of the universe. Self-absorption can contribute to depression, and focusing on another creature – even a tortoise, terrapin or pet tarantula – can provide a positive diversion. They help us connect to our own animal nature – the carefree part of ourselves with no deadlines, mortgage or annoying colleagues.

'All my cat wants is food, shelter, love, comfort and a bit of fun. He reminds me this is all that really matters.’

 2. They keep us connected. Fundamental to maintaining a healthy mind is staying engaged with others, and pet owners often talk more readily to each other. When out walking, people with dogs will stop and chat about their pets, while the dogs socialise together – a win-win. And for those who live alone, a pet can be a lifeline. The ‘mad cat lady’ is a cliché – truth is an elderly widow is more likely to feel mad (and sad) without a cat for company.

3. Pets show affection, and allow us to. Having a recipient for our affections, especially a creature who responds so tangibly by wagging its tail or purring, allows us to express our own softer, more intimate side. Our pets love us unconditionally (aside from cupboard love, of course) and feeling loved is good for self-esteem.

‘When I rescued my cat, she was ill and so was I. I looked after her and she took care of me just by being the very sweet, needy and loving cat she was.’

4. They listen without judgment, like a good therapist. But, unlike a therapist, there’s no time limit or fee – you can talk for as long as you want. Obviously the insights might not be as revealing, but who hasn’t offloaded onto their pet occasionally? Moreover, if the conversations my husband has with our cat are anything to go by, men are just as prone to using our four-legged friends as sounding boards as women are.

‘There have been times that without my cats I simply wouldn't be here.’

5. They encourage us to exercise and spend time outdoors. What’s good for our bodies is good for our minds. Physical exercise also releases excess energy, which makes it easier to fall asleep.

‘I feel happy just thinking about the uncomplicated,  unconditional love and joy I share with my dog on a daily basis.’

6. Pets persuade us to play, and when we play along with them, our own bodies go through a physical change too. Levels of serotonin and dopamine (hormones that make us feel good) rise and the level of cortisol (a hormone associated with stress), is lowered.

7. They provide us with routine. When we’re down, mornings are often the hardest.

‘The days I wanted to curl up and die, my dog needed to go out to toilet so he was the push I needed to get up and out. Now I’m better, I’m so thankful.’

8. They remind us to live in the present moment. When we follow our pet’s example and let go of ruminating on the past or worrying about the future and instead focus on the here and now, our mood improves.

‘Ever since I have been poorly, the high point of my day is my daughter bringing our two guinea pigs into the lounge of an evening. They sit on our laps and within minutes we’re smiling.’

9. Pets help us relax. Many studies have shown that having a pet helps to lower blood pressure and just stroking a cat or dog can be calming.

10. Pets make us act more responsibly. Not just in terms of caring for another creature’s welfare, but more broadly, too. It was Jonathan Safron Foer’s excellent book, Eating Animals, that made me realise I couldn’t justify having one ‘rule’ for our pets, and another for pigs and poultry. I wouldn’t contemplate eating our cat, ergo I couldn’t defend making a meal of any of our furry or feathered friends. It’s a simple moral argument – some might say too simple - and I know not everyone feels the same, but it works for me. 

If you've been helped through difficult times by your pet, please comment below - I'd love to hear.

Meanwhile, have a very...

Merry Christmas.

"How come your family knows how to push your buttons? Because they installed them… I had a great teacher in India who said to me, “If you think you’re spiritual and evolved and enlightened, go home for Christmas.” –Elizabeth Gilbert

When I was little, I had a controversial grandmother. She was the woman my grandfather remarried after my father’s mom’s premature death. We pretty much only saw her twice a year: once for a family reunion, and once for a Christmas party. I adored her (except that she always smelled like cigarettes and had a lot of rules). But my parents and aunt and uncle were very tense around her.

Fights rarely broke out at the parties—I think my grandma was too dignified for that—but I do remember a lot of stress surrounding this difficult person in our lives. She knew how to push people’s buttons.

Do you have someone difficult to deal with this holiday season? Here are three strategies that work well for me.

1. Make sure the difficult person has a job to do, and then let them do it their own way. Things were always better when my grandma had a job in the kitchen. For a lot of people, conflict is born from an unfulfilled desire to feel useful and to be a part of something larger than themselves. Start by giving the difficult person a way to focus on something besides themselves.

   Tip: When you ask someone for his or her help, provide a rationale–any rationale–for the favor. One study showed that the word “because” tends to trigger automatic compliance. For instance, you might say brightly, “It would be great if you could peel the carrots, because we need the carrots peeled for dinner.” As bizarrely repetitive as that may sound, it should work better than, “Would you peel the carrots for me?”

2. Take care of your own needs first. This one is about taking precautions to keep yourself balanced and prevent your fight-or-flight response from kicking in. It’s harder to regulate your emotions when you’re tired, for example, so if you’re at a party with the difficult person and you start to feel spent, consider leaving early, lest you get sucked into a confrontation. You might risk insulting your host, but that’s generally better than ruining the party by making a scene.

   Similarly, research shows that keeping your blood sugar stable will make you less aggressive if you get angry, so don’t skip a meal if you are headed into a difficult situation. If you need to leave the room and do some deep breathing, do it–even if the difficult person needs you to talk about politics right now. If we can stay calm, we are more likely to engage the brain circuits that make us better problem-solvers in challenging situations. (Also, we have more fun.)

   Neuropsychologist Rick Hanson’s advice can help us take this even further:

   "Also see how taking care of yourself has good ripple effects for others. Deliberately do a small thing that feeds you—a little rest, some exercise, some time for yourself—and then notice how this affects your relationships. Notice how healthy boundaries in relationships helps prevent you from getting used up or angry and eventually needing to withdraw.”

   The exception: When our “need” is to be right. Often we feel a strong desire to show the difficult person the error in his or her ways. But this won’t make the situation easier, and it won’t make us feel better in the long run. Find a different (and more positive) way to feel powerful; for example, turn your attention to helping someone in need, perhaps even the difficult person him- or herself.

