I put my boyfriend's picture in my drawer and locked it. threw the key to the sea. it has been one and half year, but never get simpler as the time goes. I still feel annoyed, miserable, puzzle and so much in pain. and when I know, he moves on, I questioning my ability to love someone and being loved. life is so strange, how could you like someone so deeply and find yourself painfully bleeding due to love .
I give you these ideas, on the anniversary of my separation, with the vacations coming. But before you start, please know this is not a tale of my previous wife and I. Take it as it is; a tale of autism and weakness at a time of year things often go wrong.
Lies, evasions, and half truths. All are deceits. Yesterday's white lie, once discovered, reveals the big one from the month before. That's the problem with lies. When you unravel one, there is always another behind. It's a ball of string that leads to the darkest recesses of the mind .
It's easy to demand honesty, to hold the other person to a high standard. It's hard to deliver, though, and harder still to know if we receive the truth in our most intimate exchanges. So often, love and hope blinds to what's obvious, when seen from a distance.
After all, what are those demands but another form of conditional love. Do this, and I'll love you. And the implied threat, Don't do this, and I withhold my love for you. There is also the thought that it takes a cheater to know a cheat; one must wonder from whence the demands for honesty and integrity arise. In hindsight, it would have been wise to question.
Our understanding of others is based on observation and interpretation. Revisited in the hard light of freshly discovered deception, everything changes. Was it innocent, or was it planned?
Relationships end, and we don't really know why. A few months later, the truth emerges, in a few casual words. There were the phone calls, those unexplained days, and those fights that made no sense, suddenly, everything look different. It feels wrong. Did those things really happen, or was it all in the mind? When one fact proves real, other evidence is harder to ignore. Hope gets replaced by resignation. And so the mind begins its tortured journey.
What seemed sweet and sad immediately turns shabby and tawdry. Sympathy turns to cold rage, as the realization of what's really happened sinks in. All of a sudden, the magic of the precious days before is shattered, never to seem beautiful again. Was her sweet smile real, or was it just a pretty lure, reeling him in?
Logic tells us it started out real. Love grows, and goes astray. Life intrudes. Other options appear. At some point, what was real became false. And looking back, we cannot know the precise time and place that it all went wrong.
The optimist says it was beautiful, until the very last day.
The pessimist says he was played for a fool, right from the start.
The realization sinks in that it's really over. Some would put her photo in the drawer. Others would cast it in the trash. In the end, everyone moves on. But for some, the pain lingers for a lifetime.
That's the terrible curse of autism, when love goes wrong. We lack the defenses others have evolved; our hearts are easily broken and hard to repair. We perseverate, and ugly thoughts circle in our mind, slicing jagged tears in the soul with every gyration. We lack expression, so the feelings stay locked inside, eating us alive. And worst of all, we lack the ability to sense positive energy from others, to rebuild our psyche. Breaks are the start of a hard, hard time. For some, it's a path to alcohol or depression. For others, it's a door to suicide.
I wish it wasn't so, having stood in those doorways myself.
Autistic people are particularly vulnerable to deceptions of the heart. Sadly, we often bring them on ourselves, through a mix of hope and blindness. We cannot tell what the other person intends, because that's the nature of social blindness. We're drawn to the smile, when another might have seen the phony. We stay when we should run, because we fear we're disabled, and love may never come again. For so many reasons, we are vulnerable.
It would be easy to blame predatory people. More and more, that's the American way. Blame someone or something else; something beyond our control. Many would seize that argument. I don't believe that.
I agree most of the people are not bad, but life gives them different options. Sometimes the ways they select are not the finest, just like we except otherwise, we can’t manage where another life leads. At times, all the highways hurt.
I've had a heavy heart for a very long time since I felt my relationship was finish. It's really difficult coping and facing the new reality. Life's challenging me for a second time. But I won't give up on Love. It's the most fantastic feeling.
2010年11月30日星期二
2010年11月29日星期一
Have a Break from Technology
I’m addicted to technology at 18 years old. I don’t know if it’s common for a teenager, or anyone, to be as addicted as I am. I’m frightened to count how many hours each day I spend on facebook, youtube, twitter, email, and other sites; I know that I’m spending not less than triple the amount of time I’d like to spend on the internet. My issue with quitting or just logging off is that I feel insecure without my smartphone or facebook, and I can’t seem to get control of my life any longer.
