A new study soon to be published in the Journal of Women’s Health provides fresh evidence that it is the people who stay single instead of getting married, or who get divorced instead of staying married, who are especially likely to be healthy.

Marriage researchers have been insisting for decades that married people are healthier, and they are healthier because they are married. If that were true, then people who get married should become healthier than they were when they were single, and people who get divorced should become less healthy than they were when they were married. Individual social scientists have sometimes suggested that the evidence is far from definitive (for example, in Singled Out, and later in Marriage vs. Single Life: How Science and the Media Got It So Wrong), but their objections have done little to put a dent in the prevailing assumptions. The belief that marriage is protective of health goes mostly unquestioned.

In the new study, more than 79,000 women were studied over a three-year period as they stayed unmarried, got married (or entered a relationship that was like marriage), stayed married, or got divorced or separated. The women were between the ages of 50 and 79, recruited from 40 different places across the U.S. They were all post-menopausal. Women who became widowed were not included.

Many studies of health rely on participants’ own reports of how healthy they are. In this study, actual physical measurements of blood pressure, waist circumference, and BMI (body mass index) were taken by trained professionals. Those measures were supplemented by participants’ reports of their drinking, smoking, exercising, and eating habits.

Here’s what changed when unmarried women (whether divorced or separated or always-single) got married:

• After they got married, their MBI (body mass index) increased
• After they got married, they drank more
• After they got married, their systolic blood pressure increased
• Diastolic blood pressure decreased over the 3-year period for those who stayed single and those who married, but it decreased less in those who got married

Here’s what changed when married women got divorced or separated. Compared to the women who stayed married:

• The BMI (body mass index) decreased for the women who got divorced
• The waist size decreased for the women who got divorced
• Diastolic blood pressure decreased more for the women who got divorced. (The results for systolic blood pressure showed the same pattern but were not statistically significant.)
• Improvements in healthy eating were greater for the women who got divorced
• Physical activity increased for the women who got divorced
• Among those who were not smoking at the beginning of the study, the women who got divorced were more likely to start smoking. (Among those who were already smoking at the start of the study, those who divorced were no more or less likely to stop smoking than those who stayed married.)

In summary, with just one exception, every time there was a difference in physical health, it favored people who stayed single (instead of getting married) and those who got divorced (instead of staying married).

To explain why women who get married get fatter, the authors reached for an explanation that has been offered in the past, and never been tested: Married people regularly sit down together to share their meals, and maybe they eat larger portions because of that. The authors offered no ideas as to why the women who stayed single stayed slimmer, drank less, and had lower blood pressure than those who got married. One possibility is that single people care more about their health (and not just because they want to attract a romantic partner) and have more opportunities to pursue the health-affirming lifestyles that they value.

The authors wondered whether the weight loss shown by the women who got divorced could have been a result of stress and emotional upheaval, rather than any deliberate attempts to live a healthier life. They measured the women’s emotional well-being, social functioning, and levels of depression, but when they took those factors into account in their analyses, nothing changed. The improvements in health apparently were not just a happy accident of feeling miserable. Instead, the authors suggested, these women, who were exercising more and eating better, “were actively engaged in improving their health.”

This study included only older women. But social scientists who reviewed 20 other articles on marital transitions and health – articles describing studies that included men and women of all ages – found the same thing: “Overall, transitions into marriage were associated with weight gain, whereas transitions out of marriage were associated with weight loss.”

The marriage researchers who have been claiming that getting married makes people healthier have suggested various explanations for their expected results. For example, spouses supposedly monitor each other’s behaviors to make sure they eat healthy, exercise, avoid risky behaviors such as drinking or taking drugs. Researchers also point to all the affection and social support spouses offer each other, and suggest that such “there for you” qualities of marriage should also result in greater health among those who get married, and worse health for those who get divorced. But in this study, and in the 20 articles reviewed previously, and in other research described in Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After and Marriage vs. Single Life: How Science and the Media Got It So Wrong, that’s just not what is happening. Social scientists need to turn their attention to a question that – with few exceptions– they have ignored: Why is it that single people are doing so well?

Last summer I made my annual trip to Moscow to teach. When I arrived, the first thing my contact asked me was, “Is Hillary dying?”

I replied, “What are you reading?” She told me she receives U.S. news on the Internet. I wanted to blame her perception on the Russian media, but I saw similar reports in the U.S.

Source: scandinaviastock/AdobeStock

Determining what is true is difficult. People will tell you it is simple if you just accept the facts. How do you know what facts to accept? Before you attempt to test your opinions externally with evidence, you need to look internally at the fears and assumptions that could lead you to believe unsupported opinions.

How your brain defines truth

Even if you think you are an independent thinker, most of your thoughts stem from the groups you identify with based on your upbringing, communities, religion, and even science. Shared meaning holds people together, giving you a sense of belonging, connection, and safety. 

When you see evidence in the news that supports what you believe, you feel relieved and pleased.

If the news runs counter to your beliefs, you feel anxious or angry. You're more likely to call it “fake news” without looking to see if the evidence is strong or not. If someone says you are wrong, your brain sees this as a personal attack, making you even angrier. You then label their argument absurd, ignorant, or biased.

A USC study found that challenges to political beliefs, like religious beliefs, activate the same brain areas as when you see a snake or fast-approaching car.¹ You feel threatened, unable to hear rational evidence against your beliefs. You lose cognitive flexibility, becoming rigidly defensive.

News articles rarely paint the entire picture; the news you get comes in fragments based on the leaning of the media you get it from. If you get your news from social media, like 62 percent of US adults, you get information from like-minded people so it isn’t balanced. This increases conviction and misinterpretation, especially when you read news counter to your beliefs.

Convenient truth

Even when you recognize your biases, Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman says you won’t stop to analyze what you read because it is too hard.² Not only do you have too much to do...

1. There is too much information to try to digest.
2. The information comes in bits, so you fill in the gaps with generalities based on your beliefs.
3. Short term memory is limited so you only grasp what matches your assumptions.

Reflective techniques

NOTE: This doesn’t mean you should accept what you see, especially bigotry and hatred. Reflection opens you to at least understand other people's views and fears.

To counteract your brain’s tendency to construct “truth” out of comfort, convenience, and confusion, you can access your Reflective Intelligence to try to sort through your filters. This isn’t easy, but if you are courageous enough to accept a different reality, you might be able to see what else could be true.

1. After reading an article, write down your thoughts without censoring them.
2. Read your words as if someone else wrote them. Circle the emotionally-charged words and judgments of people’s character instead of their actions.
3. Ask, “What is causing me to think this way? What beliefs are forming these thoughts? What assumptions am I holding that are keeping me from opening my mind?” Consider these points:

• Until you speak them, you are rarely aware of the assumptions behind your thoughts, just as you ride a bike or drive a car without thinking. Emotions can be a window to your values and beliefs.
• Don’t stop your emotions and reactions, especially your impulse to agree or condemn. Be curious about why they are occurring.
• Catch yourself saying, “This is absolutely wrong.” The word absolutely defines the limits of your thinking. You learned it out of survival; it doesn’t necessarily define what is true.
• Hear the story you are telling, “They are trying to betray me” or “He's a selfish idiot." Ask yourself what you are afraid will happen if you believed something else. You can also ask why others react positively or negatively. The more you can suspend your past knowledge to remove judgment, the more clearly you can see what else could be driving the actions you disagree with.
• Practice interpreting with a beginner’s mind. Say to yourself, “If I had never seen this situation, or knew this person before, what might I perceive?” If you already know why people do what they do, there is nothing new to see. Are you willing to look from a different perspective?
• Look for the values you fear are at stake, such as equality, fairness, loyalty, or prosperity. Other people’s actions might be supporting their values which may differ from yours. Rob Willer defines this difference in his TED talk, How to Have Better Political Conversations.

After questioning your beliefs and biases, you can better weigh the evidence to assess if the “facts” were intended to inform or manipulate.

Weighing evidence

Carl Sagan created a Baloney Detection Kit to check if arguments are based in pseudoscience or superstition.³ The following items come from his list:

1. Quantify – How many people are included or how many times has this happened? Don’t rely on what is projected for the future without verifying strong patterns.
2. Is the hypothesis is testable? Can it be proven in other circumstances with the same result?
3. Reject attacks on people; focus only on the opposing argument not who is saying it.
4. Question arguments based on...

• an "authority,” the opinion of one person with no backup data. Also, when people say, “studies show…” and don’t cite any studies, don’t accept the numbers as facts.
• one party saying the others actions will create large-scale consequences without evidence. Be wary of the word "all" relating to an entire group.
• statistics that draw conclusions from a small, inadequate sample.
• unsupported cause and effect - "it happened after so it was caused by…" 
• no middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities.
• short-term vs. long-term – “We can’t care about science when we have a budget deficit."
• slippery slope - give an inch and they will take a mile.

The more you question what you read, the sturdier the truth.

In this essay I’m going to say a few things you probably already know. But if you bear with me, you might find the examples illuminating. And I’ll draw a conclusion that is only obvious in retrospect. The first example, though, isn’t very dramatic. Here goes.

In Stanley Milgram’s famous experiments on obedience, subjects delivered shocks (they thought) that gradually increased in strength. Many continued until the person supposedly receiving the shocks seemed to be dying or already dead.

What would you have done?

When my students ponder this question, one group says to themselves, “Those were randomly selected, normal people. I’m a normal person. I might have done that too.” The other group says, “I would never have done that.”

Both groups start with a pre-existing idea that they wouldn’t kill a random person just because an authority figure in a lab coat told them to. Then they encounter evidence that this is something normal people do.

The first group changes their pre-existing ideas about themselves. They learn something. The second group finds a way to reinterpret the evidence that doesn't require them to change their self-concept. They don’t learn.

(Another example: Tell a student that even though it’s impossible for most people to be above average, most people think they are. She will often react by saying “Man, those below-average folks need to adjust their attitudes. But not me, because I really am above average.”)

From a psychological perspective, a lot is going on here. But let me focus on two things. 1) We’re terrible at taking another person’s perspective. 2) We think we’re good at it.

We’re terrible at taking another person’s perspective

Here’s an example of perspective taking gone wrong. An article I assign every year describes community college students’ view of mathematics. The students say things like:

• “Math is just all these steps.”
• “Sometimes in math you have to just accept that that's the way it is and there's no reason behind it.”
• “I don’t think [being good at math] has anything to do with reasoning. It’s all memorization.”

These statements are exactly the opposite of the truth about math. But given the experiences these students have had in school, perhaps they’re accurate.

My point, though, is about their teachers. After the researchers interviewed and tested the students, they met with the college’s math faculty and described their results. The faculty members were astounded. They had no clue about their students’ perspective on math.

I’m not blaming these teachers; I’m saying they’re normal. Notice, though, that these teachers failed when perspective taking should have been relatively easy. They had spent many hours every semester face-to-face with these students, talking about math!

(Perhaps if they had experienced math the way their students had—walked in their shoes, as it were—they would have done better. Presumably they had not.)

Perspective taking is hard. But just as important, the teachers were astounded. It seems that they thought they understood their students’ perspective.

We think we’re good at it

I recently read an essay by Sam Wineburg, a professor of education and history. He quotes Primo Levi, an Auschwitz survivor and author. Here is how Levi describes what happened one day when he was speaking to a group of fifth graders.

An alert-looking boy, apparently at the head of the class, asked me the obligatory question: “But how come you didn’t escape?” I briefly explained to him what I have written here. Not quite convinced, he asked me to draw a sketch of the camp on the blackboard indicating the location of the watch towers, the gates, the barbed wire, and the power station. I did my best, watched by thirty pairs of intent eyes. My interlocutor studied the drawing for a few instants, asked me for a few further clarifications, then he presented to me the plan he had worked out: here, at night, cut the throat of the sentinel; then, put on his clothes; immediately after this, run over there to the power station and cut off the electricity, so the search lights would go out and the high tension fence would be deactivated; after that I could leave without any trouble. He added seriously: “If it should happen to you again, do as I told you. You’ll see that you’ll be able to do it.” (Levi 1989: 157)

This kid can’t imagine what it was like to be imprisoned at Auschwitz. This is hardly a sin: Who can? But he makes a second mistake: He thinks he can. That’s why he gives Levi advice on what to do next time.

It isn’t just kids, according to Levi. Adults told him variations on the same thing: “Here’s what I would have done in your situation.”

"If I’d have been in his shoes, I’d have acted differently"

Don’t pretend you can tell what it was like to be in a concentration camp. Or that you understand what Thomas Jefferson was thinking when he wrote about ending the slave trade but continued to own slaves. (Or, for that matter, expect another species--a pet, or worse a wild animal--to feel or act the way you would.)

Let’s consider Harry S. Truman’s decisions to drop atomic bombs on Japan in 1945. There are three subtly different types of judgment to think about here:

• Judging the decision itself is valuable and important. How did it impact the world? What would have happened otherwise? We can learn how to make good decisions in the future by understanding decisions in the past.
• Trying to understand Truman’s thought process is also valuable. It can be done, at least to some degree, through careful study of the man and his context. Lessons about human psychology help us understand our history, each other, and ourselves.
• Here’s what I don’t like: Claiming that you understand the decision maker’s thought process, motives, or morals. Yes, you can try, and you can make progress. But don’t pretend you can get there all the way.