3. Give up on trying to fix him or her. This means accepting the difficult person for who he or she is, including the discomfort (or even pain) that they are creating.

   Practicing this sort of acceptance is about dropping the fantasy of how we think things ought to be. You might have a fantasy of a sweet, close relationship with your daughter-in-law, for example, and so you feel angry and disappointed every time she does something that doesn’t live up to this fantasy.

   But be aware that she likely feels your disappointment, and feels judged. She knows you are trying to change or “fix” her, and that doesn’t feel good–it hurts her, in fact, and hurting someone, however unintentionally, does not make her easier to deal with.

An alternate approach is one of empathy. Rather than judging what the person does or says, just try to listen and understand where he or she is coming from. This doesn’t mean that you need to agree with the person, just that you’re showing him or her a basic level of respect as a human being. Research suggests that engaging with a person this way–acknowledging his or her point of view without judging it–can make him or her feel more understood… and, as a result, less defensive or difficult.

Here’s how to practice acceptance and empathy: Take a deep breath.Look at the difficult person with kindness and compassion, and say to yourself, I see you, and I see that you are suffering. I accept that you are anxious and scared, even if I don’t understand why. I accept that you are making all of us anxious, too. I accept that your trouble has become my trouble for the time being. When we acknowledge and accept difficulty as something that just is, we let go of the resistance that creates stress and tension. There is a lot of truth to the adage that “What we resists, persists.”

When this person is speaking, try not to interrupt with counter-arguments or even with attempts to try to get him or her to see things from a different, perhaps more positive point of view. Instead, try to paraphrase back to the person the points you think he or she is making, and acknowledge the emotions he or she seems to be expressing. For instance, if he seems ticked off about something, you might say, “It sounds like that really makes you angry.” In this way, you let them know that their experience matters.

We are all just looking for love and approval. This holiday season, the greatest gift we can give a difficult person–and ourselves–is to accept them fully, with love.

If you liked this post, you’ll love this printable page, 7 Ways to Feel More Loved and Connected. And my new book,The Sweet Spot: How to Find Your Groove at Home and Work has a whole section dedicated to improving our relationships — I hope you’ll consider ordering it now.

The holidays are upon us and this presents challenges for families coping with baby loss. For the bereaved, the overt and unremitting emphasis on family and celebration may be both stifling and exhausting.  Many holiday traditions represent light and birth, and for a family coping with pregnancy or infant loss, the ironies and companion absences can be too stark to bear easily.  On the flip side, it is understandably difficult for caring friends and family to know how to best approach the painful and taboo subject of perinatal loss in the context of the joy-on-overdrive-holidays.

My second son was stillborn in December 2005. At that time, I had a two-year old son. I remember one evening I sat staring, devastated, into a crackling fire and ruminated about my baby’s cremation. Next to me, my two-year old squealed, delighted in the discovery of his face reflected back in a glass ornament as notes from Judy Garland’s “Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas” hung in the air.  It was snowing.  The distances I was required to travel between true joy and abject despair at each moment during that time were so vast, that if it is the case that I am still sane, I am left to wonder how that it so.

At Christmas dinner several days later, I stood near a fire pushing food around my plate as my extended family gathered to celebrate peace and joy.  No one there attempted to talk to me about my loss.  This was not, I know, for lack of love. In fact, it was because of love - they did not want to remind me of my loss.  They wanted so much for me to be happy, but negotiating this impossibility was complicated and awkward.

It is this sort of well-intended silence that feeds a self-imposed gag order around loss. This can make the baby-bereaved feel especially alone and adrift in a season of light that emphasizes children, miracles and family. In addition, many family gatherings have representatives from generations wherein discussion of death and baby loss is simply not permitted.

There are many responses to baby and child loss. Take care to remember that there is no “right” or one-size-fits-all response. However, reaching out to people is very often far more appreciated than is immediately apparent.  Even if a couple prefers to be private in their remembrance, they will appreciate your consideration in asking. Once a dialogue is opened, you can trust yourself to follow the lead and wishes of the parents in question, and even allow responses to change as time goes on.  

Psychiatrists point out that grief may evolve as time goes on.  Initial stages of acute grief may give way to integrated grief, wherein the bereaved appear to return to some normality in their daily lives and functioning.  Try to be mindful of the complexity of this evolution.  “For most people grief is never fully completed. Even though grief has been integrated, they never forget the people they have lost … there may be times when acute grief reawakens. This can occur during time of significant events, such as holidays .” (Grief and Bereavement: What Psychiatrists need To Know, Sidney Zisook & Katherine Shear.)

Says writer Angela Miller, “If only it could be understood that it is exactly because of the holidays – the gatherings, the pressure … [I]t is the empty chair that is often unrecognized and not spoke of in a room overflowing with family otherwise glaringly complete – that leaves a bereaved parent spinning in grief.”

For those who surround the bereaved, it may be difficult to know just how to acknowledge loss as experienced by loved one(s). Here are a few suggestions:

1. DO offer to create an annual family ritual. Light a candle in memory, and in support of the bereaved parents.  If you already light candles in ritual, ask to include the baby and the bereaved parents.
2. DO be aware of dynamics in family/friend relationships. For example, if there is a baby at a holiday gathering, consider gently letting the bereaved know that you are thinking of her her/him. If your sister-in-law had a loss and you have a baby, consider ways to let her know that you wish that things were different and that you want to help her.
3. DO consider making a memorial donation in the name of the baby to a charity important to the family, or one that supports children in need. If the baby was named, DO use the name of the baby. The use of a name may be deeply validating to a family coping with loss.
4. DO ask about fathers’ experience of loss. This loss is even less recognized than the experience of the mother. Let the father know that you recognize that the loss is his as well, and ask how you can support him.
5. DO engage in discussion about loss. Many bereaved parents derive strength and love from an acknowledgement of their pain. In many instances, the memory of loss may stay with parents for a lifetime. It is both ironic and understandable that it is precisely this validation of pain that draws the bereaved closer, cinching the fabric of complex and encompassing familial love as it lifts a veil of silence.