In recent times, during a very grueling spin class in Califorlia City a lady pulled out and logged on to her IPad to check her email. The teacher was not pleased and when he proceeded to humiliate her openly, the class collectively broke out in applause.
Since I blog about our relationship with technology and rely on it to have my words read, I need my reading audience logged on to create the blog traffic to keep myself in the blogosphere. But this post is about empowering yourself to make conscious choices to log off and take a much needed time out from our digital lives. No matter how convenient and accessible technology has become, it is still our choice whether we remain tethered to it everywhere we go.
As toddlers, many of us had baby blankets, binkies or imaginary friends that we refused to part with under any circumstances. Pediatrician and Psychoanalyst, Donald Winnicot coined the phrase "transitional object" to describe the phenomenon of infants attaching to various objects (plush toys, blankets, etc.) that serve to provide comfort as they come to terms with their own individuality while confronting the anxiety caused by separation from their primary caretaker. This is a perfectly natural stage of development and for the most part, parents indulge our symbiotic relationships with our surrogates until we just grow out of it. Transitions are a normal part of our individuation and people of all ages will attach to something comfortable and familiar to provide security through these developmental transitions.
For those who struggle with separation and individuation, the transitional object becomes a hindrance to movement forward and the object becomes a liability. At some point the tattered fabric or the demanding imaginary friend are no longer cute or age-appropriate and need to be abandoned in the pursuit of healthy development.
As a therapist, I have clients who are reluctant to log off even for their hour of therapy. Ironically, in a time where we can be always connected, we are increasingly more disconnected with one another.
Look around you at a restaurant tonight and just observe how many people are on their phones texting instead of talking with one another-this is especially profound when you see a couple at a romantic table for two holding their handhelds instead of holding hands. Pay attention at the movies, play or symphony at just how many sounds, beeps and buzzes coming from the people around you and not from the talent you have paid to entertain you. People cannot even use the toilet anymore without feeling the need to stay connected, it is called a "restroom" for a reason.
As a species, it’s as if we feel we don’t exist if we are not immediately accessible. This separation anxiety en masse is a regression of monumental proportions. Since tech gadgets are not going anywhere, we have to recognize our relationship with them is layered and rooted in more than just their logistical convenience. Ask yourself–do you need to have your gadget on to feel connected? Can you relax if you are not accessible?
As the holidays approach it is a wonderful time to disengage and take a vacation from technology to reconnect with yourself and your family and friends. Recently on the ABC sitcom Modern Family, one of the family units tried to eliminate technology all together in order to reconnect with one another. For many, it would be hard to imagine a Thanksgiving without a turkey, so I am not suggesting you go cold-turkey on technology, but with a few simple modifications to your dependence on your gadgets, you may find that you have a holiday season worth remembering.
So for the brave and fearless, here are some holiday suggestions for giving yourself a vacation from technology.
1.Host tech free dinner parties. Inform guests that gadgets are persona non grata. Hosts can offer a "tech check" where guests can check their gadgets at the door and claim them at the time of departure.
2. At home, establish "tech free time" where all gadgets must be turned off. Play games, engage in discussions, eat together, etc.
3. Make exercise a time to connect with yourself and leave the distractions and stress of your every day behind. Create motivating playlists with your favorite music to keep you focused and pumped during your workouts, but leave gadgets that connect you to the outside world, inside your locker. Gyms should be gadget free.
4. Implement a "tech curfew". Let your friends, family and co-workers know that at a certain time, you are no longer available. Establish that time and turn off your technology. Without chimes and reminders that you have mail, you will claim a lot of extra time for yourself and perhaps reconnect with something called relaxation.
5. Tech charge time. Leave the house willingly without your gadgets and let them stay at home snug in their charging cradle. At first you may be uncomfortable with how naked you feel as you re-experience everyday activities without your phone, but after the initial shock you will be surprised at how liberating it is to not be accessible.
With the vacation season upon us, it is a great time to reconnect with family and enjoy some down time from work. Our Digital Self requests this break too, so let’s close up our gadgets and tune into chances to be tech free-not all the time, but enough to feel the dissimilarity.
It is very easy to be overwhelmed by technology and to spend a lot of time on it and with it. Not less than you know you are relying on it so much because you feel insecure without it. Most probably, when you challenge yourself to break from it, you will discover you don’t feel as insecure and will increase the confidence to concentrate on the things in your life you might be avoiding.
In recent times, during a very grueling spin class in Califorlia City a lady pulled out and logged on to her IPad to check her email. The teacher was not pleased and when he proceeded to humiliate her openly, the class collectively broke out in applause.