It is one of the purest forms of hubris to assume that if you’d been in someone else’s shoes you’d have acted differently.

But I’ll bet Truman isn’t the president on your mind. Let’s think about today.

On election night in 2016, half of the country could not believe anyone would vote for Hillary Clinton. The other half could not believe anyone would vote for Donald Trump. We collectively said, as a nation: "If I was in the shoes of someone on the other side, I’d have acted differently.” And now I must criticize myself: That’s exactly what I said to myself. I was wrong.

Life in a bubble

The idea that some people live in a bubble and others don’t makes no sense. You live in a bubble. So do I. Let’s admit it.

I don’t mean that there are a few bubbles (rural versus urban, coastal versus middle). I mean every person is in their own little bubble. Our context inevitably shapes how we see the world.

It’s not impossible to take the perspective of someone in a similar context (like, for me, other liberal psychology professors from western Massachusetts). But it gets harder when their context grows more distant (like, for me, unemployed midwestern factory workers whose jobs have gone overseas).

I’m not saying we shouldn’t try. I’m saying we should try harder. We can understand each other better by listening to people far from our own bubble, reading what they write, and seeing what they go through.

Judging the outcome of other voters’ decisions is fair: Is the world better with Trump in charge than it would have been with Clinton? Good question. But judging the voters themselves is far too tempting.

Who would I have voted for if I was born and raised in a different context? I’d like to say I know, but I don’t.

Check me out on Twitter. 

It seems that basic nosiness is a natural part of the human condition. If it weren’t, why would people watch the endless number of reality shows on TV? Peering into the lives of others seems to satisfy a deep yearning if not just idle curiosity. It’s perhaps for this reason that so many of us enjoy chatting with strangers when we’re thrust together by circumstance. Whether on line in the supermarket, waiting in a waiting room, or sitting next to a fellow passenger whom you happen to be traveling with, it seems almost endemic to the situation for someone to initiate a conversation. New research shows, if not where that curiosity comes from, at least how you can best satisfy it.

We get insights into the ways to get others to open up to you from University of Waterloo (Canada)’s M. Mahdi Roghanizad and Cornell University’s Vanessa Bohns (2017), who explored the role of in-person vs. email-based communication in interpersonal persuasion. Perhaps not surprisingly, as shown in this set of studies on university students, email is not as persuasive a medium as people think it might be. There is something about face-to-face interactions, as the authors point out, that you won’t find present in emails, no matter how personal you think you are making your request. In face-to-face communication, Roghanizad and Bohns note, it’s hard to say “no” to a person in person: “it feels bad to let someone down” (p. 223).  In-person interactions rely heavily, as well, on trust, which activates empathy.

Establishing trust, then, seems to be important when your request is not that someone perform a favor, but simply that the other person feel that it’s okay to self-disclose to you. As trust and empathy go hand in hand, you also want to seem that you care about what the other person is experiencing in the situation you mutually share, for however long.

It’s worth pointing out that it’s not just boredom or curiosity that are at the root of getting strangers to open up to you. It can be adaptive to try to elicit information from others. You may learn how better to navigate the situation you’re stuck in with this person, such as whether there are grocery coupons you’ve missed out on which you can then download on your phone. You may also gain interesting knowledge that you otherwise would not have had about a country you’ve never visited or an occupation about which you always wanted to know more. Learning about someone’s emotional troubles can also be informative if you gain information on how better to cope with your own.

In these situations, keep in mind that it’s probably wise to tip the scales in the direction of you learning more from the other person than what you reveal about yourself. Although it’s said that people who meet on vacation can say or do anything because they’ll never run into each other again, there’s also the rule of six degrees of separation. You never know who other people may know and letting on to some of your bad habits or personal history to strangers can lead to unexpected problems. Even gossiping about someone from your hometown or workplace could lead, quite surprisingly, to that person hearing this from the friend of a friend. On the other hand, once you feel that it’s okay to share, by all means engage in a little tit-for-tat, without going overboard.

There are actually situations when it’s important to get someone else to open up. This could be in a job or school interview where you need to learn about this person you may be hiring or admitting.  The resume or school record can certainly be a starting point if you use it properly. To prep for the interview, look carefully at the information provided (or what’s not provided, such as missing dates), and ask open-ended questions about what those experiences were like for your interviewee.

Getting others to open up is also a useful tactic in establishing close relationships. If you’re not sure that this new individual is a person you want to have that relationship with, it’s safer to keep the balance of disclosure tilted toward that person's revealing more than you do. Learning more than you share will help you decide whether to move forward.

Talking to strangers can have other benefits as well. For all you know, there will be a true connection that forms- whether it’s just an exchange of emails or friending on Facebook- that leads to a relationship that continues far beyond the moments of your brief interaction. You may also find that the friend of the friend is someone who you really want to, and do, get to know better. Minimally, you can also gain practical advice to help you the next time you’re in that situation to avoid the long wait or the extra expense of not knowing about a good deal. As I mentioned earlier, you can also learn a great deal from people who come from countries and cultures other than yours which it’s doubtful you’ll ever visit or experience on a first-hand basis.

Getting people to open up, then, means that at least initially they give you information unequally compared to what you say about yourself. These 5 steps will help get you there:

1. Pay close attention to any information the other person shares at the beginning of an interaction: It could be the person’s name that leads to interesting clues, such as an unusual first name, or it could be something that you overhear about where the person is from. Even though the information may be somewhat generic and completely innocuous, it can give you the basis for where you’re going next.
2. Establish a point of connection and use that to continue the conversation: “I had a best friend named Nancy,” or “Oh, I heard that you’re from Cape Cod. I’ve been there a couple of times.” If you’re both suffering from the same unpleasant condition (waiting in a long line), comment on your shared misery (“I thought this would be a fast line but it’s not, I guess”). Leak a little information about yourself, but only a minimal amount to keep things going.
3. Don’t make assumptions: A stranger seated next to you at a reasonably formal dinner may be wearing jeans and a flannel shirt-- you may believe that this person got there by mistake because clearly the person doesn’t fit in to the crowd. Before you write this person off, maintain a generally friendly and respectful demeanor. For all you know, this is someone who didn’t know what the dress rules were or is actually someone wealthy, high-status, and/or nice enough not to care.
4. Ask questions without seeming (or being) nosy and intrusive: Using the data you have in front of you, which could be on a resume or school transcript, start with general questions that you hope will lead to more specific information. You may see an unusually short period of employment or a poor grade on a transcript. There could be many reasons for this, but to get to the truth, give the other person space to put those reasons in his or her own words. If it's an informal situation, keep your questions to what feels like a comfortable number in the context of the interaction (i.e. don't get into a game of 20 questions).
5. Figure out when to back off: At some point the other person may wish to discontinue the conversation or just not answer a question to your satisfaction. That poor grade on a transcript may be due to the fact that a close relative died or that the subject matter is just one that was too challenging. If this you get such an answer, and the individual clearly is upset at talking about the situation, let the matter rest and switch gears.

It’s very easy to practice your skills at this form of communication, given how many times in life we’re in situations with people we really don’t know.  Once you get the hang of it, you’ll find many more opportunities to fulfill not only your sense of curiosity, but the surprisingly enjoyable connections you can make that even change the course of your life.

Follow me on Twitter @swhitbo for daily updates on psychology, health, and aging. Feel free to join my Facebook group, "Fulfillment at Any Age," to discuss today's blog, or to ask further questions about this posting.

Copyright Susan Krauss Whitbourne 2017

Source: MSSA/Shutterstock

There is no correlation between immigration and increases in crime, according to a new University of Buffalo-led study by a team of researchers from across the United States who analyzed forty years of empirical evidence. The February 2017 report, "Urban Crime Rates and the Changing Face of Immigration: Evidence Across Four Decades,” was published yesterday in the Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice.

Although political arguments supporting an immigration ban from certain countries claim that reducing immigration will make America safer, the empirical evidence does not support these claims. In fact, higher levels of immigration are actually associated with reductions in some types of crime, according to the latest evidence-based research.

Crime Rates Are Often Lowest in Places Where Immigration Levels Are Highest

“The results show that immigration does not increase assaults and, in fact, robberies, burglaries, larceny, and murder are lower in places where immigration levels are higher,” lead author Robert Adelman, associate professor of sociology, said in a statement to the University at Buffalo.

For this study, Robert Adelman collaborated with Lesley Williams Reid, from the University of Alabama; Gail Markle from Kennesaw State University; Charles Jaret, of Georgia State University; and Saskia Weiss, an independent criminal justice scholar.

The team of researchers investigated the immigration-crime relationship in 200 metropolitan areas over a 40 year period (1970 to 2010) based on immigration statistics and crime reporting data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The researchers' objective was to identify if there was any association between immigration and a broad range of violent and property crimes.

Their detailed analysis of almost a half century of data found that immigration was consistently linked to decreases in violent (e.g., murder) and property (e.g., burglary) crime throughout the four-decade period. In a statement, Adelman said,

"Facts are critical in the current political environment. The empirical evidence in this study and other related research shows little support for the notion that more immigrants lead to more crime. It's important to base our public policies on facts and evidence rather than ideologies and baseless claims that demonize particular segments of the U.S. population without any facts to back them up.”

The latest research by Adelman et al. supports other empirically-based conclusions that immigrants, as a collective group, have a positive effect on the social and economic fabric of American life.

Previous research on the link between immigration and crime—which analyzed arrest and offense data—found that, overall, foreign-born individuals are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans. That being said, Adelman acknowledges that the relationship between immigration and crime is very complex and more research necessary. 

"This is a study across time and across place and the evidence is clear," Adelman concluded. "We are not claiming that immigrants are never involved in crime. What we are explaining is that communities experiencing demographic change driven by immigration patterns do not experience significant increases in any of the kinds of crime we examined. And in many cases, crime was either stable or actually declined in communities that incorporated many immigrants."

Blog written by Chris Gilbert, MD, PhD

When Jill (not her real name) married Boris, she was a 22 year old virgin.  She had saved herself for the one man she loved and was proud of it.  Yet, the wedding night proved to be unexpected.  She had put candles everywhere in their beautiful spacious hotel room.  The atmosphere was very romantic.  The maître d’hotel had brought a bottle of champagne with 2 glasses, strategically placed on a small table at the foot of the bed.  Jill was happy the moment was finally there when she could give herself completely to the man she loved.  No more saving her virginity.  Now she had a husband and he would have the best of her as well as the most intimate part of her.  She was looking forward to the moment when he would dive into her and bring her to the ecstasy she had heard of.  Finally, that moment was now.  As he lied on top of her, taking her beautiful gown off, kissing her, telling her how much he loved her, he began to make love to her. 

The searing pain was immediate and excruciating. Jill feared she was literally being torn apart.

Screaming in agony, Jill did nothing to stop Boris as she waited for the pain to turn into pleasure.  Unfortunately, it didn’t.  She had heard that sex can be painful the first few times but that afterwards it becomes pleasurable.  Yet, as days and weeks went by, sex never became pleasurable.  Boris wanted sex every day, sometimes twice a day but she never reached orgasm because pain always came first.  After having 2 children with Boris, she decided she didn’t want intercourse any more.  Consequently, one year after the last child was born, Boris had an affair with a work colleague and left Jill with her 2 children.  Ultimately Jill and Boris got divorced.

A few years later, Jill met Brett.  After a few dates, they had sex.  Jill expected sex to be painful as it used to be with Boris.  Yet, it wasn’t.  As a matter of fact, not only did she not have pain, she didn’t feel anything.  Was he inside of her?  She wasn’t sure.  As she looked at the size of his erect sex, she realized Brett’s penis was a quarter of the size of Boris’s.  She was astonished.  She didn’t know there were different sizes in men.  She thought all men had a penis about the same size.  After a few months with Brett, she still couldn’t feel much.  Since her relationship with Brett wasn’t great on other levels, she broke up with him.

Could she find a man who could be compatible with her on a sexual level?  Could she discover vaginal orgasms?

A few months later, she met Jack.  Not only were they emotionally, intellectually, spiritually and financially compatible, they were also sexually compatible.  Jack’s sexual organ was smaller than Boris but bigger than Brett.  Sex was not painful and she could feel him inside.  Little by little she experienced more and more pleasure as she learned to relax more and more.  Finally, after one year with Jack, she had her first vaginal orgasm and many after that.  They are now happily married.

Studies show that Jill isn’t alone. 

Melissa Farmer and Cindy Meston published their studies in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2007.  It showed that out of close to 1,000 women between 18 and 25 years old, of sexually active women, 63% reported any history of genital pain during intercourse.  Of sexually active women, 40% of women reported genital pain “occasionally” and 23 % of women reported experiencing pain during sexual intercourse “always” or “most of the time”.