In today’s modern workplaces, employees’ desks are wherever their laptops happen to be perched. A growing number of companies are surrendering their traditional office set-ups, which have long included individual offices and cubicles farms, in favor of open floor plans, alternative workspaces, and flexible hours. At the heart of this bold change in office design is the idea that tearing down walls (of all kinds) creates more opportunities, for communication, innovation, and collaboration.

More companies are realizing that fostering a strong culture of collaboration sharpens their competitive edge (as the age-old proverb goes: “Two heads are better than one.”). But they shouldn’t be championing surges in collaboration just to wring more productivity out of their employees—they should be doing so because it makes them happier.

"People collisions" 

Last year, a study by the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics found that participants ranked “paid work” second to last out of 39 activities. The finding likely surprised no one, but considering that so many people spend a large percentage of their day working (in the US at least, that percentage continues to increase), wouldn’t it be ideal if everyone liked their jobs a bit more?

The study also unearthed one valuable piece of insight worth contemplating: employees do experience happiness at work (equivalent to when they are off the clock), and it happens when they have opportunities to socialize with their colleagues. This makes a lot of sense; we are social beings being after all.

With this in mind, an open floor plan at work—and all the cascading changes it spawns—becomes much, much more than a trendy way to work and increase productivity: it removes the physical barriers (which in turn create psychological ones) that had previously obstructed employees from human interaction at work, taking a toll on their level of contentedness.

Companies like Bloomberg, Square, and Zappos have not only opened up their workspaces, they have also designed them to facilitate deliberate, serendipitous encounters. Tony Hsieh, of Zappos, describes the outcome as “people collisions,” and they can lead to more than just spontaneous exchanges with colleagues. “I think you can create your own luck,” he said. “The key is to meet as many people as you can and really get to know them.”

"I Am Here" Days

This is why more organizations should take human interaction on-the-job even further, moving from minor, unplanned encounters to designing for more meaningful ones. “Thick presence” is the concept that our connections with others should be substantial and based on a genuine investment in each other.

Take the example of Priya Parker, founder of Thrive Labs. Parker and a handful of friends gather one Sunday a month for “I Am Here” days. The group meets for eight-hour stretches to explore New York City. Everyone makes the commitment to being “thickly in one place, not thinly anywhere.” Conversation may flow—or not, but it’s all part of the process; the group values “being” over doing. Given that we are human beings and not robots programmed for ever-increasing rates of production, the chance to stop, breathe, and reflect has become an opportunity we must fight to preserve. Parker and her friends have faith in getting things done by just letting things unfold. The concept may not be revolutionary, but when applied to business, it has the potential to shake the way we view—and do—our jobs.

Thick over thin

Thick presence flies in the face of leaning in, decisiveness, and speed. But companies like Zappos continue to develop initiatives that promote “thick” over “thin.” For example, the company does not reward the number of customer service calls its representatives complete every hour. Instead, the company rewards representatives for staying on the phone longer, coupled with a “happiness rating.” In doing so, Zappos is essentially communicating to its employees, and to its customers, that the quality of the conversation is what matters, not how quickly and efficiently it is completed.

Imagine employees who are given the opportunity to be thickly present with each other, versus communicating only during scheduled meetings, quick digital exchanges, or chance encounters in the hallway. There’s nothing like being forced out of your shoes and into another’s for a rich perspective by spending time with a colleague for a stint that goes way beyond the protocol of a one-hour meeting—on a consistent basis. Imagine “I Am Here” days at work! It’s the type of experience that can provide a valuable mind shift that is difficult to achieve as the siren song of our comfort zones plays out in the background.

A workspace free of ramparts—the physical and the non—is one step in the right direction. But I suggest we go two steps further by seeking out more thick presence in our professional lives (even our personal ones). It’s an investment in ourselves, and the people around us, that is guaranteed to pay off—and move our internal needle a bit closer to happiness.

To learn more, please see my new book THE BUSINESS ROMANTIC (HarperCollins).

A recent essay in the New York Times by Erica-Lynn Huberty called "The Wrong Dog" raises many difficult questions that often arise when a well-meaning family takes in a "difficult" dog. Psychology Today writer and dog expert, Mark Derr, posted an excellent essay about the Times piece, and at the end he quoted me about the problems associated with playing "musical dogs." I agree with Mr. Derr's take on the Times essay, namely, "Huberty blames the dog, the woman who gave her the dog, the trainer—everyone but herself and her husband—and Nina [the dog] herself for her failure to fit seamlessly into Huberty’s home. From this experience, she draws the conclusion that some dogs are just unsuitable for living with humans. That might be the case but there is no proof of it here." 

Playing "musical dogs" is frequently bad for the dog

Here I just want to say a bit more about the perils of playing "musical dogs" -- rescuing a dog, giving him or her up, and then having yet another person or family rescue the dog later on. Of course, there can be various uknowns associated with re-homing a dog that don't arise until the dog attempts to asjust to new people, their home, and their novel and unique daily rhythms and habits. And, of course, re-homing can also be tricky when there's another nonhuman already living in the home in which the new dog is a virtual stranger. 

After reading Ms. Huberty's essay I wondered a few things, most importantly, why didn't she and her family simply keep the dog, Nina, away from the cat, Addie, whom she harassed and eventually killed. Nina already had given warning signs that she was uncomfortable, unhappy, and likely unpredictable, by snapping and growling at the humans and at Addie. Indeed, Ms. Hurley writes about what happened when Nina was brought to her home after they had had previous amicable interactions in an environment with which Nina was familiar: "But things became complicated when we brought Nina home. She panicked in her new environment, tearing up the stairs to our bedroom. Like an alpha-male guard dog, she leaped onto the middle of the bed and growled with bared teeth. Clearly, she was terrified." Ms. Huberty also knew that Nina was shy and "intensely fearful of loud noises."