Since I blog about our relationship with technology and rely on it to have my words read, I need my reading audience logged on to create the blog traffic to keep myself in the blogosphere. But this post is about empowering yourself to make conscious choices to log off and take a much needed time out from our digital lives. No matter how convenient and accessible technology has become, it is still our choice whether we remain tethered to it everywhere we go.
As toddlers, many of us had baby blankets, binkies or imaginary friends that we refused to part with under any circumstances. Pediatrician and Psychoanalyst, Donald Winnicot coined the phrase "transitional object" to describe the phenomenon of infants attaching to various objects (plush toys, blankets, etc.) that serve to provide comfort as they come to terms with their own individuality while confronting the anxiety caused by separation from their primary caretaker. This is a perfectly natural stage of development and for the most part, parents indulge our symbiotic relationships with our surrogates until we just grow out of it. Transitions are a normal part of our individuation and people of all ages will attach to something comfortable and familiar to provide security through these developmental transitions.
For those who struggle with separation and individuation, the transitional object becomes a hindrance to movement forward and the object becomes a liability. At some point the tattered fabric or the demanding imaginary friend are no longer cute or age-appropriate and need to be abandoned in the pursuit of healthy development.
As a therapist, I have clients who are reluctant to log off even for their hour of therapy. Ironically, in a time where we can be always connected, we are increasingly more disconnected with one another.
Look around you at a restaurant tonight and just observe how many people are on their phones texting instead of talking with one another-this is especially profound when you see a couple at a romantic table for two holding their handhelds instead of holding hands. Pay attention at the movies, play or symphony at just how many sounds, beeps and buzzes coming from the people around you and not from the talent you have paid to entertain you. People cannot even use the toilet anymore without feeling the need to stay connected, it is called a "restroom" for a reason.
As a species, it’s as if we feel we don’t exist if we are not immediately accessible. This separation anxiety en masse is a regression of monumental proportions. Since tech gadgets are not going anywhere, we have to recognize our relationship with them is layered and rooted in more than just their logistical convenience. Ask yourself–do you need to have your gadget on to feel connected? Can you relax if you are not accessible?
As the holidays approach it is a wonderful time to disengage and take a vacation from technology to reconnect with yourself and your family and friends. Recently on the ABC sitcom Modern Family, one of the family units tried to eliminate technology all together in order to reconnect with one another. For many, it would be hard to imagine a Thanksgiving without a turkey, so I am not suggesting you go cold-turkey on technology, but with a few simple modifications to your dependence on your gadgets, you may find that you have a holiday season worth remembering.
So for the brave and fearless, here are some holiday suggestions for giving yourself a vacation from technology.
1.Host tech free dinner parties. Inform guests that gadgets are persona non grata. Hosts can offer a "tech check" where guests can check their gadgets at the door and claim them at the time of departure.
2. At home, establish "tech free time" where all gadgets must be turned off. Play games, engage in discussions, eat together, etc.
3. Make exercise a time to connect with yourself and leave the distractions and stress of your every day behind. Create motivating playlists with your favorite music to keep you focused and pumped during your workouts, but leave gadgets that connect you to the outside world, inside your locker. Gyms should be gadget free.
4. Implement a "tech curfew". Let your friends, family and co-workers know that at a certain time, you are no longer available. Establish that time and turn off your technology. Without chimes and reminders that you have mail, you will claim a lot of extra time for yourself and perhaps reconnect with something called relaxation.
5. Tech charge time. Leave the house willingly without your gadgets and let them stay at home snug in their charging cradle. At first you may be uncomfortable with how naked you feel as you re-experience everyday activities without your phone, but after the initial shock you will be surprised at how liberating it is to not be accessible.
With the vacation season upon us, it is a great time to reconnect with family and enjoy some down time from work. Our Digital Self requests this break too, so let’s close up our gadgets and tune into chances to be tech free-not all the time, but enough to feel the dissimilarity.
It is very easy to be overwhelmed by technology and to spend a lot of time on it and with it. Not less than you know you are relying on it so much because you feel insecure without it. Most probably, when you challenge yourself to break from it, you will discover you don’t feel as insecure and will increase the confidence to concentrate on the things in your life you might be avoiding.
2010年11月28日星期日
Beautiful and Cool Goggles
Eyes are a very important part of our body, we can’t have eyes. We can’t see some things clearly if our eyes are bad or not good enough, we should protect our eyes from being hurt, here are two beautiful and cool goggles.