Also Laumann, Paik and Rosen in JAMA 1999 did a survey on 1749 women and 1410 men aged 18 to 59 years.  They found that sexual dysfunction was prevalent in 43% of women and that number increased after menopause.  Sexual dysfunction was also present in 31% of men.

In my medical practice, over the years, I found that sexual compatibility is important not only for happiness but also for health.

3 sex questions are important when looking for a life partner:

1) How often do each of you need sex?

Some people are more sexual than others.  Some need sex once or twice a day while others need sex only once a month, the average being 2 or 3 times a week.

While this shouldn’t be important in theory (“we are very compatible on other levels: emotional, spiritual and intellectual levels”), in practice it is really important when looking for a life partner.  Especially if children are created.  At the beginning of a relationship, both people will do their best to accommodate each other but as time goes by, their basic need will take over.  The one that needs sex once or twice a day will be increasingly unhappy whereas the one that needs sex once a month will not understand the other’s needs.  The one who needs more frequent sex might end up having a lover which ultimately will destroy the family.

2) Size and shape-wise, how compatible are you?

Some men have a large and long erect penis while others have a small and short erect one.  Some women have a large and long vagina while others have a narrow and short one.  Some men have a bent forward penis while others have a bent backwards one or one bent to one side.  Some women have a bent forward uterus while others have a bent backwards one.

All those details shouldn’t be important and yet, they are!  If a man with a large and long penis marries a woman with a short and narrow vagina, which could have been the case of Jill and Boris, intercourse will tend to be painful at times for her, which means that as years go by, the woman might want less and less sex.  When menopause will hit and her vagina will be dryer and less lubricated, she might not want sex any more whereas her man will still need sex.  He might then look for a lover and the family will be destroyed.

If a man with a small and narrow erect penis marries a woman with a long and wide vagina, both of them might have trouble getting orgasms.  He will be swimming in a large ocean while she will be wondering if there is really a sex inside of her.

If a man with a bent-forward penis marries a woman with a bent backwards uterus, his penis will hit the bent backwards uterus which will then hit the back of her pelvis which might be painful in the missionary position. Other positions will then have to be explored so that intercourse can be pleasurable to both partners.

3) How long does it take for each of you to reach orgasm?

Some people need 20 to 30 minutes to reach an orgasm while others need 6 seconds or less.

Yes, there are medications that people can take to increase the time to orgasm.  Those will triple or quadruple their time to orgasm.  This means that instead of having an orgasm in 6 seconds, they will manage to delay orgasm 18 to 24 seconds.  This will still be hard to match the 20 to 30 minute others need.  Sometimes, with time, some people will reach orgasm faster or slower.

But if they don’t, while at the beginning of the relationship, both people will do their best to make the other happy, as years go by, they will tend to accommodate the other less and less.  If a more compatible sex partner shows up, this might destroy the relationship.

Does that mean that sex before marriage is needed to make sure both people are sexually compatible?  Well, maybe yes and maybe no.

Arranged marriages historically work very well.  And those people only have sex after marriage.  Family is important to them and they respect their husband or wife.  As for sexual happiness, it is probably a gamble but they play “the cards they are dealt” and do the best they can.  Those marriages are very often successful ones because sexual fulfillment isn’t the primary focus of the marriage.  Family is!

So that shows how complex and multifactorial, having a happy relationship with a life partner is, especially if people want children.  Couples need not only to be emotionally, spiritually, intellectually and financially compatible, they also benefit from being sexually compatible.

But all this can change with time.  After giving birth to children, some women will be less interested in sex.  After menopause, a lot of women will also have more vaginal dryness and want less frequent sex.  Antidepressants will decrease their sex drive.  For men, diabetes, heart disease, stress and medications might affect their ability to have erections. 

So, if you have a perfectly compatible life partner, enjoy the present moment because such a relationship is hard to find and could change as age progresses and diseases pass by.

Blog written by Chris Gilbert MD PhD. Integrative and Holistic Medicine

Author of "Dr. Chris's ABC's of Health" and "The French Stethoscope"

Look for Dr. Chris's new book, "Healing Secrets of an Unconventional Doctor," to be released by Selectbooks in October 2017

Source: Dr. Chris Gilbert

Many people still don't understand that Trump can be a world class narcissist & still not qualify for a mental disorder.

My last blog explained why he is bad, not mad- crazy only like a fox. And that lumping him with the mentally ill is an insult to them, not him. https://t.co/zS2VktbCHJ

The urge among amateur diagnosticians to mislabel Trump as mentally ill is perfectly understandable. They are terrified (as am I) by his dictatorial and impulsive behavior and feel compelled to resort to psychiatric name calling as a way of delegitimizing him. 

But this is inaccurate, unnecessary, unfair to the mentally ill, ineffective, and badly off target. 

We must challenge Trump on his outrageous behaviors and constant lies, not on his mental status. Speculations on Trump's psychological motivations, or whether he believes his own lies, are both distracting and irrelevant. 

At this crucial moment, with our fragile democracy at serious risk, I really couldn't care less why Trump does what he does. It is his dangerous actions that count, not the psychological reasons he does them.

Within a week of taking office, Trump declared war on our Constitution and also on the courts charged with defending it. He claimed that, based on his evaluation of risks to national security, he could arbitrarily exclude travelers from selected Muslim countries, without any judicial review of the legality of his executive order.

His claim is unprecedented and has been twice rejected by the court: "There is no precedent to support this unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our democracy". 

Trump ridiculed the four judges who ruled against him and claimed that they were acting politically- despite the fact that two had been appointed by Republican presidents and two by Democratic presidents. No president in our long history has ever shown such disrespect for the judiciary or willingness to defy the necessary checks and balances restraining presidential power. 

Impending court decisions in this case may constitute a key turning point in United States history. Should the judges accept Trump's ‘national security’ excuse for unconstitutional acts, it will embolden him to push for a much greater power grab. He can create a de facto dictatorship, eroding our precious civil rights, based only on his arbitrary interpretation of 'national security'. 

The courts must establish that Trump's ‘national security’ excuse is not a blank check, allowing for serial violations of the Constitution. Court decisions have always been heavily influenced by politics. The question now is whether judges will have the courage to support our Constitution in the face of Trump's determined bullying.

Trump is also setting up a straw man- he tweets that should a terrorist act ever occur, we should "blame them", not hold him responsible. He is preemptively abdicating responsibility for protecting the United States as best he can, but to do this in a manner consistent with upholding the Constitution and respecting our laws. Trump wants to establish the dangerous dichotomy that we either grant him dictatorial power or not hold him accountable for protecting national security.

All previous presidents understood that they were responsible for national security. None, not even George Bush, ever presumed that this gave them the right to rule autocratically and above the law. 

Trump can be contained only by the checks and balances that have always safeguarded our democracy. His persistent power grabs must be opposed by Congress, the courts, the media, and the public. 

So far Congress has proven useless, the courts are still to be tested, the public is mostly passive. The free media are the last and likely the best protector of democracy - which is why Trump persists in the bold lie that it is dishonest and that he is truthful. 

Opposition to Trump's power grab must be based on politics, not psychology. Everything possible must be done now to strengthen the backbone of the current very flawed Congress and to elect a wiser and more courageous one in 2018. 

And vigorous efforts must begin immediately to end the Trumpian dark age in 2020. If he gets a second term, Trump could go far in destroying the precious, but fragile, democratic institutions that have governed us for almost two and one half centuries. 

It is no accident that Orwell's '1984' shot to the top of Amazon's best seller list immediately after Trump's election. Another book people should also read is Sinclair Lewis''It Can Happen Here.'

Note: If you’ve recently experienced the death of your pet, this article may be too triggering for you at this time. I’d suggest you start here for support.

According to the most recent NHPCO facts and figures, it is estimated that 1.6 to 1.7 million patients received services from hospice support programs across the United States in 2014 alone. Hospice services have been steadily growing in popularity since 1982 at an increasing rate.

Well, what is Hospice?

Hospice services provide an additional level of care to an individual who has been diagnosed by a primary physician with 6 months or less to live due to disease progression and/or diagnostic criteria.

Typically, for humans, a hospice care team is comprised in a holistic manner of Nursing support, Certified Nursing Assistance for daily hygiene needs, as well as Spiritual Care support and a Social Worker for the holistic psychosocial and emotional needs of the patient’s support system (or plausibly lack of support system). Additionally, many Hospice programs provide volunteers for companionship and specialized counselors that are trained in Bereavement for both anticipatory grief and after-death counseling, resources, and intervention.

Source: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

The focus or goal of bringing Hospice support services on-board is patient comfort, typically referred to as the Hospice Philosophy. Patients, and their families, are looking at non-aggressive or invasive procedures as they understand this is the final journey in their loved one’s life. They are choosing to avoid hospitalization at all costs, and the Hospice becomes the support in times of crisis or the “new 9-1-1 support to call.”

Hospice interventions include pain management and overall comfort care as the body begins to go through the process of dying. This natural process is extremely individualistic to the person. Overall, we say in Hospice that “we die the way we have lived.” At times, this process is quick and the family can struggle with how fast death occurred. Other times the patient is mentally prepared, willing, and ready to die but the body isn’t quite there yet.

(For more information on Human Hospice you can visit the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization’s website, full of incredible resources and details.)

So, Hospice for Pets?

Similarly, Pet Hospice programs are steadily growing in popularity as the benefits of Human Hospice become increasingly well known, and people experience increasing comfort during their dying process. Just as an example for this article we’re going to highlight the volunteer supported Pet Hospice program by the Colorado State University Veterinary Teaching Hospital in Fort Collins, Colorado.

As a previous advisory member to their program, it was incredible to witness the immense benefit the Veterinary Students provided to individuals and families that wished to support their beloved pet through their own unique end-of-life journey. Under the CSVTH Pet Hospice Program, if a pet had been given a terminal diagnosis and they lived within 30 minutes of the Veterinary Hospice this program was given free of charge.

Veterinary students were provided highly specialized training in the area of end-of-life and transitions for pets. They collaborated with the primary care veterinarian and were able to visit the pet in the home and complete regular assessments, provide end-of-life education, and provide comfort care adjustments as the pet progressed within their unique end of life journey.
 

What services are typically provided by Pet Hospice?

Source: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

As of right now, there isn’t a database to easily discover which organizations might have a Pet Hospice Program available for you and your pet. With the growing trend and recognition that pet hospice could offer significant support to pets and their families, expect to see a lot of growth with the field in the near future.

Services may include:

• An assessment for your pain at each visit which records plausible pain levels, breathing, and heart rate
• Minor medical care and support for wounds such as bandage care and cleaning
• End – of – Life education to the entire family of the dying process and what they might expect
• Resources for body care after your pet's passing

Pet Hospice may or may not be integrated with home based Veterinary Services that include highly skilled euthanasia support and education

Growing trend for a Natural Death Process for Pets (versus Euthanasia)

Some pet owners are choosing to pursue a “Natural Death” process for their companion animal. In choosing this route for their companions life, it means that euthanasia will only be provided in cases of pain, discomfort, or if suffering is apparent in the end-of-life process.

Source: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

These owners experience the natural transition of their pet, although watching this can be difficult. There are similar signs and symptoms within this death process that compare to a human transition. Family members must educate themselves on these and be able to best support their pet through comfort measures. These measures are commonly supported through a holistic effort, such as acupuncture, or at times herbs and tinctures, as well as western medication for pain control, etc. 

It is extremely important no matter what path a pet owner chooses for their pet that they continue to be supported by their Veterinarian’s guidance and expertise. Programs such as the International Association for Animal Hospice and Palliative Care are forming programs and education that assist both pet owners and Veterinarians better understand what this end of life process is for pets, and why it can be integral to your beloved companion animal. You can even search for a specific service provider, Veterinarians, that are trained in end-of-life support for your pet.

For more information, I highly encourage a visit to fellow Psychology Today blogger Jessica Pierce’s page. Jessica has made strides in helping readers look at the morality and ethical processes of death, dying, and end-of-life when it comes to our beloved companion animals. 

Source: Norton, 1969

“Any attempt to appraise the chances of a fascist triumph in America,” wrote Theodor W. Adorno and his colleagues at the start of their classic 1950 study The Authoritarian Personality,“must reckon with the potential existing in the character of the people.”

Of that potential and its susceptibility to manipulation and worse, Adorno and his colleagues were far from optimistic. Their study, involving thousands of Americans from diverse backgrounds with varied incomes, helped produce an “F-scale” to measure receptivity in the U.S. and elsewhere to fascistic and other antidemocratic forces. Among its still-valid criteria were “conventionalism” (as summed up by the statement, “Lax morals and wayward habits are ruining our country”); “authoritarian submission” (“Our country desperately needs a mighty leader”); and “authoritarian aggression” (“We need a leader who will destroy the things perceived as ruining our country”).