Yes, Nina was clearly terrified and also most likely suffering from deep anxiety and fear, and this is not uncommon when a dog enters a new home. Cashing out Nina's behavior as behaving like "an alpha-male guard dog" perhaps gives a hint as to how Nina was to be viewed from that moment on, with any purportedly "aggressive" behavior becoming a major strike against her. Nina may just as likely have been severely traumatized and simply asking for some space because she "was scared out of her mind." She may have bolted up the stairs because they were there and simply needed time to morph into a new home. It's well known that it often takes time for many re-homed dogs to get accustomed to their new environs (as it does for some people). We also know that when animals are moved around from zoo to zoo, they often suffer from various sorts of trauma until they get accustomed to their new home.

Dogs, other animals, and people display different responses to new situations, and the personality of each individual has to be factored into understanding how or whether they will adjust to new physical and social environs and how long it may take. How Nina's shyness and intense fear of loud noises factored into her being difficult to re-home remains unknown, but surely could have been factors in her difficult times and her being given up by her new family. 

Toward the end of her essay Ms. Huberty writes, "I felt enraged at the rescue woman, foster mother and trainer. Two family members had been taken from us in one horrifying act, one that would never have happened had we not kept Nina. But we had kept her. We took pity on her, and let ourselves believe that beneath her quirky, strange behavior resided a good dog. A friend who fosters animals for a local shelter, who has dogs and cats of her own, said to me, 'Some dogs are just too damaged, or not right to begin with, and they’re just not adoptable.'”

Was Nina "too damaged" or "not right to begin with?" We really don't know. Is Nina still adoptable? Sadly, we may never know. Of course, Ms. Huberty felt guilt and sadness when Nina was sent packing, and recognizes that Nina has little chance for being adopted again.  

Playing "musical dogs" can indeed be perilous

Living with a dog is a two-way street and assigning unilateral blame gets us nowhere, and once again leaves the dog out in the cold. Playing "musical dogs" can be very bad for the dogs, as much research and common sense tell us. I wish Nina the best of luck as she might be facing an uphill battle to find a suitable and permanent home in the future.

So, yes, perhaps Nina was "the wrong dog" for this particular family who generously tried to give her a new home. But, it's also possible she was trying as hard as she could to fit into their physical and social milieu, and was begging of them in the only ways she could, "Please give me more time, I'm really trying as hard as I can." Or, perhaps, Nina recognized there was a misfit and was feeling something like, "Oops, this is the wrong family for me" and wanted out. Ms. Huberty's essay raises many questions that demand serious attention. I hope it is widely read. 

The teaser image, available for free, can be seen here. 

Marc Bekoff's latest books are Jasper's story: Saving moon bears (with Jill Robinson; see also), Ignoring nature no more: The case for compassionate conservation (see also), Why dogs hump and bees get depressed (see also), and Rewilding our hearts: Building pathways of compassion and coexistence. The Jane effect: Celebrating Jane Goodall (edited with Dale Peterson) will be published in 2015. (marcbekoff.com; @MarcBekoff)  

The Lone Terrorist in the Workplace

J. Reid Meloy, PhD

The breaking news on December 15 reported a black banners flag—the emblem of Jabhat el-Nusra and linked to Al Qaeda--being held against the window of a Lindt chocolate store in downtown Sydney, Australia.  A lone gunman inside had taken 17 people hostage, both employees and customers.  Eighteen hours later, amidst flash bang grenades and automatic weapons fire, Man Haron Monis, a 49 year old Iranian immigrant and violent criminal, and apparently a recent convert to the cause of ISIS, was dead.  Two other hostages were killed, including the store manager.  Monis was well known to law enforcement for his violence and strident preaching, both in the terrestrial and online worlds—his Facebook page included photos of dead children ostensibly murdered by Americans and their allies in the Mideast, and he had a history of both sexual and violent crimes against women, including accessory to the murder of his ex-wife.

Almost two months earlier, on September 25, 2014, Alton Nolen, a 30 year old US employee, beheaded a fellow worker, 54 year old Colleen Hufford, with a knife in the Vaughan Foods processing plant in an Oklahoma City suburb.  He then attacked another worker, apparently attempting to also behead her; she had initiated a complaint against him for racially slurring whites that resulted in his suspension earlier that day.  He was shot and wounded by a reserve deputy who was also the CEO of the company.  What do we know about Nolen?  He had a criminal record, was a recent convert to Islam, had provocative postings on his Facebook page, including images of a beheading and Osama bin Laden, and did his act following several decapitations of Americans by ISIS in Syria, and the beheading of a French mountaineering guide the day before.

          Do we call this terrorism or workplace violence?  This is mixing apples and oranges.  It is both.  The setting in which these acts occurred was the workplace; one of the motivations —although the complexity of these acts would need to be sorted out by a careful study of the cases—appears to be “revenge and obliteration” (the words of my colleague James Knoll, MD).  We list “Motivations for Violence” as the first item in our Workplace Assessment of Violence Risk, the WAVR-21[1], to encourage threat assessors to think carefully about the many reasons a subject could view targeted violence as a legitimate means to achieve a particular goal.  Ideology is one of them, and the lone terrorist (sometimes labeled lone wolf), often has a conscious belief system that justifies such violence in his mind with an eye toward a much larger, media-inspired audience.  The workplace is not immune from such threateners and assaulters.

          My British colleague, Jessica Yakeley, MD, and I have recently published a science study on lone terrorists[2] which focuses upon their relationships and their evolving psychology.  It is one of several empirical papers that have appeared over the past year on ideologically driven lone offenders which enhance our understanding.  In this brief perspective, I want to focus on the construction of motivation in these individuals.

 Personal grievance--Similar to all acts of targeted violence, the pathway typically begins with a personal grievance: an event or series of events that involve loss and often humiliation of the subject, his or her continual rumination about the loss, and the blaming of others.  Most people with grievances eventually grieve their loss, but for those unwilling or unable to do so, often the most narcissistically sensitive individuals, it is much easier to convert their shame into rage toward the object which they believe is the cause of all their suffering.  Such intense grievances require that individuals take no personal responsibility for  their failures in life.  As my colleague retired FBI profiler Mary Ellen O’Toole has noted, they are “injustice collectors.”