HE BEAU SUNGLASSES
$98.00
Go incognito with a little New York cool in these sensational glasses. Whether you choose for enchanting, girly pink with amber or complicated noir with deep purple lenses, these large elliptical frames are a big way to add a decadent dose of drama to sunny time.
Plastic frames
100% UV protection
Imported
Close
Go incognito with a little California cool in these sensational specs. Whether you choose for glamorous, girly pink with amber or sophisticated noir with deep purple lenses.
Style Number: THE-BEAU
* Select Color:
* Select Size:
o One Size
Size Chart
BLACK DIAMOND SKI GOGGLE
$98.00
Do your part to beautify the bunny slopes with our gorgeous girly ski goggles.
Mirrored continuous lens with perforated top, adjustable elastic band with Juicy Couture logo print and cushioned interior.
Imported
Close
Do your part to beautify the bunny slopes with our wonderful girly ski goggles. Mirrored incessant lens with perforated top, adjustable stretchy band with Juicy Couture logo.
Style Number: BLK-DIAMD
* Select Color:
BLACK
o BLACK
o PINK
* Select Size:
o One Size
Size Chart
In my opinion, these two glasses are cool and fashionable, what’s more, they are very useful to our eyes, and protect our eyes from being hurt in the sunshine. I really like these sunglasses, I couldn’t wait to wear them when I saw them.
HE BEAU SUNGLASSES
$98.00
Plastic frames
100% UV protection
Imported
Close
Go incognito with a little California cool in these sensational specs. Whether you choose for glamorous, girly pink with amber or sophisticated noir with deep purple lenses.
Style Number: THE-BEAU
* Select Color:
* Select Size:
o One Size
Size Chart
BLACK DIAMOND SKI GOGGLE
$98.00
Mirrored continuous lens with perforated top, adjustable elastic band with Juicy Couture logo print and cushioned interior.
Imported
Close
Do your part to beautify the bunny slopes with our wonderful girly ski goggles. Mirrored incessant lens with perforated top, adjustable stretchy band with Juicy Couture logo.
Style Number: BLK-DIAMD
* Select Color:
BLACK
o BLACK
o PINK
* Select Size:
o One Size
Size Chart
In my opinion, these two glasses are cool and fashionable, what’s more, they are very useful to our eyes, and protect our eyes from being hurt in the sunshine. I really like these sunglasses, I couldn’t wait to wear them when I saw them.
Is the Terrorism Threat fictive?
Terrorism is a type of conflict. There are people waking up daily all over the world who spend their time, endeavor and money designing methods to inflict important psychological, societal and economic harm to the U.S., our people and our companion in democracy round the world.
In a 2003 book Beyond Fear he coined the expression "safety theater" to refer to measures which can be undertaken not because they are going to be efficient at thwarting attacks, but because the agencies carrying them out require to seem like doing something helpful. You can read the total interview here. This is the transcript:
What is really being seen by these machines?
In theory, it sees stuff that isn't part of the body. So if you've got a stapler in your pocket, it will show up. The thought is that it will see stuff that a metal detector won't detect, like a ceramic knife. But this doesn't seem to be borne out by reality.
The machines have shown up in the wake of the so-called underwear bomber, who tried to blow up a plane with chemicals stored in his briefs. Would this technology have stopped him?
The guys who make the machines have said, "We wouldn't have caught that."
So what kind of attack will this prevent, that otherwise might be successful?
There are two kinds of hijackers. There's the lone nutcase, like someone who will bring a gun onto a plane because, damn it, they're going to take the whole plane down with them. Any pre-9-11 airport would catch a person like that. The second kind is the well-planned, well-financed Al Qaeda-like plot. And nothing can be done to stop someone like that.
Has there been a case since 9/11 of an attempted hijacker being thwarted by airport security?
Do you think there's been an over-reaction, on the part of the government and the press, to the underwear bomber?
That case was really instructive. Nobody was injured, and the plane landed safely. It was a success! And it was pre 9-11 security that made it a success. Because we screen for superficial guns and bombs, he had to resort to a syringe and 90 minutes in the bathroom with a bomb that didn't work. This is what success looks like. Stop bellyaching!
What's the motive behind introducing this new level of security?
It's politics. You have to be seen as doing something, even if nothing is the smart thing to do. You can't be seen as doing nothing.
Does it surprise you that at last, after several escalations in the TSA's level of intrusiveness, the public seems to have finally rebelled?