Writing at the time from California, a German émigré who—once the U.S. entered World War II in 1941—would for years be dubbed an “enemy alien” in his adopted homeland, Adorno and his sociology colleagues looked specifically at Americans’ reaction to Jewish refugees fleeing persecution and genocide in Nazi Germany to determine the extent to which mainstream Americans might be receptive to far-Right propaganda. As today, with proposed but unlawful travel bans against nationals fleeing war-torn countries and ICE raids enabling rapid deportation, immigration was at the time seen as a weathervane or social barometer, a major indicator of its citizens’ attitudes and propensities.

“When it comes to the ways in which people appraise the social world,” Adorno wrote with Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford, researchers working at the University of California, Berkeley,

irrational trends stand out glaringly. One may conceive of a professional man who opposes the immigration of Jewish refugees on the grounds that this will increase the competition with which he has to deal and so decrease his income…. But for this man to go on, as do most people who oppose Jews on occupational grounds, and accept a wide variety of opinions, many of which are contradictory, about Jews in general, and to attribute various ills of the world to them, is plainly illogical. (Introduction; my emphasis)

Nevertheless, they noted with dismay, such attitudes not only persisted in the 1940s, but hardened acutely. “A man who is hostile toward one minority group is very likely to be hostile against a wide variety of others,” they extrapolated from the evidence. Even more, “the amount of outspoken anti-Semitism in pre-Hitler Germany was,” they explained (as did other prominent U.S. commentators at the time) actually “less than that in this country at the present time”—that is, in 1950s America.

Source: Izquotes.com

The Authoritarian Personality examined the attitudes of Americans who “would readily accept fascism if it should become a strong or respectable social movement”—of the kind represented, say, by a sitting president. What distinguished it as a study was its willingness to assess how “individuals differ in their susceptibility to antidemocratic propaganda, in their readiness to exhibit antidemocratic tendencies.” To grapple with the profound extremism and social irrationality that had enabled Hitler’s ascent in Germany, they advised that studies of prejudice focus their attention “where psychology has already found the sources of dreams, fantasies, and misinterpretations of the world—that is, in the deep-lying needs of the personality.” Amid rigorous attention those “needs,” where they found profound intolerance for doubt and ambiguity, they helped extrapolate the worldview of a substantial number of Americans, to assess their associated beliefs, accepted truths, and overarching ideology.

One consequence of returning to The Authoritarian Personality in 2017 is that, despite the work's shortcomings (including its overreliance on Freudianism), it reminds us that authoritarianism in America has a long and difficult history that includes not just the witch-hunts fueling McCarthyism, with its paranoid focus on treason and "subversives" in the federal government, but—very much related—how far-Right groups such as the Committee for Constitutional Government, Facts Forum, and National Committee for the Preservation of Americanism, taking succor from that extremism, exerted profound influence on the nation’s reactive forces (including religiosity) before they were exposed as part of “the Nazi Underworld of America.” That is where my research has taken me recently.

Source: Vox.com

Another value in recalling this history is that it helps explain the rise of populism, nativism, xenophobia, and extremism today, without reducing such movements to the traits and pathologies of their designated figurehead—the kind, for instance, that Donald Trump tried to emulate at his inauguration, when echoing the isolationist, anti-Semitic “America First” campaign of the 1940s. As the effort to diagnose and pathologize Trump recently reached a crescendo, including over whether his grandiosity and erratic, self-contradictory behavior satisfies the criteria for DSM-based personality disorders, there are, Allen Frances and others recently reminded us, dangers to pathologizing bad politics by fixating on the quirks of their seeming representatives. What Adorno and his colleagues gave us in their study of authoritarianism was the social and psychological context in which a perceived strongman could rise—the thoughts and beliefs that ultimately found expression and ardent support in such a figurehead.

Finally, what The Authoritarian Personality underscores for us in 2017 is why political “gaslighting”—a variety of truth-blurring techniques designed to confuse and control voters and citizens—came to be favored by strongmen and authoritarians alike, because it augments their power precisely at the moment when trust is widely perceived as faulty or missing. The term gaslight actually comes from the era Adorno and his colleagues were studying. As Frida Ghitis noted in a powerful op-ed, “Donald Trump is ‘Gaslighting’ All of Us,”

The term comes from the 1930s play "Gas Light" and the 1940s Hollywood movie version (Gaslight) in which a manipulative husband tries to unmoor his wife, played by Ingrid Bergman, by tampering with her perception of reality. He dims the gaslights and then pretends it's only she who thinks they are flickering as the rooms grow darker…. He [looks to] exert power and control by creating doubts about what is real and what isn't.

Ghitis included a litany of examples from the past two months alone to warrant calling the president “America's gaslighter in chief.” Examples from more recent days include: 1) the notion that negative polling for the president is automatically fake news; 2) that criticism of the president in and of itself renders a news outlet such as the New York Times “fake”; 3) that media are selectively underreporting terror attacks for political gain; 4) that the president is “at war with the media”; 5) that crime rates are rising when in fact they’re falling and have been for decades; 6) that only “so-called judges” issue unfavorable judicial rulings, which themselves must be biased; and so on. We are, within these parameters, on the exact same terrain as 1984, Orwell’s scathing critique of authoritarianism, where facts, opinions, conspiracies, and fabrications are all interchangeable. In Orwell’s dystopia, the state issues decrees insisting “Freedom is Slavery,” "Ignorance is Strength,""War is Peace," and “2 + 2 = 5.”

Source: Doubleday, 1935 (pictured: Signet, 1970)

The Authoritarian Personality, in short, is both us and U.S. It is a study tracing the roots and rise of authoritarianism not just to Hitler’s Germany but also to America’s heartland—to the beliefs, prejudices, and collective yearning of its citizens. It is the reason updated studies of authoritarianism continue to adopt, as indicators of the phenomenon, statements such as "The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas." Yet it is in ordinary Americans, finally, that Adorno's study finds its necessary remedy—in robust and widespread willingness to reject authoritarianism, to replace it with the arduous, sometimes-precarious, always labor-intensive work of maintaining and restoring a democracy.

christopherlane.org  Follow me on Twitter@christophlane

In the spirit of Representative John Lewis’ “good trouble” and feminist theorist Donna Haraway’s “staying with the trouble,” I offer this defense of activism or homage to activism in the time of Trump, or the age of American decline.  I have lately been writing popular books on meditation, most recently,  A Mindful Morning and A Mindful Evening, books intended to suffuse the mundane life of the reader with the glow of the transcendent.  Some of you might be wondering what this work on mindfulness has to do with the political articles that I have written in this time of global tragedy.  Xenophobia and nationalism rear their ugly heads in Europe and America, as though the world has collectively forgotten the horrors of the blood and soil movements of the twentieth century.  The cruelty of the nation state in refusing the refugee (a betrayal of both the Hebrew prophets and their scion, Jesus of Nazareth, to say nothing of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Geneva Conventions) should make us wonder whether the “civilized” nations of the world ever deserved the dignity of such a label. Indeed, “universal” liberty has always only applied to a few, has always been a politics of exclusion, a lopsided “welcome table.” Citizenship comes with the implicit threat of its revocation (prisons, courts martial, routine violence) in the carrot and stick structure of the state.

Mindfulness requires noticing--not in the detached, third person perspective of a remote observer (an epistemological fiction), but in the sense of caring for others, animal, vegetable, and mineral, even at one’s own expense. Max Scheler, one of my philosophical inspirations, said that, to put it briefly, to know is to love.  One cannot know another person, or even what we call material reality, without loving.  To be mindful requires attention, investment, and care.  Love need not be sentimental or even emotional, really--love can be a gritty sort of refusal to let the lie slide.  Though he made mistakes and the horrors of the partition hang over his legacy, Mahatma (insisting on this well-deserved honorific) Gandhi--a great inspiration for change in America--understood that the struggle, the trouble, also liberates the oppressor from having to hold to untruth.  He understood the structure of the thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectic (often attributed to Hegel but perhaps closer to Fichte), expressed in social change movements as satyagraha, or holding to truth.   

Mindful activism means shining a light on unjust systems and putting ourselves on the line in order to transform society on behalf of others (making “kin,” in Haraway’s thought). It should also be said that no activist ever works from a place of pure innocence: in this system of global capital, built on centuries of exploitation, no one stands on solid ground, least of all the white, male educated elites like myself.  But to speak from a place of privilege, to risk hypocrisy and ridicule, is better by leaps and bounds than to hold silent, to ignore the suffering on display everywhere “for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.”  Even ink-stained scribblers like myself, who speak from a place of relative safety, understand that safety is always relative--that as long as some people in our society feel threatened, no one can ever really be free from the fear of the gulag, the American expression of which is the apartheid archipelago of industrial prisons.  A society that targets activists and journalists cannot be far from a Stalinist-style nightmare.  I do not mean this as hyperbole or shock tactic--the ripples of purposely-induced fear already shudder through this so-called “homeland” (again: blood and soil).  To pay attention to the fear defuses the fear.

Source: Deposit Photos

In order to increase the relative safety, mindful activists must purge the discourse of imaginary enemies and concentrate on the very real threats to a democratic and open society.  I understand perfectly well that American history has never really been democratic, but in the germ of the ideal lies the possibility for growth.  When millions of people unite together mindfully, deliberately sharing a common lot, transformation cannot be far behind.  Of course, change can only be temporary, dwelling in the interstices and intersections of movements for change--red, green, black, and pink. When socialists get together with Native Americans, who get together with environmentalists and feminists, who get together with African-Americans and anarchists, amazing things can happen.  In this kin-making power of connection lies hope, and I know that word sounds tired now.   But hope has always been tired, and hope always keeps working.  So, whether you work from the streets or behind a computer screen, take the blessings of attentiveness and caring.  The world desperately needs us all to pay attention.

I know that mindfulness has been saddled with a corporatist label, as just another technique for increasing productivity, but it need not be so.  Mindfulness has the potential to transform the entire society, when enough people pay attention and are willing to take chances on behalf of beloved ones.  So we must, first of all, notice, and then take action, putting our careers, our reputations, and, (only rarely and never out of a sense of martyrdom) our lives on the line.  Risk need not be absolute or existential in nature, but some risk will be involved in making a more just society.  We all owe the good things that we enjoy to those who struggled before us, and we owe it to our children and grandchildren to work for a better world.  We do not have to heroic, except in the routine sense of doing the right thing. The present seems dark, but the light, what is known in Hinduism as the Satya Yuga, or Age of Truth, dawns as soon as ordinary people, unfazed by the forces arrayed against them, work to countermand the Great Ego that devours the world.  We fight the inner battle against resignation so that we might fight the outer battle against cruelty.  This inner and outer struggle begins now, always now, insisting on the now, and continues as long as necessary.  

Source: Shutterstock

Introversion can be defined as “the tendency of being predominantly interested in one's own mental life.”^[1] When it comes to matters of the heart, an introvert may think, act, and communicate in ways that are different than those who are more extroverted. Sometimes her or his intentions are misunderstood, or overlooked. 

Here are eight signs that you may be a romantically inclined introvert, excerpted from my book: “Relationship Communication Success for Introverts”. Although this article focuses primarily on dating and courtship, many of the ideas examined below apply to committed romantic relationships as well.

Of course, each individual is unique, and some introverts many exhibit few or none of these signs. Nevertheless, the characteristics identified below are consistent with multiple studies and writings on the topic of introversion.^{[2][3][4][5][6]} Many introverts are likely to have at least a number of the following traits:

1.   Looking to Meet “The One”    

Introverts often adopt a more thoughtful, introspective approach to courtship, and tend to take romantic relationships seriously, often from the outset. Instead of “flirting around”, “casually dating”, or “playing the field”, many introverts focus primarily on finding “the one” partner who is right for her or him, and then settling down. For introverts, the “game” of courtship and dating involving multiple prospects is often tiresome. When someone who may be the right partner appears, and a committed relationship forged, dating rituals are quickly left behind with a sigh of relief.

2.   Seeking Trust & Dependability in a Mate

Many introverts look for reliability from relationships in general, and romantic partnership in particular. Reliability, along with trust, fulfill the core needs of many introverts: safety and security for the more emotionally oriented, and predictability for the more analytically oriented.^[6] Most introverts, of course, seek a combination of all of these needs. 

To be sure, many extroverts desire safety, security and predictability from a partner as well. However, instead of being primary and central needs, they are more likely part of a mix of other qualities sought by extroverts (especially during courtship) such as fun-loving, spontaneity, adventuresome, social savvy, charisma, etc.

3.   In Courtship, Hinting and Hoping to Get Noticed

When I was young, one of the adult tutors who volunteered at my school was an intelligent but quiet man. Years later, I learned that he was romantically interested in one of the teachers. But instead of expressing himself directly, he hoped to catch her attention with his volunteer work, which lasted for quite some time.

Some introverts express their romantic interest in a higher context manner, which simply means that they tend to hint, imply, or put themselves in an opportune situation, and hope to get noticed.^[7] An introvert may be active in the hinting and positioning, but passive in waiting for the romantic prospect to take notice and respond.

Of course, this indirect approach to courtship may or may not yield desired results, and could generate mixed-messages and misunderstanding. For some romantic introverts, this is a source of hidden longing, disappointment, and heartache.