 Moral outrage--the lone terrorist, however, begins to distinguish himself from others on a pathway to workplace violence because he embeds his personal grievance in an historical, religious, or political cause or event.  The suffering of others, which may be misperceived or actual, provides emotional fuel for his personal grievance.   He closely identifies with the “victimized” group, whether they be aborted fetuses, an endangered animal species, rain forests, gun owners, Muslims, those who fear the US government, or those whose prejudice is equal opportunity, and labels all those who are different as the oppressors, often on the basis of skin color or belief.  He then knows whom to hate. What is ironic is that the lone terrorist often has never actually suffered oppression or victimization as a member of the group with whom he identifies.  This is a vicarious identification.  Malik Hasan, the 2009 Ft. Hood mass murderer, is a striking example.  He closely identified with the Taliban and attempted to mount a legal “defense of others” at his trial, believing that he was, like them, oppressed by the US which was at war with Islam in his mind.  However, Hasan had never been personally attacked by the US, had no military comrades who were Taliban; and, in fact, had substantially benefited from his commission in the US Army, completing medical school, his residency, and his fellowship at US taxpayers’ expense, and attaining the rank of Major.

 Framed by an ideology--the motivation is completed when the personal grievance and moral outrage is framed by an ideology.  Current analysis indicates that lone terrorist ideologies will include right wing extremism (there are currently 1018 active hate groups in the US, including the National Alliance and Christian Identity), Islam (ISIS or Al Qaeda, both derivatives of ultraconservative  Wahhabism, a sect of Sunni Islam), anti-abortion beliefs, and nationalism/separatism (Sovereign Citizens in US, Freeman on the Land in Canada).  Upon closer examination, these conscious belief systems are quite superficial; subjects will cherry pick phrases from the relevant authoritative text to justify their desire to kill others, and perhaps themselves.   When Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal Murrah building in Oklahoma City in 1995, he wore a t-shirt with a Thomas Jefferson quote, “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” This framing is absolutist and simplistic, providing a clarity that both rationalizes behavior and masks other, more personal grievances.  These lone terrorists become “violent true believers,” intent on killing others to advance their cause, and their pathway toward an act of targeted violence has begun—sometimes ending in the workplace.

Copyright 2014 J. Reid Meloy

[1] S White, JR Meloy (2010).  Workplace Assessment of Violence Risk Structured Professional Guide.  San Diego, CA: Specialized Training Services.

[2] JR Meloy, J Yakeley (2014).  The violent true believer as a “lone wolf”—psychoanalytic perspectives on terrorism.  Behavioral Sciences and the Law, DOI: 10.1002/bsl.2109

Back when I was doing most of my research on the psychology of lying and hadn't yet focused my attention on the topic of single people, I was most interested in the kinds of lying and lie-detection that happened in ordinary life, by people who had no access to any special equipment or expertise. When I asked the question, "Can you tell when someone is lying?", I liked to answer it by letting people watch other people (whom I knew to be lying or telling the truth) and tell me their guesses as to those people's truthfulness. I learned that on the average, people aren't very good at all at knowing when other people are lying and when they are telling the truth.

But could a computer do better? Sure, they don't have the intuition that humans do, but they are also not at risk for the kinds of mistakes that are specific to humans, such as some emotional investment in wanting to think that a certain person is lying, or another sort of person would never lie to them.

So suppose you could give computers a transcript of the lies and truths that you said or wrote or typed, and then programmed the computers to look for particular kinds of cues. How would the computers do? Of course, in this sort of approach to lie-detection, computers don't get to make judgments based on your lying eyes (or any other parts of you they can see) – they just have to go by your words. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, though, language cues (what we say) offer more promising clues about deception than (visual) nonverbal cues do (i.e., how we look).

The promise of finding accurate computer-based lie-detection has gripped researchers, and dozens of them have gone off on the quest to see if it works. There are computer programs written to find and count relevant linguistic cues in transcripts, and social scientists have used them to see if the computers find any reliable differences in the transcripts of communications known to be lies compared to the transcripts known to be truths.

The question addressed in these studies is, "Do certain kinds of linguistic cues show up more (or less) frequently when people are known to be lying, compared to when they are known to be telling the truth?"

In a new review article, the authors rounded up 44 relevant studies. There were 38 different cues measured in enough of the studies that they could combine all the results and see which of the cues emerged as reliable and telling clues to deception.

First, I'll give you the best case for the success of the computers. Then I'll tell you why the computers were actually pretty unimpressive, much like humans are.

The Best Case for Computers: The Cues to Deception that They Found

Some cues separated the truths from the lies better than others did. In order of the strength of the cues (or, magnitude of the effect sizes, for those who like the statistical jargon), here are the computer-identified cues to deception:

1. Liars do not use as many different words as truth-tellers do. This is called "content word diversity." The results seem to suggest that liars don't access the same range of vocabulary that truth-tellers do. They fall back on the same words rather than using a variety of words.
2. Liars' answers have fewer sentences and fewer words. Liars just don't seem to have as much to say as truth-tellers do. It is as if they are holding back, or maybe they are so busy trying to remember what to say or what not to say that they end up not saying much at all.
3. Liars express anger more than truth-tellers do.
4. Liars seem to make fewer exceptions than truth-tellers do. The computers figured this out by counting words such as except, but, and without. People who are telling the truth make more of these kinds of distinctions than liars do.
5. Liars distance themselves from what they are saying. Specifically, compared to truth-tellers, they are less likely to use first-person ("I") and more likely to use second person ("you") or third person ("he" or "she" or "they").

The Unenthusiastic Case for Computers as Lie-Detectors

            Okay, so computers can separate liars from truth-tellers in the five ways I just described. But the authors looked at computers' use of 38 different linguistic cues, and only for half of them did the computers find any differences whatsoever that were statistically significant. Some of those differences between lies and truths were very small.