“And I know it's only in my mind
That I'm talking to myself and not to him
And although I know that he is blind
Still I say, there's a way for us…”

— from the song “On My Own”

4.   Spending Time Thinking / Reflecting About Love

Being more introspective by nature, many introverts spend time thinking and reflecting about romantic relationships, far more so than their extroverted counterparts, which tend to focus more on action. This analytical process may include the period prior to dating, when one contemplates the qualities of an ideal mate, as well as during courtship, when chemistry and compatibility of the relationship are evaluated closely (more on this in point #8).

5.   May Enjoy Fantasizing About Romance

Since research suggests that certain introverts tend to be fantasy prone, it is not surprising this characteristic applies to romantic fantasies as well. Some introverts enjoy fantasizing about, or “losing oneself” in romance, whether the fantasy is based on a real life scenario or fiction. This is especially true for introverts who are more emotionally oriented, and may apply to some cerebral introverts as well. Forms of fantasy engagement may include, and are not limited to reading, writing, entertainment viewing, internet surfing, gaming, art making, or just regular daydreaming.

From romantic interludes to sexual fantasies, these are parts of the rich and multi-faceted inner world of the introvert.

6.   Prefer to “Take it Slow” in Courtship

Once an introvert begins to date a romantic prospect, she or he may prefer the relationship to progress slowly but steadily. In many ways, this is healthy and plays to the introvert’s strengths: The opportunity to get to know the partner better, and observe whether the relationship will progress satisfactorily over time. For some introverts, a fast and intense romance – like loud noise and bright lights – can feel overwhelming. It’s better to take things slowly and steadily, in order to forge a more reliable relationship.

7.   Even in a Happy Relationship, Need Time to Recharge

For many introverts, even when they’re in a satisfactory romantic partnership, it is still important to have alone time, both to recharge one’s batteries, and reflect on the progress of the relationship. For introverts, this is an important aspect of relational health, as having “downtime” provides the inner retreat necessary to reorganize and rejuvenate, before reaching out again.

8.   Processing What Went “Right” or “Wrong” After a Date or Dispute 

During courtship, it’s natural to want to process details of a positive or negative romantic outing after the experience, and consider what might have gone “right” or “wrong”. Both extroverts and introverts do this. However, whereas an extrovert may do so publicly, often as a form of socialization with others, introverts tend to do this either quietly within oneself, or privately with one or two confidants. In some cases, an introvert may risk over-analyzing a relationship. However, since most introverts prefer to observe and reflect before they speak and act, this internal process is an important tool to help make better sense of, and feel more at ease with navigating a relationship.

For tips on how introverts can attain greater communication effectiveness, see my books: “Relationship Communication Success for Introverts”, and “Workplace Communication Success for Introverts”.

© 2017 by Preston C. Ni. All rights reserved worldwide. Copyright violation may subject the violator to legal prosecution.

Select References

[1] Merriam Webster Dictionary.

[2] Introversion Gale Encyclopedia of Childhood& Adolescence. Gale Research. (1998)

[3] Dahl, Melissa. So Apparently There Are 4 Kinds of Introversion. NYMag.com – Science of Us. (June 25, 2015)

[4] Hills, P.; Argyle, M. Happiness, Introversion-Extraversion and Happy Introverts. Personality and Individual Differences. (2001)

[5] Martin, Charles. Looking at Type: The Fundamentals. Center for Applications of Psychological Type. (1997)

[6] Ni, Preston. Communication Success with Four Personality Types. Nipreston.com/publications. (2014)

[7] Hall, Edward T. Beyond Culture. Reissue Ed. Anchor. (1976)

Source: wikipedia commons

Jung’s scarab remains the archetypal synchronicity—the most written about meaningful coincidence in the history of coincidence studies. A scarab-like beetle tapped on the window of Jung’s office in Zurich, Switzerland just as a patient was describing a dream about a golden scarab.

Psychologist Frank Pasciuti described a similar coincidence during my February 9, 2017 radio showConnecting with Coincidence with Dr. Bernie Beitman, MD. Just as he was urging a reluctant patient to consult a specific psychologist for a formal evaluation of possible ADHD, a woman burst into his office asking if this was the office of the very same psychologist.

Source: Wikimedia Common

Like Jung’s patient, Frank’s patient took the hint and changed his mind. He was evaluated and was diagnosed with severe ADHD.

Frank followed that story with another. He had not seen a certain patient in 5 years. As Frank was going to bed, he suddenly experienced atrial fibrillation which he had experienced several times before. Unlike the past, this time he did not know the trigger. The  next morning he found a voicemail message from this ex-patient saying that he might kill himself. The patient had called around the time Frank's AFib had started. Simulpathity experiences like this are fairly common. 

During last segment of the show, we discussed the I Ching and Frank’s research with it. The study participants blindly threw the 6 coins to determine one of the 64 hexagrams found in the I Ching. Each participant was then given 4 hexagrams, 3 chosen randomly, with the 4th being the one blindly thrown. Each was then asked which of the 4 hexagrams had you thrown? The participants had earlier taken the Myers Briggs Type Indicator. Those people who were high in intuition, feeling, introversion and openness to new ideas picked the right hexagram 50% of the time! This result was far better than the expected 25% and much better than people with different Myers-Briggs profiles.

Myers-Briggs Cognitive Functions

Source: Wikipedia commons

Tune in for the full program here.

The classic working parent’s quandary/realization hits late. You have an important work meeting the following afternoon…and your kid’s fall play. Torn up, you fantasize declaring that you can’t make either engagement. Maybe you’ll head to Target to peruse the latest seasonal décor instead. But with maturity—and awareness that you’d probably get caught ogling a tufted pillow—you quickly put that thought away.

Back to your reality. For working parents blessed to have a choice to make, the pressure to decide whether to prioritize one role over another is perpetual. With job flexibility, there is that theoretical possibility of being able to be present for any given work and kid event; and pressure to be there for all of them. But making a choice to attend one particular event means that you cannot be physically present for the other.

Unlike professionals who (by choice or circumstance) have little flexibility in their workdays or stay-at-home parents (whose main time demands are already kid activities), parents with flexible professional lives are constantly faced with the choice of where to direct their resources. And while more choice seems like an obvious good—and a right for which we have long fought and continue to fight for—the stress, exhaustion, and self-doubt that sets in for individuals juggling roles in both of these worlds is unavoidable.

As Sigmund Freud noted, “Love and work are the cornerstones of our humanness.” Yet keeping a foot in both worlds comes with some important challenges. For one, trying to cover all bases without cloning yourself is a near impossibility. And it turns out that having multiple roles doesn’t give you a pass on performance in any of them. Instead, having so many roles in which you are able to make choices creates a pressure to be more excellent. Laboratory research backs up the idea that more choice leads to our own insatiable expectations. In one set of studies, consumers who were given more items to choose from were less likely to be satisfied with their pick than those given fewer choices. In a second study, students writing an essay wrote more skillfully when they were given fewer topics to select from. In other words, individuals are more satisfied when they have fewer choices and perform better with fewer options in hand.

Psychologist Barry Schwartz writes in The Paradox of Choice that as “the experience of choice and control gets broader and deeper, expectations about choice and control may rise to match that experience.” Taking part in multiple roles increases the number of choices we make daily. With flexibility built into your day, you may be compelled to make decisions about where to direct your resources on a seemingly moment-to-moment basis. The privilege of being able to make these choices then increases expectations of satisfying ends. But as our expectations rise, so does the likelihood of our disappointment.

But hold on: We cannot conclude that we were better off when women’s choices were restrained to the domestic sphere. Nor should we conclude that the only viable choice is to outsource parenting if you are a professional. Instead, it is incumbent upon us to develop ways to make the freedom to juggle multiple roles saner and more satisfying.

Adjust Your Expectations: Schwartz says “we probably can do more to affect the quality of our lives by controlling our expectations than we can by doing virtually anything else.” By adjusting our expectations of what “having it all” will look like, we can increase our chances to feel a sense of satisfaction as we navigate our choice-filled days.

Set Concrete Goals: Adjusting expectations begins with carefully setting our goals. Intentionally laying out goals can help anchor choices we make in a way that shooting for a lofty and abstract goal of “having it all” or “being excellent” cannot. For example, you can set a goal of making sure to hit four out of five meetings, or attempt to attend three school events per year. Building in the expectation that you will miss some meetings and events can allow you to take it in stride instead of concluding that you’ve committed a parent- or work-fail when the inevitable happens.

Let Go of Social Comparisons: Sure, there will always be someone who looks to have his or her act together more than you do (thanks Pinterest, Facebook, and Twitter for the constant reminders). But by keeping your pre-selected goals handy, you can hone in on choices directed by your own goals rather than getting caught up in a moving target that shifts as soon as you close in on it.

Welcome Opportunity Costs: No matter what you choose to do, you are choosing not to do something else; no matter where you are, there is someplace important that you are not. So while having kids and a job means you have it all in the grander sense, any given moment will require you to pick one role or activity. If you can position yourself—physically, cognitively, and emotionally—to let go of where you are not, then both your satisfaction and performance wherever you have chosen to be will improve.

To be sure, being a working parent with job flexibility means learning to live with a constant pressure to make choices. It also means having your finite resources divided into many demanding worlds. Learning to see that balance with appreciation of its gifts and acceptance of its limitations can help you navigate life more effectively. And by increasing our skill in how we make choices, those of us who “have it all” can more satisfyingly and happily enjoy the all that we have.

As told by persona, Babyheart (Podcast here)

It all started when I was in the womb. I could hear them. Dad yelling at Mom. Mom pouting, burning the dinner. Hamburgers turning into charcoal briquettes. The first Hard Rock Café.

All the yelling back and forth. “Hey, I can hear you!” “Stop it—this is not good for me!” I was already a psychologist in the womb.

Then the pain—Ultrasounds. Yeouch! I tried to push them away. And I know a neuron or a thousand got mixed up on their way home and ended up somewhere else. That’s what I blame for my memory problems. But there’s more, so much more.

There was birth. Was that birth? Knock mom out and use the forceps. Grab and go. Baby yanking. “Hey, that’s me!” I’m forever deformed with a kink in my neck.

I’ve heard that usually the baby gets to decide when to leave the lovely womb and venture into the unknown, and see mom for the first time. If only!

So there I am after birth. Where’s mom? It’s cold, stinky, bright. And who are these people grabbing me, scraping me, poking me? Mom, Mom! Stop these bullies!

Worse, then I’m put in my own room, away from mom. Or rather, I’m alone in a wailing room, a wall of wailing. Wailing, lonely babies in shock. We keep going over what just happened. We were enjoying ourselves swimming and bobbing along with mom, getting a little tight maybe. But hearing her voice as well as her body gurgles. Then all of a sudden mom stops moving, we get a little high—was that pot? Then the big yank. Life started not with a big bang but a big yank.

A yank into obnoxious smells—like smelling salts, rough touches—like sand paper, bright lights—hey, I’m not ready for the stage!. Then they poke you and stick you with needles, vacuum, take things out, put things in. I didn’t know if I was coming or going. So stressed. Then the wailing room.

So there I am in the baby wailing room. A wailing wall of unhappiness. And I think, “there go my stress levels.” I knew, because I was already a psychologist then. There go my stress levels: What’s that going to do to my health and longevity? Just thinking about it, they went up even more. I knew that my stress response systems were screwed—for life. The stress response gauge got set to not flight—I couldn’t run away, not fight –what could a teeny weeny me do? My stress response was set to “freeze”—just breathe, don’t move or you will die—for the rest of my life. Whenever the stress response kicks in I can’t think. Just breathe, quietly, or they will kill you.

So in my early hours, instead of cozying up with mom, I’m there all stressed—give me a tranquilizer please! I’m screaming with the rest of them. But then it gets quiet.

Mmm, sugar water! Mmm. Tastes good. Quieter now. Then infant Formula. Oh no, I can’t digest it, ahrgg...dead sleep...if too-deep sleep doesn’t actually kill me.

Hey, formula doesn’t help my brain or body grow! It welcome pathogenic bacteria into my body forever. There goes my immune system too! Thanks a lot, guys!

It was a war zone, that hospital. I could feel a shell of self-protection growing around my heart and my thinking. It’s impairing my intelligence! Yes, I actually thought that. I’m going to be less sensitive, less open, and have a harder time making friends. Thanks a lot, guys!

There goes my confidence. Just like the fairy tale's handless maiden who lost her hands to the greed of adults around her.

Then I had some real gratitude. Oh, thank god I’m not a guy. They were the most miserable babies. Some doctors—I hear even today—right after the boy arrives, take out the knife and get it done, if you know what I mean. Slash, snip. All gone. Boom. I’m not so dumb to believe that doctors intend to harm babies at birth. They actually donate all the foreskins to good causes. It’s not a little shell of protection those boys build then. Nope, it’s a bunker. Wouldn’t you? Love, what’s that? Trust, what’s that? Safety, ae! Instead, they spend their lives looking for safety—building walls, bombs, weapons. Whatever it takes. Danger and pain could be anywhere, everywhere at any time. Stay alert and ready to run or fight.

The boys are deeply wounded just like the fairy tale fisher king who suffers a wound to his deep self life long.

All we babies had been pruned already and we were just born. Have you seen those trees and bushes shaped like Mickey Mouse or Donald duck? That was us. The hospital industrial complex made us into cogs for the great machine. They wanted us to be quiet—whatever it took. Just shut up, says the world.

We got to be born in a way explicitly designed by human intelligence. Huh? Human intelligence-- is that something like military intelligence? Impose stress to make babies stupid and self centered? We have a great future—in the machine, the only place we feel safe with shutdown selves. We can become another dead, dull adult: ‘Don’t feel, don’t be alive, shut up and obey.’ ‘Do your job in the machine, the matrix, and keep quiet.’

When I can’t take the self-suffocation anymore I lose my temper and lash out. I feel the need for power, to boss everyone else like I was bossed and pushed around. I want to be the one in control. I want to be the one separating babies from moms and punishing them for being born. I want to force feed them, force sleep them, force teach them. Force! It’s all about force.

But then I met a baby who was born in a different way. The baby gave the signal and got everything going. And mom was ready and moved around to help her get out. And it was almost fun. They both got high on each other. Her mom welcomed her with open arms. No separation, no scraping, poking, prodding. She got to find her way up to mom’s magical breasts and start feeding. She stays with mom day and night, cuddling and snuggling. They don’t want to let go. And she feeds at will. She’ll be the one smart adult in the world!.

Meanwhile, after our traumatic beginnings, the rest of us will spend the rest of our lives trying to figure out what we did wrong, and we’ll never feel right.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Danger of ultrasounds here and here:

Ang, Jr., E.S.B.C, Gluncic, V., Duque, A., Schafer, M.E., & Rakic, P. (2006). Prenatal exposure to ultrasound waves impacts neuronal migration in mice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(34), 12903–12910.

Harm from parental fighting: hereand here

Harm from medicalized birth practiceshere

Liu, W.F., Laudert, S., Perkins, B., MacMillan-York, E., Martin, S., & Graven, S. for the NIC/Q 2005 Physical Environment Exploratory Group (2007). The development of potentially better practices to support the neurodevelopment of infants in the NICU. Journal of Perinatology, 27, S48–S74.

Harm from infant circumcision here

Benefits of breastfeeding vs infant formula here

NOTE on BASIC ASSUMPTIONS:

WHEN I WRITE ABOUT HUMAN NATURE, I use the 99% of human genus history as a baseline. That is the context of small-band hunter-gatherers. These are “immediate-return” societies with few possessions who migrate and forage. They have no hierarchy or coercion and value generosity and sharing. They exhibit both high autonomy and high commitment to the group. They have high social wellbeing. See comparison between dominant Western culture and this evolved heritage in my article (you can download from my website):

Narvaez, D. (2013). The 99 Percent—Development and socialization within an evolutionary context: Growing up to become “A good and useful human being.” In D. Fry (Ed.), War, Peace and Human Nature: The convergence of Evolutionary and Cultural Views (pp. 643-672).  New York: Oxford University Press.

WHEN I WRITE ABOUT CHILD RAISING, I assume the importance of the evolved nest or evolved developmental niche (EDN) for raising human infants (which initially arose over 30 million years ago with the emergence of the social mammals and has been slightly altered among human groups based on anthropological research).

The EDN is the baseline I use to examine what fosters optimal human health, wellbeing and compassionate morality. The niche includes at least the following: infant-initiated breastfeeding for several years, nearly constant touch early, responsiveness to needs to avoid distressing a baby, playful companionship with multi-aged playmates, multiple adult caregivers, positive social support, and soothing perinatal experiences.

All EDN characteristics are linked to health in mammalian and human studies (for reviews, see Narvaez, Panksepp, Schore & Gleason, 2013; Narvaez, Valentino, Fuentes, McKenna & Gray, 2014; Narvaez, 2014) Thus, shifts away from the EDN baseline are risky and must be supported with lifelong longitudinal data looking at multiple aspects of psychosocial and neurobiological wellbeing in children and adults. My comments and posts stem from these basic assumptions.

My research laboratory has documented the importance of the EDN for child wellbeing and moral development with more papers in the works (see my Website to download papers):

Narvaez, D., Gleason, T., Wang, L., Brooks, J., Lefever, J., Cheng, A., & Centers for the Prevention of Child Neglect (2013). The Evolved Development Niche: Longitudinal Effects of Caregiving Practices on Early Childhood Psychosocial Development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28 (4), 759–773. Doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.07.003

Narvaez, D., Wang, L., Gleason, T., Cheng, A., Lefever, J., & Deng, L.  (2013). The Evolved Developmental Niche and sociomoral outcomes in Chinese three-year-olds. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10(2), 106-127.

We also have a recent paper look at adult effects:

Narvaez, D., Wang, L, & Cheng, A. (2016). Evolved Developmental Niche History: Relation to adult psychopathology and morality. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 294-309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2015.1128835

See these for theoretical reviews:

Narvaez, D., Gettler, L., Braungart-Rieker, J., Miller-Graff, L., & Hastings, P.  (2016). The flourishing of young Children: Evolutionary baselines. In Narvaez, D., Braungart-Rieker, J., Miller, L., Gettler, L., & Harris, P. (Eds.), Contexts for young child flourishing: Evolution, family and society (pp. 3-27). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Narvaez, D., Hastings, P., Braungart-Rieker, J., Miller, L., & Gettler, L. (2016). Young child flourishing as an aim for society. In Narvaez, D., Braungart-Rieker, J., Miller, L., Gettler, L., & Hastings, P. (Eds.), Contexts for young child flourishing: Evolution, family and society (pp. 347-359). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Also see these books:

Neurobiology and the Development of Human Morality: Evolution, Culture and Wisdom (W.W. Norton)

Evolution, Early Experience and Human Development (Oxford University Press, 2013)

Ancestral Landscapes in Human Evolution(Oxford University Press, 2014)

Contexts for Young Child Flourishing: Evolution, Family and Society (ed. with Braungart-Rieker, Miller-Graff, Gettler, Hastings; OUP, 2016)

WHY WORRY?

WHY DO I BOTHER TO WORRY ABOUT HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND MORALITY? Why don’t I just shut up and do my research, publish papers, teach and make my salary? Why do I take risks connecting the dots? It is because from all signs, the dominant human culture is exterminating itself along with many other species. The planet will survive no matter what we do. The dominant culture has several unusual characteristics in the history of humanity which appear to be caused by culture’s interference in biological development (see EDN below). The strangeness are symptoms of things gone awry. (For a great read on this see the novel, Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn.)

First, the dominant culture treats plants, animals and other entities as if they had no purpose of their own but exist only for humanity’s benefit. Second, part of the reason for these attitudes is a basic insensitivity to the communications of other lifeforms. Children are taught to suppress any awareness of a living earth. Third is the desire for domination of nature instead of partnership with it. Fourth, the desire to make everything in the image of a machine, of one superordinate way of being has emerged in the West in the last centuries and now imposes itself on the rest of the world through the combined power of the military-industrial-financial-corporate complex in the West.

All these tendencies arise from the neurobiological misconstruction of a self in early life, coerced by the cultural practices of child raising. Then they are fertilized by narratives that justify the misdeveloped humans (“selfish genes”) and maintaining the destructive culture (“progress”).

I am extremely anxious writing this article because I want to do the story justice. This is not the first time I've experienced high levels of anxiety. I've lived with a chronic anxiety disorder since I was a teenager. Anxiety is not momentary nervousness, it is a chronic condition that needs to be monitored and managed by mental health professionals. I am not a mental health professional, but rather a person who lives with anxiety. I don't know if that was repetitive, but I'm just going to go with that because this article doesn't need to be perfect. I'm anxious, and I'm okay with that. If you're anxious reading this I'm sorry, and I hope you feel better soon.

I wrote a tweet one day about how I was anxious when people take a long time to respond to my text messages. Then I decided to hashtag it with #ThisIsWhatAnxietyFeelsLike. Then I thought, I cannot be the only person who feels this way. There are so many of us who have anxious minds. I opened up the conversation and invited people to participate in it. I said:

Source: Sarah Fader 2016

I wanted people to know what living with anxiety feels like. All of a sudden, people started chiming in with their thoughts about what it's like to live with anxiety. Anxiety can feel debilitating to people who have it. I want people to understand this. Too often I have been called "dramatic" or "needy" for exhibiting traits of an anxiety disorder. These pejorative terms need to stop being associated with anxious people. We are trying the best that we can, and we do not want to be put into a category of someone who is difficult to deal with. It's hard enough managing anxiety without having to cope with the shame that is projected onto the symptoms. I don't want anyone to feel shame because they are anxious.

People began sharing traits of anxiety that I was sure were exclusive to my brain. It made me feel less alone. Anxiety consistently tells me that I am a failure or that I can't accomplish my goals. It's a loud nasty voice that is unrelenting. I want people to hear what it sounds like. We (the people living with anxiety) are not exaggerating or histrionic; we are human beings who have a medical condition. 

If you have anxiety, and you are consistently thinking that people are going to leave you or that they hate you, you are not alone. Please join us by using the hashtag on Twitter #ThisIsWhatAnxietyFeelsLike

The quiet house, empty dog bed, and coping after pet loss

Numerous people who choose to share their home with a companion animal (AKA "pet") are, at one time or another, faced with the loss of their good friend(s). Dealing with these losses can be extremely difficult, and I was thrilled to learn that Adam Clark, an adjunct professor at the University of Denver’s Graduate School of Social Work, is now writing about these issues for Psychology Today in a column called "Animal Attachment." You also can learn more about Adam and his extremely important projects at Pet Loss Education & Support. The titles of some of his recent essays show just how important it is to deal with pet loss ("Hospice: Not Just for Humans Anymore, A Changing Paradigm,""The Quiet House and Empty Dog Bed, Coping After Pet Loss," and "Four Steps to Take After Experiencing Pet Loss").  

I recently caught up with Adam and was glad he could take the time to answer a few questions about what he does and why. 

Please tell people about who you are and how you got interested in the growing field of pet loss.

Sure! I’m a writer and therapist in Colorado with a passion for the human-animal bond and specialize in pet loss education and veterinary wellness. For many years I was extremely focused on Equine Assisted Psychotherapy. Throughout my undergraduate Social Work Program I actually convinced my program to allow me independent study that helped me pursue goals of being an equine-assisted practitioner.

When I enrolled in my Master’s Program at University of Denver’s Graduate School of Social Work, I became heavily associated and active in their Institute for Human-Animal Connection, one of the only Institutes of its kind. It was here that I discovered the Argus Institute at Colorado State’s Veterinary Teaching Hospital and my focused shifted from equine-based work to what I’m doing today in the field of grief and loss.

I completed my graduate internship at Argus and subsequently was hired on to their team as a Clinical Counselor and Pet Loss Specialist. My passion flourished immediately and I was able to expand on my clinical experience. Since then I’ve become employed in Human Hospice to continue ascertaining experience and growing my skillset.

As of now, I’m engaged in multiple roles including an Adjunct Professor position at the University of Denver’s Graduate School of Social Work. I continue to be involved in the Institute for Human-Animal Connection, and provide consulting/training to a few different organizations in the metro Denver area which have included Freedom Service Dogs, Denver Pet Partners, and I’m starting to get involved with Human-Animal Bond Trust and Denver Pet Food Pantry.

Pet loss education is my passion, as I believe it highlights the entirety of the human-animal bond. I teach to my students that grief is intrinsically vulnerable, and we cannot be unchanged as we process through our loss, whether it is a human or animal. It’s a place of immense change and heavy emotions.

My specialty also is much more than just pet loss itself. Included is the LINK between human violence and animal abuse. I’m passionate about animal rights and welfare, and also focus on the inter-correlated link between mental health (or poor coping strategies) and animal ownership as support. 

What do you hope to accomplish with Pet Loss Education for Professionals

The world of human-animal interaction is very large. There are many immediate animal professionals from dog walkers to pet sitters and animal behaviorists… to veterinary technicians, nurses, and veterinarians. Even pet groomers and pet product stores could be considered. All of these people experience personal pet loss, and encounter individuals experiencing the loss of their pets on a professional basis and day-to-day role

In addition, when people seek professional help through social workers, psychologists, marriage and family therapists and licensed counselors, pet loss is a topic that I’ve seen arise again and again. Grief isn’t “within a box” and one loss experience can trigger reminders of other loss.

My hope is that professional training that is drawn from direct clinical experiences can help the professionals listed above with their practice. It helps them know “what to say” in these situations and avoids accidently saying something intending to be helpful, but can actually cause pain to a person who may be grieving.

How will you counsel people who seek out help in dealing with the loss of a companion animal?

Right now my goal is to educate counselors and clinicians in order to enhance their practice to new levels. I’ve seen many well intended professionals in the counseling field attempt to “counsel” pet loss as they believe it’s the same as your “average day to day grief.” I believe there are concrete differences associated with pet loss, and it’s very important for counselors to be understanding of the intervention and experience they are providing to people that come to them for support. 