            Also, those conclusions I just offered above are based on averages across all of the 44 studies that included those cues. But the 44 studies vary in lots of different ways. For example, in some of the studies, the liars and truth-tellers were talking about their own personal experiences – often, emotional ones. In others, they were describing people they liked or disliked. In studies in which people were describing their own experiences, sometimes they were describing neutral experiences and other times, they were describing very negative experiences. In some studies, the liars and truth-tellers were typing (as in e-mail communications); other times, they were talking and still other times they were writing (as in handwriting). Sometimes, the liars were highly motivated to get away with their lies (and the truth-tellers really cared about not getting mistaken as liars), and other times, it just didn't matter all that much.

            In all, the authors showed results for 15 different variations. You can think of them as different contexts for lying, or different kinds of lies, or different ways of lying, or different feelings about lying. What's important is that these variations matter. Liars lie in different ways in different contexts. For example, liars express more negative emotions (they use more words indicative of anger) than truth-tellers do when they are describing their own personal experiences; but when they are just talking about who they like and dislike, then liars and truth-tellers do not differ in their expression of negative emotions.

            Here's something really striking: There was no one cue to deception that statistically separated the liars from the truth-tellers across all 15 different contexts and types of lies. The one that came closest was the number of words. For most of the different contexts and types of lies and feelings about lies, the liars had less to say (they said fewer words) than the truth-tellers did. Again, though, the results were true for most contexts, but not all.

            A perfect cue to deception would be one that occurs every time a person is lying, and never occurs when someone is telling the truth. The classic example is Pinocchio's nose. The thing is, there is no Pinocchio's nose. It doesn't matter whether humans are looking for the cues or computers are. They just aren't there.

Reference: Hauch, V., Blandon-Gitlin, I., Masip, J., & Sporer, S. L. (in press). Are computers effective lie-detectors? A meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review. (Will probably appear in print in 2015.)

[Notes: (1) The e-book versions of almost all of my books are on sale between December 16-22, 2014 (or between the 17^th and the 23^rd in the UK). Prices start at 99 cents on the first day and then increase gradually to the regular list price by the end of the 7^th day. (2) Some of my books are also available in other languages, such as Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, and Korean. Many of them are on sale this week, too. (3) For my other blog posts on deception, click here. (3) For what you may have actually come here for, discussions relevant to single life, you may want to check out "Harvard Business Review cares about women's success – but only if they are married with children," and other posts there.]

Photo credit: PhotoExtremist.com/Google free use

This is the blog post where I get to expose people to the creative giants that shaped my brain over the past year. A number of magazines and websites feature the top books published in 2014. This is different. This is a list of the best books that I read, many of which were published in the distant past. This year's theme is impact. Books that required me to stop and jot passages in Evernote notebooks. Authors that evoked a sense of envy, as I dreamed of composing sentences similar in quality.

If you need brain food, know that purchasing all 10 of these books is equivalent to two sushi restaurant dinners. You owe it to yourself to buy a chunk of happiness. With that being said, let me begin with my favorite book this year:

1.  The Meaning of Human Existence by E.O. Wilson

From a centrifuge of poetry, science, and boldness, Wilson is delivered to us. He has a chapter on the unimpressive sensory systems of humans and how our limited ability to see, hear, and smell in response to the environment cripples creativity. By adopting the perspective of non-human animals and their distinct sensory apparatuses, we open the doors to new music, poetry, and visual arts. Another chapter expands on the likely features of the first extra-terrestrial that visits Earth. His description is based on everything known about chemistry, biology, and astronomy. He offers an interesting argument that aliens are likely to be more interested in what we accomplish in the humanities than our scientific discoveries. This book is one part awe, for the eco-diversity around us, and one part humility, a reminder that humans are not the pinnacle of evolutionary design. Wilson dives through free will, religion, levels of natural selection that often compete with one another ("individual selection promoted sin while group selection promoted virtue"), and musings on the future. It's a slim volume where each chapter is an essay on a different topic. Don't rush through, enjoy sentences such as this:

Bite into a lemon, fall into bed, recall a departed friend, watch the sun sink beyond the western sea. Each episode comprises mass neuronal activity so elaborate, so little of which as yet been seen, we cannot even conceive it, much less write it down as a repertory of firing cells.

We think we know so much as a species. We don't. This ignorance is not something to bemoan, it is worthy of celebration. Great creations await for those with a propensity for curiosity, gratitude, and determination. Let E.O. Wilson motivate you to be a steward of a better world.

2. The Fish That Ate the Whale: The Life and Times of America's Banana King by Rich Cohen

History is best told through stories of interesting characters. Few are as interesting as Sam Zemurray - a poor, Jewish immigrant from Russia who ended his life with more power and wealth than the majority of Central American countries. This is a story about ambition, capitalism, foreign policy, New Orleans, and the good and evil of human nature. You will never look at a banana the same way again. As someone interested in the ability to be whole, embracing the upside of negative emotions and the downside of positive emotions, Zemurray intrigues me. A man whose complexity is captured by the author:

I cant help but feel, after all the talk of America's decline, that we would do well by emulating Sam Zemurray-not the brutality or the conquest, but the righteous anger that sent the striver into the boardroom of laughing elites, waving his proxies, shouting, "You gentleman have been fucking up this business long enough. I'm going to straighten it out."

3. The Obstacle Is the Way: The Timeless Art of Turning Trials into Triumph by Ryan Holiday

I am unsure when philosophy became a tedious, pretentious discipline divorced from reality. Philosophy was originally designed to be a disciplined practice for thinking through the best possible solutions for everyday problems. This book is a return to these roots with stoic philosophers and their philosophies mentoring the reader on how to best manage seemingly disadvantageous situations and how to exploit rewarding situations. Perhaps this is desirable to you:

Start thinking like a radical pragmatist: still ambitious, aggressive, and rooted in ideals, but also imminently practical and guided by the possible. Not on everything you would like to have, not on changing the world right at this moment, but ambitious enough to get everything you need. Don't think small, but make the distinction between the critical and the extra. Think progress, not perfection.

If so, enjoy the ancient lessons of Seneca, Epicetus, and Marcus Aurelius packaged for the challenges of the modern world.

4. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot

This is a beautifully written account of a woman who might be the most important person in the history of science and medicine. No hyperbole here. Henrietta Lacks died of cervical cancer in her early 30s. Before her death, cancerous cells were removed and harvested in the laboratory. To the surprise of every scientist involved, these cells survived and reproduced at rates never before seen. These cells were given to other labs around the world to aid cell research that led to the development of drug treatments for depression, schizophrenia, herpes, leukemia, influenza, hemophilia, Parkinson's disease, and HIV/AIDS, among others. In fact, it is because of Henrietta Lacks and her ever-growing line of "HeLa cells" that Jonas Salk and his colleagues were able to create a polio vaccine. It is because of her cells that we gained sufficient knowledge about how outer space, nuclear technology, and toxins affect the body. Her body inspired a technological revolution that has been ongoing since the 1950s. Every single human living in the Western World is in her debt for something that required the use of these cells.

But there is another layer to this story. It is about racism. It is about medical ethics. It is about the millions of dollars earned on HeLa cells without anything being attributed to or shared with the family of Henrietta Lacks.

Black scientists and technicians, many of them women, used cells from a black woman to help save the lives of millions of Americans, most of them white. And they did so on the same campus-and at the very same time-that state officials were conducting the infamous Tuskegee syphilis studies.

And then there is another layer about the author and her 10-year odyssey to write this book. Her only book to date. You....will...not....be....able....to put this book down until its finished.

5. Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief by Lawrence Wright

Like most people, I viewed Scientology as a ridiculous, cult-ish, self-help community that wasted innocent people's time and money, while somehow being anointed an official religion with tax-exempt status. It's so much worse. Scarier than any fictional horror movie. Money, sex, violence, power, religion, torture, and famous celebrities, the Scientology story has it all. L. Ron Hubbard is freakish. Tom Cruise is freakish. This is the best investigative journalism ever conducted on the bizarre world of scientology. You will simultaneously experience compassion for the victims while remaining bewildered of how anyone is affiliated with this shitstorm.

Don't forget to read the notes on sources at the end and then, get one final taste with the South Park episode "Trapped in the Closet".

6. Manson: The Life and Times of Charles Manson by Jeff Guinn

Prior to the inflection point, when he truly became delusional, Manson's story offers an epic testimonial on the nature and nurture of evil. It goes without saying that Manson was a master of influence and persuasion. The details are astounding.

Charlie developed a lifelong defense mechanism he later called the "insane game". In dangerous situations where he could not protect himself in any other way, he would act out to convince potential assailants that he was crazy. Using screeches, grimaces, flapping arms, and other extreme facial expression and gestures, Charlie could often back off aggressors..Charlie Mason always survived.

This is not for the squeamish. It is for anyone interested in the psychology of personality.

7. Sex, Murder, and the Meaning of Life: A Psychologist Investigates How Evolution, Cognition, and Complexity are Revolutionizing our View of Human Nature by Douglas T. Kenrick

Kenrick is a maverick scientist with amazing storytelling abilities. You will be convinced that theories of human behavior that avoid mention of evolutionary influences are destined to be at best, incomplete, and at worse, unsuccessful. Maslow's hierarchy of human motivation is shredded to pieces. That's the easy part. More impressive is Kenrick's revised pyramid of motivational forces, with evolutionary psychology as the underpinning.

I will be candid and tell you that if you don't like science, you won't enjoy this book as much as me. Besides the content, this is by far the best title of any book I read this year.

8. Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior by Geoffrey Miller

Don't let the title fool you. This book is about much more than consumer behavior. This is a book about how evolutionary desires for sex and status influence our behavior - whether it is what we do for a living, what we purchase with our money, and what aspirations are held for our lives. Why do you have to read this book? Because it is provocative. Sexuality partially accounts for why human beings showcase their religious affiliation or demonstrate their creative talents. And then there is this thesis to the book:

Marketing is the most important invention of the past two millennia because it is the only revolution that has ever succeeded in bringing real economic power to the people. It is not just the power to redistribute wealth, to split the social cake into different pieces. Rather, it is the power to make our means of production transform the natural world into a playground for human passions.

You will not agree with everything in here. But you will be forced to contemplate and alter some deeply held assumptions.

9. Creativity, Inc.: Overcoming the Unseen Forces That Stand in the Way of True Inspiration by Ed Catmull

This book received a lot of well-deserved fanfare. After all, the co-founder of Pixar offers concrete advice on how his company handled uncertainty, instability, mistrust, and the invisible forces that prevent people from reaching their potential at work. Consider this book a perfect complement to my evolutionary psychology selections listed above. Even when we are alone, walking down the street, we are influenced by the mere thought of what other people might think if they observed us. This is a treatise on how to create the conditions for optimal performance in an inherently social workplace. 

10. The Short and Tragic Life of Robert Peace: A Brilliant Young Man Who Left Newark for the Ivy League by Jeff Hobbs

Let me end with a book whose timing is perfect for this moment in history. With the tragedies happening in Ferguson, Cleveland, New York City, and elsewhere, it is worth reading 417 pages about an unheralded Black man whose final contribution is +1 to the death count in Newark, New Jersey. The author was his freshman dorm roommate at Yale University. Expect to be emotionally affected by a story that has no clear heroes or victims. This is the story of what its like to be embedded in the culture of the most dangerous city in America, and come ever so close to surviving and thriving. It is worth remembering that privilege is not a birthright because where we are born is pure luck.

****and finally, thank you to the overwhelming reader response to my own 2014 entry, The upside of your dark side: Why being your whole self - not just your “good” self - drives success and fulfillment, with Robert Biswas-Diener. The reviews on amazon and in the media have made the 2-year journey worthwhile. Looking forward to additional conversations in 2015.*******

Dr. Todd B. Kashdan is a public speaker, psychologist, and professor of psychology and senior scientist at the Center for the Advancement of Well-Being at George Mason University.  His new book, The upside of your dark side: Why being your whole self - not just your “good” self - drives success and fulfillment is available from Amazon , Barnes & Noble , Booksamillion , Powell's or Indie Bound. If you're interested in speaking engagements or workshops, go to: toddkashdan.com

As mentioned in a previous post, highly sensitive or gifted children were studied in the 1960s and 1970s by Kazimierz Dabrowski, a Polish psychiatrist, who dubbed their personality traits as amounting to “superstimulatability” or “overexcitability.”  The five traits he identified were: an abundance of physical energy; sensory hyper-reactivity; vivid imagination; intellectual curiosity and drive; and a deep capacity to care.   