In my approach I draw upon my experience from Argus as well as my subsequent private practice. I also integrate my experiences in human hospice regarding coping styles, complicated grief, trauma, guilt, etc. My connections in the veterinary community and work in veterinary wellness also apply to my mode of practice and education.

What are your future projects?

Right now I’m in the middle of a large project to launch a series of professional development courses to professionals that are looking to expand their practice and enhance their learning. People can signup at www.lovelosstransition.com if they are interested in being in the first round, launching soon!

Also, coming down the road is a podcast in which I’ve connected with a group passionate about veterinary wellness and animal oriented professionals. I can’t say much more yet, but it’s going to be amazing!

Is there anything else you'd like to tell readers?

I’d love for people to visit my Psychology Today column and check out the articles I’ve been publishing. My focus is mainly animal attachment and pet loss, highlighting different topics each week. If there’s something you would like me to write about, please don’t hesitate to let me know.

I’d also love to hear from you. Send me an email at adam@lovelosstransition.com. No question is a silly question. I love collaboration and networking in any form. I love people that are passionate about animals, of all kinds! Even if you aren’t passionate about animals, send me an email – I’d love to hear why!

And, if you’re a veterinary professional as well, I’d also love to hear from you. We have a lot to talk about!

Thanks, Adam, for taking the time to answer these questions and to let people know about the important projects with which you're involved. I'm sure numerous people will be pleased to learn about ways to cope with the grief, trauma, and guilt when they or others lose their best friends. 

Marc Bekoff’s latest books are Jasper’s Story: Saving Moon Bears (with Jill Robinson), Ignoring Nature No More: The Case for Compassionate Conservation, Why Dogs Hump and Bees Get Depressed: The Fascinating Science of Animal Intelligence, Emotions, Friendship, and Conservation, Rewilding Our Hearts: Building Pathways of Compassion and Coexistence, and The Jane Effect: Celebrating Jane Goodall (edited with Dale Peterson). The Animals’ Agenda: Freedom, Compassion, and Coexistence in the Human Age (with Jessica Pierce) will be published in April 2017 and Canine Confidential: An Insider’s Guide to the Best Lives For Dogs and Us will be published in early 2018.

Diversity is a familiar topic in many college psychology classes. Race, gender, sexual orientation, LGBTQ issues, ethnicity, and disability fall under the heading of diversity. Yet one topic, social class, is often overlooked or even avoided in classroom discussions of diversity.

One reason for avoiding discussing social class is likely to be the fact that many American students assume they fall into the ill-defined social category known as “middle class.” In many cases, students are loath to identify themselves as “upper middle class” or “working class.” Being middle class is not risky; you pass as everyman—or everywoman. And many Americans still hold onto the idea that they live in a “classless” society. They—we—don’t.

Social class is all around us, but in higher education generally and in the field of psychology specifically, with few exceptions, we—faculty members and students alike-avoid the topic. In the minds of many, social class is defined by income: To wit, higher income is aligned with a higher social class. As a proxy variable, individual or household income has something going for it. But it may be that one’s relationship to money and how it is spent also matters not just how much or how little is available. It turns out that social class is more than mere money. It is also defined by educational attainment, language and speech, where one lives, consumer habits, travel experiences or the lack thereof, attitudes, and, of course, a variety of behaviors, among other possible factors.

I’ve been thinking about social class the last few days because I am reading J. D. Vance’s excellent book Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis (Harper, 2016). The book is a tour of life in a segment of poor white America, primarily parts of Kentucky (chiefly its Appalachian region) and (once industrial) Ohio. Vance describes his childhood and his complicated but loving relationships with his close and extended family and their many travails. What began as a post-World War II migration from Kentucky to Ohio in search of stable work and a middle-class life turns out to be a very different account of the American Dream. Yes, his grandparents escape crippling poverty for a new and better life, but it turns out that the new life is still affected by social and cultural forces of the old one (e.g., alcoholism, addiction, violence, abuse, neglect). Vance, his siblings, parents, and grandparents live a somewhat chaotic life—unimaginable to some readers but no doubt familiar to many others.

I want to be clear that Hillbilly Elegy is a candid portrayal of one family’s experience against the backdrop of one part of the United States. The experience of poor white families in other parts of the country might be different but, if Vance is correct, there are apt to be shared aspects of these experiences. This book is a potential starting point for discussing social class in the classroom. As a work of nonfiction, it is also a way to explore the great sociopolitical divide our nation is currently enduring. Regardless of your political outlook, there is much to be learned and considered here. Upward social mobility is not the magical and positive process of song and story or simplistic civics classes (if those are even still being taught)—it is a hardscrabble process fraught with anxiety, doubt, fear, and hope. People who think of the nation as comprised of primarily the East and West Coasts and who don’t give much thought to the “flyover” states in the middle have much to learn here. Those of us who teach about diversity in our college classes need to redouble our efforts by bringing the issue of social class into the mix.

Todd Kashdan in his Psychology Today blog recently wrote about the nuanced relationship between gratitude and trust and I encourage readers to read that post as well as the study by Kashdan and colleagues on which the blog post is based.

Source: Two sisters walking through a lawn sprinkled with dandelions/US Nessie/CC BY SA-3.0

I read the study and the blog post with much interest as it adds substantially to our knowledge base of how gratitude leads to trust and how the relationship is partially mediated by positive affect.

Basically, Kashdan and colleagues used an online variant of reflecting on '3 good things daily' gratitude intervention (in their variant, one reflects on 5 good things over the past 3 days, and for 3 moments in time over the span of a week) to boost gratitude among the experimental group and they operationlized trust using the money returned in the Trust Game (a variant of the Dictator game) that was conducted in laboratory.

Some of their basic findings can be summarized as follows:

• The experimental group (those who had undergone gratitude intervention) trusted significantly more money to a stranger in the Trust game as compared to controls.
• The experimental group experienced more positive affect during various stages of the trust game like while making a decision to trust, or while waiting to know whether their trust was reciprocated and well placed.
• The experimental group also experienced higher physiological arousal measured by higher blood pressure and respiratory rates during various stages of the trust game.  
• At baseline—that is, when details of the trust game were not known to the participants—there was no significant difference in affect or physiological measures between the control group and experimental group.
• Experimental group also felt more gratitude after receiving similar amount as the control group, though they did not differ in expressions of gratitude. 

These are all pretty good findings that add substantially to our knowledge, however the interpretation of some of these by Kashdan seems rather strange to me.

To start with, he assumes that no difference at baseline means that there was no difference in social interactivity readiness or looking-forwardness between the two groups and this he equates with no difference in trust levels at baseline. However, by reading the paper its not apparent whether the participants knew it would be a social experiment, all one can make out is that they were told they will participate in a financial experiment. This may appear pedantic, but there is a long research tradition showing that economic and moral domains are sometimes orthogonal and if people were primed to think about money that may have reduced both their social propensities as well as positive affect. I would rather tell the participants they will be participating in a social experiment during baseline, if I wanted to draw any conclusions about baseline condition.

Another point I would have liked to be addressed whether the gratitude intervention did indeed increase state gratitude (is there a state gratitude measure that could have been administered?). One indirect way to measure it would have been to administer a state measure of affect say PANAS before the laboratory task to see if gratitude intervention had indeed led to more positive affect and thus more gratitude feelings. Anyway these are minor squabbles.

The major disagreement I have is with regards to interpretation of the physiological findings; the paper itself mentions that the physiological finding could be due to enthusiasm rather than stress; the blip that starts once the trust game stars and continues during the game could be due to enthusiasm and excitement at interacting with a stranger, rather than stress at making a decision say under uncertainty; those with more grateful feelings were excited at an opportunity to help someone or trust someone once the trust game was told to them and then onward showed more excitement, enthusiasm and positive affect; that at least is my interpretation of the findings and this does not merit a conclusion that gratitude/trust may have a complicated relationship with health.

Lastly, I would have liked to see more emphasis on the finding that experimental group that trusted more also felt more grateful and perhaps got caught in a a upward virtuous circle where gratitude leads to positive affect leads to trust leads to altruistic actions leads to positive affect leads to gratitude and so on....

But of course simplistic models like this go against the grain of anti-parsimoniousness!

Overall I think its a very important piece of work, and its quite presumptuous of me to have a different interpretation than one of the study authors, but by challenging interpretations and takeaways, that's how I believe science progresses.   

“If I talk about emotions or cry, my father says I’m not acting masculine enough. He’s always telling me to go to the gym and lift weights. I wish he would accept me for who I am.”

“My mother got mad at me when I cut my hair really short. She says it’s not feminine. But who says I have to conform to a gender stereotype?”

“I don’t identify as either male or female. I don’t think it matters. I feel neutral about gender.”

Gender is a hot topic on college campuses. Many of the college students I see in my office bring up gender issues, as they go through the journey of learning who they truly are. I’ve met many university mental health professionals and administrators who are encountering the same phenomenon. Are students changing the definition of what it means to be a man or a woman? Is there an increase in students who are transgender, gender fluid, or gender non-conforming?

Before discussing gender trends, let’s review the language of gender, which continues to evolve. Gender identity is a person’s internal sense of their gender, of who they are. Gender expression is how a person shows gender externally through clothes, language and behavior. Transgender is an umbrella term for people who do not identify and/or express themselves as the sex they were assigned at birth. This could include people who were assigned male at birth and identify as female, who were designated female at birth and identify as male, or who don’t identify as either gender. Gender fluid describes people whose gender identity and expression could vary from day to day.

Gender is incredibly complex, emerging from a combination of factors: chromosomes, hormones, physical characteristics, psychology, and culture. Throughout the world, gender is expressed in a multitude of ways, and some cultures are fully accepting of genders that fall outside of what is typically male or female. College campuses are also places where the complexity of gender can be seen every day.

Source: Image Provided By ILGA

Here are 5 things you should know about gender trends on campus:

1. College aged adults are redefining what it means to be a man or a woman. Half of people aged 18-34 believe that gender is a spectrum, and that some people fall outside conventional categories of male and female.
2. While college-aged adults take a more flexible view on gender in general, the majority of college students – 96.9 percent describe themselves as identifying with their sex at birth, according to a 2016 American College Health Association (ACHA) Survey. In other words, a person who is designated female at birth continues to identify as female. 3.1 percent describe themselves as non-binary. Non-binary in this survey means students are either transgender or their current gender is not consistent with how they were assigned at birth. Although 3.1 percent seems like a small number, when one considers there are approximately 16 million college students in this country, this could work out to almost half a million students.
3. It is hard to say if students have increased their identification as non-binary or transgender, as the ACHA survey altered their questions on gender identity, preventing comparisons with previous surveys. Researchers in general have had difficulty getting reliable results on transgender rates in the adolescent population, but they are estimated at 1 percent.
4. Colleges provide special protections to transgender students under Title IX, a law prohibiting discrimination against students based on gender. Colleges continue to work out details on how to create a welcoming and inclusive environment to all students on the gender spectrum, with many schools offering new housing options, LGBT resource centers, and support groups.
5. College students who are transgender have about double the rate of depression, anxiety, and eating disorders compared to other college students. They may be more vulnerable to these mental health issues as they are more likely to be bullied in middle school and high school, or face rejection from family and friends. Colleges and national organizations are offering training for mental health professionals to better help students who are transgender.

If your child is transgender or gender questioning, your support is critical to their mental well-being. This may be a confusing time for you and your student, as they define who they want to be. Transgender students express their gender  in different ways, and may or may not dress differently, seek hormone therapy, or pursue gender confirmation surgery.

Here are steps you can take to help.

1. Maintain a loving and positive attitude. Your child is closely watching your response, and may be less likely to communicate with you if they feel rejected.
2. If you are feeling overwhelmed, talk with a therapist or find support through PFLAG, an organization for the LGBT community and their families.
3. Ask your child what pronoun they want you to use. Some will want the pronoun for the gender they identify with, while others will want another word. Some students prefer the pronouns they and their instead of he/she or his/her.
4. Help your child navigate through insurance challenges and be an advocate. Many college insurance plans offer coverage for transition-related medical treatments.
5. Encourage your child to see a campus therapist or a psychiatrist if they are struggling with mental health issues.

When I hear young adults say they are questioning their gender expression or gender identity, I support them finding their authentic selves. With celebrities like Caitlin Jenner coming out as transgender, and Miley Cyrus describing herself as gender neutral, the world is becoming a more accepting place for people on the gender spectrum. Wherever your child’s gender road leads, your support and love will go a long way to ensuring their emotional wellness.

Check future blogs for details on my upcoming book on parenting and college wellness.

©2016 Marcia Morris, All Rights Reserved

Details have been altered to protect patient privacy.

If you’re interested in reading about a particular topic regarding college wellness and your child’s mental health, please email me at marciamorrismd@gmail.com.

Source: Kalen Emsley | Unsplash.com

Exercise is good for you. If you’re procrastinating a run or putting off a walk, then we recommend that you close your computer and get outside, content in the knowledge that you have fully grasped the thesis of our article. If you are still here, then we assume that you would like to know more.