The resulting drive has been remarked upon by virtually everyone who has ever studied these types of kids. (Feldman, 1986)  In a similar way, savants – whether congenital or acquired [link to post #8] – are impelled to do what they do, whether it’s painting, sculpting, playing or composing music, or memorizing zip codes, historical dates or entire phone books.  And children with apparent past life memories likewise seem transfixed by the recollections that, for a time anyway, dominate their existence.

I’ve noted the highly intuitive and empathetic – even empathic – nature of many of these kids.  Not only are they attuned to the feelings (indeed, sufferings) of other people and animals, they grasp the fundamental interconnectedness of life on this planet.  Some of them deliver spontaneous soliloquies on the nature of truth and reality.  And some of them know other things they couldn’t possibly know.  Ryan Hammons (introduced in my last post), was aware that his grandmother had lost a premature baby shortly after giving birth – a matter never discussed with him. 

Little Augie Taylor remembered 'himself' as his grandfather Gus (who had died before he was born), astounding his parents with the statement “I had a sister but she died.  She turned into a fish…some bad guys.”  In fact, his grandfather’s sister was murdered years before and her body dumped into the San Francisco Bay.  It was a matter never mentioned to him (understandably so); it was barely discussed in his own father’s immediate family.  In an altogether different way, Matthew Manning didn’t know Greek, Chinese or Arabic, but nonetheless expressed them in his automatic writing.

It seems likely that the special people we have been considering in this series retain some access to information independent of personhood, locale, culture, or time period.  The traits that Dabrowski identified, either singly or in combination, serve as markers for those who remain ‘tapped in’ to this reservoir in some way.  An accident or act of God (e.g., car crash, stroke, lightning strike, etc.) that occurs to a normal adult can also rewire the brain so that a similar effect is achieved.  All this suggests that our typical waking consciousness is highly circumscribed.  Perhaps William Blake was right when he stated “If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is – infinite.” (Blake, 1790)  

Gestation does not mean just the development of an embryo between conception and birth.  It is also defined as the development of an idea or plan in the mind. (Morris, 1981)  Suppose this idea or plan comes to fruition in the form of individual human beings and is ‘seeded’ by a greater mind, or via the mystery and majesty of life itself?  The Greeks called this seed your daimon; the Romans termed it your genius; the late Jungian psychologist James Hillman refreshed the concept as the “acorn.” (Hillman, 1996)  Through whatever forces of nature, nurture, epigenetics and soulfulness it springs, it is invariably you– your form, your pattern, your blueprint.  Neurons and glial cells, nerves and organs, muscles and bones, head and heart, psyche and soma – these will coalesce around the unique design.  The daimon, furthermore (according to classical sources), will have its way.  It will impel the person toward her or his destiny. 

That there is a seed, and through it a connection with the source of life itself, is evident in the types of people we have been surveying.  Often their gestation has been affected by some quirk: an illness, an accident, a deprivation, a trauma visited upon the pregnant mother.  In these circumstances, it is as if the curtain is peeled back to reveal the blueprint forming.  The process, having been short-circuited in some way, produces a child who is more closely connected with the universe, with the web of sensation and emotion, than he or she would otherwise be.  (This is even true in the apparent abyss of severe autism.  Just because such people live behind what’s been called an opaque “glass wall” doesn’t mean they aren’t highly attuned.  See Buten, 2004.) 

Most of us – the common folk – believe our consensus reality is the sole and absolute reality.  But I suspect we are (in the words of Yale University medical researcher David Katz) merely “sequestered within the limited terrain of a reality that is itself lost in a far greater reality beyond our perception.”  

As for myself, I harbor some sensitivity, such as a habitual startle at loud noises and a preoccupation with whether I have unintentionally made others feel bad.  Growing up, I recall crying as I read a copy of a newspaper from 1945, realizing how stunned and grief-stricken people were at the sudden death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, their leader through the Great Depression and World War II.  Likewise, I became immensely sad one evening as I perused a promotion from Time-Life Books detailing (in evocative pictures and prose) how the Civil War cost tens of thousands of young men their lives in fierce fighting that either side hardly ever won. 

But perhaps the oddest thing that I remember happening – even into adulthood – is the sense that would dawn on me every now and again that I was part of a great immensity.  Not an immensity reflective of the world we know but one that seemed to reveal itself around and beyond this one.  When this sense enveloped me, it was both surprising and strangely reassuring.  I would also get the feeling, once in awhile, that there was something that had preceded my everyday world – that a curtain obscuring a vast but perceptible ‘then’-ness had been parted slightly.  The sensation was akin to déjà vu, but not quite.  (Interestingly, the last time it happened I had just finished watching a movie about a man who regained his full memory after ‘scraping by’ on bits and pieces.  The effect was extraordinary.)

Perhaps I was flashing back, as it were, to a long-lost reverie of the womb.  But who’s to say I did not somehow manage a glimpse into the ‘seed ground’ of where we all come from?  If so, it was a unique privilege that may not come to me again.  But other people – synesthetes, savants, those with an Autism Spectrum Disorder, the highly sensitive, the gifted, the prodigious, the psychic – do have a degree of access, I believe.  So we should pay proper attention to what they have to tell us.  What we stand to learn could go well beyond the biological and the neurological, into the metaphysical and meaningful.

Notes:

Blake, William. The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. 1790.

Buten, Howard. Through the Glass Wall. New York: Bantam Books, 2004.

Feldman, David Henry. Nature's Gambit: Child Prodigies and the Development of Human Potential. New York: Basic Books, 1986, 169.  

Hillman, James. The Soul’s Code. New York: Random House, 1996, 8-11. 

Morris, William, ed. (1981.) American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 554.