First, let’s review exercise’s benefits for the body.

Individuals who exercise a total of 7 hours per week have a premature mortality rate 40% less than those who exercise less than 30 minutes per week. Physical activity also appears to reduce your risk for colon and breast cancers. Furthermore, there is evolving evidence that physical activity may also reduce your risk for endometrial and lung cancers.^1–3

Research also suggests that health benefits may be appreciated from even modest exercise programs. As little as 2.5 hours of exercise per week significantly reduces your risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. When it comes to exercise, half a loaf really is better than none. In fact physical inactivity is estimated to cause 1 in 25 deaths worldwide each year.^1–3

And yet despite all that is known about the health benefits of exercise, a little more than 50% of Americans do not meet the current CDC recommendations of 2.5 hours of moderate-intensity (50-70% maximal heart rate) or 1.25 hours of vigorous intensity (70-85% maximal heart rate) exercise per week.¹

Source: David Marcu | Unsplash.com

For reference, maximal heart rate can be calculated by taking 208 – 0.7 x age (an older, unvalidated version of this equation used 220 as the base).⁴ As an example, a 30-year old’s maximal heart rate is calculated to be 187 beats per minute (“bpm”). This means that in our 30-year old example, a moderate-intensity activity should achieve a heart rate of at least 94 bpm while a vigorous-intensity exercise should aim for a target of at least 131 bpm.

We will return to these parameters in a moment, but for now let’s turn to the benefits of exercise for the brain.

Before diving in, it is necessary to review the concept of effect sizes. An effect size expresses the difference between two groups; usually between a treatment group and a control group. Effect sizes are calculated as numbers but can be represented categorically as “small,” “medium,” “large,” and “very large.”^5–7

Very generally, a medium effect size should be able to be “seen” by the naked eye. For example, in Professor Jacob Cohen’s pioneering work on the subject, he cited the difference in average height between 14-year-old and 18-year-old females to be an example of a medium effect. As an example of a large effect, Professor Cohen cited the difference in IQ between a “typical” college freshman and a “typical” PhD holder.⁵ For the purposes of our discussion, the larger the effect size, the more likely it is that the treatment (e.g. exercise) is better at treating depression than the control condition (e.g. no exercise).

Source: Bruno Nascimento | Unsplash.com

With our introduction to effect sizes out of the way, let’s study the effects of exercise on the brain.

Studies have demonstrated a strong antidepressant effect for exercise. For example, one meta-analysis that examined well-controlled studies of exercise as an intervention for clinical depression found a very large effect size when compared to nonactive control groups. Notably, previous work had demonstrated a large effect size for study populations of undifferentiated clinical and non-clinical subjects with depressed mood.⁸

We wish to pause at this point to put these antidepressant effect sizes for exercise in perspective. Let’s turn briefly to effect sizes associated with various psychiatric and general medical pharmaceuticals and treatments. We will use the most optimistic estimates of efficacy for the various classes of interventions so as to level the playing field as much as possible. We fully acknowledge that we will not be comparing apples to apples. The following discussion is not meant to be a definitive statement regarding the efficacy of various treatments. Instead we hope that the comparisons will help place the magnitude of exercise’s effect size in context.

To begin, let’s compare exercise’s large or very large effect size with antidepressant medication’s small effect size in acute depressive episodes.⁹ Psychotherapeutic interventions have similar effect sizes to psychopharmacologic medication in the treatment of depressive episodes. However, the combination of psychotherapy and psychopharmacologic medication yields a medium effect size; a value notable for its superiority to either intervention offered in isolation.¹⁰ Electroconvulsive therapy for an acute depressive episode has a large effect size.¹¹

There are numerous potential confounding variables in this very brief comparative overview. Despite every effort to control for the various confounds, it is likely that depressed cohorts who were able to exercise were qualitatively different in some ways from some of the populations included in electroconvulsive trials for example. Researchers have employed various techniques to try to eliminate these confounds and there are reasons to treat much of the data as valid; but caution is certainly warranted.

Antipsychotics for acute psychosis, antihypertensives for high blood pressure, and corticosteroids for the prevention of asthma exacerbations all have similar medium effect size. Whereas, antibiotics for ear infections and metformin for diabetic mortality have small effect sizes. To find a general medicine medication with an effect size on par with exercise we have to turn to proton pump inhibitors and their large effect size in the treatment of esophagitis.⁹ In fact, the mean effect size for all general medical medications corresponds to a small effect.¹⁰

Source: Andy Beales | Unsplash.com

Research has revealed benefits for exercise in other domains of mental health as well. Meta-analytic reviews have found a small effect size for exercise on state or trait anxiety.⁸ However, upon closer examination research reveals that exercise has a stronger effect on state anxiety than on trait anxiety.¹²

Evidence also suggests a broader application of exercise beyond strictly pathological states.^13–15 One large non-clinical population-based study demonstrated that individuals who exercised more than 2 times per week experienced reductions not only in depressive symptomatology, but also in cynical distrust, anger, and stress when compared to individuals who exercised less often.¹⁵

There is also significant evidence for a dose-response relationship between exercise and mental health. Exercise regimens with higher intensities, greater frequencies, and longer durations tend to lead to greater response rates in depressed populations. Interestingly, depression remission rates seem to peak at moderate levels of intensity, frequency, and duration suggesting that sustainability of a regimen is an important ingredient to consider when developing a program.⁸

The setting that one exercises in also appears to play a role. Research has demonstrated that exposure to nature and so-called “green space” exerts powerful effects on mood and self-esteem. Exercising outdoors in a natural setting with trees and plants appears to be superior to exercising in an environment devoid of such “green” qualities. The positive effects rapidly develop with even just 5 minutes of outdoor time offering a very achievable goal even for busy individuals.³

Source: Andrew Coelho | Unsplash.com

Interestingly, natural settings with bodies of water present (e.g. streams, rivers, lakes, etc.) appear to offer enhanced benefits over and above those seen in other natural settings.³ Natural settings seem to exert their positive effects on health through a variety of mechanisms; however it should be noted that the effects are not fully explained by the association of green space and exercise.¹⁶ In fact, greater exposure to nature in general has been associated with as much as a 12% reduction in all-cause non-accidental mortality!¹⁷

How does exercise exert these far-ranging effects?

There are many gaps in our understanding of the mechanisms by which exercise exerts its anxiolytic and antidepressant effects. There is some evidence that exercise may increase turnover of serotonin, leading to an adaptive downregulation of the serotonergic 5-HT2C receptor. Activation of the 5-HT2C receptor seems to inhibit dopamine and norepinephrine release. Thus, a downregulation at the 5-HT2C receptor leads to an increase in availability of dopamine and norepinephrine. This effect is thought to be particularly important in the prefrontal cortex and is hypothesized to contribute to the anxiolytic and antidepressant effects associated with exercise.⁸

In addition to increasing serotonin turnover exercise seems to trigger a release of beta-endorphins. Endorphins are part of the brain’s endogenous opioid system and also tend to produce anxiolytic and antidepressant effects when released.⁸

From a more macroscopic scale exercise, like antidepressant medication, helps restore sleep patterns frequently disrupted in the setting of depression. Furthermore, evidence suggests that activity in the prefrontal cortex is reduced during exercise and that this modification of cognitive processing may correlate with the subjective anxiolytic and antidepressant effect of exercise.⁸

Finally, exercise engages an individual in an activation and approach set of behaviors that are diametrically opposed to passive and avoidant cognitive strategies classically found in depression and many other psychopathological states. In this way exercise seems to operate on a similar theoretical framework as the psychotherapeutic technique known as behavioral activation. Behavioral activation targets behavior first rather than cognition as many other forms of psychotherapy do.¹⁸ It must be noted that although exercise may be a component of a behavioral activation treatment regimen, the psychotherapeutic technique utilizes many other activation strategies to catalyze change.⁸ 

Source: Alex Wong | Unsplash.com

Let’s be optimistic and imagine that the preceding discussion helped you move from the contemplative to the preparatory stage of change and that you are preparing to make a change in your exercise habits.¹⁹ How much exercise do you need to get before you can appreciate the mental health benefits?

Evidence suggests that an optimal exercise program is about 30 minutes in duration, has a frequency of 2-4 times per week, and is of such an intensity level that an individual achieves 70-80% estimated max heart rate.⁸

Recall that our maximal heart rate from our 30-year old example was calculated to be 187 bpm. This means that the targeted intensity level of exercise for mental health should achieve a heart rate between 130-150 bpm.

Finally, the individual should commit to at least 4 weeks of the new exercise program to optimize the chances for long-term habit formation. Evidence suggests that while 70% of individuals maintain a short-term exercise program, only 50% maintain the program for six months.⁸

We have covered a lot of ground in our exploration of the varied health benefits associated with exercise.

We began by discussing the significant benefits of exercise for our general medical health. We learned that exercise reduces rates of mortality, some cancers, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. For more on the mortality benefits of exercise visit our website Neuraptitude.org.

We next turned to exercise and mental health, studying depression as our archetype condition. We found that exercise can be considered a valid “antidepressant” or augmentation strategy in the treatment of depression, and that its effects are comparable to antidepressant medication and psychotherapy.

As we discussed before, we are not comparing apples to apples and direct comparisons between techniques are not fair outside of a given trial. Our point is not to assert the unrivaled superiority of exercise to psychopharmacologic agents, psychotherapeutic techniques, or other therapeutics. Rather, we wish to elevate exercise from a healthy lifestyle habit to an adjunct treatment.

And finally, let’s recall that exercising in natural outdoor settings, ideally in close proximity to a body of water, may enhance the health benefits associated with exercise.

The most effective treatment for a given mental illness is almost certainly to be pluralistic rather than singular. A holistic treatment strategy that targets biological, psychological, and sociological substrates of disease offers significant synergistic advantage over a singular approach.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Physical activity and health. CDC.gov. https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/pa-health/. Accessed November 12, 2016.
2. Penedo FJ, Dahn JR. Exercise and well-being: a review of mental and physical health benefits associated with physical activity. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2005;18(2):189-193.
3. Barton J, Pretty J. What is the Best Dose of Nature and Green Exercise for Improving Mental Health? A Multi-Study Analysis. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44(10):3947-3955. doi:10.1021/es903183r.
4. Tanaka H, Monahan KD, Seals DR. Age-predicted maximal heart rate revisited. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37(1):153-156. doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(00)01054-8.
5. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
6. Fritz CO, Morris PE, Richler JJ. Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012;141(1):2-18. doi:10.1037/a0024338.
7. Sawilowsky S. New Effect Size Rules of Thumb. Theor Behav Found Educ Fac Publ. November 2009. http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/coe_tbf/4.
8. Stathopoulou G, Powers MB, Berry AC, Smits JAJ, Otto MW. Exercise Interventions for Mental Health: A Quantitative and Qualitative Review. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2006;13(2):179-193. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2850.2006.00021.x.
9. Leucht S, Hierl S, Kissling W, Dold M, Davis JM. Putting the efficacy of psychiatric and general medicine medication into perspective: review of meta-analyses. Br J Psychiatry. 2012;200(2):97-106. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.111.096594.
10. Huhn M, Tardy M, Spineli LM, et al. Efficacy of Pharmacotherapy and Psychotherapy for Adult Psychiatric Disorders: A Systematic Overview of Meta-analyses. JAMA Psychiatry. 2014;71(6):706. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.112.
11. Lisanby SH. Electroconvulsive Therapy for Depression. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(19):1939-1945. doi:10.1056/NEJMct075234.
12. Paluska SA, Schwenk TL. Physical Activity and Mental Health. Sports Med. 2000;29(3):167-180. doi:10.2165/00007256-200029030-00003.
13. Stephens T. Physical activity and mental health in the United States and Canada: Evidence from four population surveys. Prev Med. 1988;17(1):35-47. doi:10.1016/0091-7435(88)90070-9.
14. Taylor CB, Sallis JF, Needle R. The relation of physical activity and exercise to mental health. Public Health Rep. 1985;100(2):195-202. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1424736/. Accessed November 8, 2016.
15. Hassmén P, Koivula N, Uutela A. Physical Exercise and Psychological Well-Being: A Population Study in Finland. Prev Med. 2000;30(1):17-25. doi:10.1006/pmed.1999.0597.
16. Bowler DE, Buyung-Ali LM, Knight TM, Pullin AS. A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:456. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-456.
17. James P, Hart JE, Banay RF, Laden F. Exposure to Greenness and Mortality in a Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study of Women. Environ Health Perspect. 2016;124(9). doi:10.1289/ehp.1510363.
18. Cuijpers P, van Straten A, Warmerdam L. Behavioral activation treatments of depression: A meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2007;27(3):318-326. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2006.11.001.
19. DiClemente CC, Prochaska JO, Fairhurst SK, Velicer WF, Velasquez MM, Rossi JS. The process of smoking cessation: An analysis of precontemplation, contemplation, and preparation stages of change. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991;59(2):295-304. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.59.2.295.