Back in 2006, while this full-body scanner technology was first being planned, I wrote that I believed this could be the straw that broke the camel's back, as it would mix conservatives and liberals. No one wants their son or daughter groped or shown naked.
So the response, sometimes overreaction, could be politically motivated, but until those at war with our lifestyle choose to finish the killing, but perhaps we shouldn't decrease our consideration on the problem of terrorism just because the yearly death count is less important than other reasons.
Copyright by Lucy who likes shopping online, going fishing, often searches juicy couture watch and juicy couture bikini on the Internet.
In a 2003 book Beyond Fear he coined the expression "safety theater" to refer to measures which can be undertaken not because they are going to be efficient at thwarting attacks, but because the agencies carrying them out require to seem like doing something helpful. You can read the total interview here. This is the transcript:
What is really being seen by these machines?
In theory, it sees stuff that isn't part of the body. So if you've got a stapler in your pocket, it will show up. The thought is that it will see stuff that a metal detector won't detect, like a ceramic knife. But this doesn't seem to be borne out by reality.
The machines have shown up in the wake of the so-called underwear bomber, who tried to blow up a plane with chemicals stored in his briefs. Would this technology have stopped him?
The guys who make the machines have said, "We wouldn't have caught that."
So what kind of attack will this prevent, that otherwise might be successful?
There are two kinds of hijackers. There's the lone nutcase, like someone who will bring a gun onto a plane because, damn it, they're going to take the whole plane down with them. Any pre-9-11 airport would catch a person like that. The second kind is the well-planned, well-financed Al Qaeda-like plot. And nothing can be done to stop someone like that.
Has there been a case since 9/11 of an attempted hijacker being thwarted by airport security?
Do you think there's been an over-reaction, on the part of the government and the press, to the underwear bomber?
That case was really instructive. Nobody was injured, and the plane landed safely. It was a success! And it was pre 9-11 security that made it a success. Because we screen for superficial guns and bombs, he had to resort to a syringe and 90 minutes in the bathroom with a bomb that didn't work. This is what success looks like. Stop bellyaching!
What's the motive behind introducing this new level of security?
It's politics. You have to be seen as doing something, even if nothing is the smart thing to do. You can't be seen as doing nothing.
Does it surprise you that at last, after several escalations in the TSA's level of intrusiveness, the public seems to have finally rebelled?
Back in 2006, while this full-body scanner technology was first being planned, I wrote that I believed this could be the straw that broke the camel's back, as it would mix conservatives and liberals. No one wants their son or daughter groped or shown naked.
So the response, sometimes overreaction, could be politically motivated, but until those at war with our lifestyle choose to finish the killing, but perhaps we shouldn't decrease our consideration on the problem of terrorism just because the yearly death count is less important than other reasons.
Copyright by Lucy who likes shopping online, going fishing, often searches juicy couture watch and juicy couture bikini on the Internet.
2010年11月25日星期四
The new TSA screening process took my civil rights
The security theatre doesn’t take into consideration all manner of important concerns over civil liberties violations, psychological possessions, and probable health hazards of the new method, nor is it based on facts and proof – it’s a hysterical response to the coverage of terrorism, not a considered reaction. That’s the danger: it’s simpler to misuse such a system than it is to misuse a wise one.
Where have my civil liberties lost? As a people has been educated in psychology, you would consider I would have been ready for the new TSA screening programs- but not even that can have prepared me for what occurred at LAX last month.
My wife and I had a wonderful trip to the Los Angeles area last week. We enjoyed the sun and fun – even rented a convertible. The ocean off Malibu Beach and Santa Monica was grand and glorious – resplendent in sunshine.
We interviewed terrific couples for our next book about successful marriage, videotaped an upcoming television show about our newest book, and, all and all, had a grand California time. It was a wonderful trip, but the journey home was a nightmare.
Here’s what happened. When we got to LAX our trip definitely turned south.
Here I am, a 65-year-old man with gray hair, wearing a pair of Chino pants and a blue blazer, traveling with my wife. I am not a very dangerous looking guy and my track record in the legal system is squeaky clean. OK, I got a speeding ticket back in the 90′s! But the truth is, I have a great record as a human being overall. My 42 years as an educator qualifies me I think as one of the good guys.
Frankly, when I saw the "full body scanner" in front of me as we were beginning the screening process at LAX, I was kind of looking forward to trying out this new technology. My optimism didn’t last very long.
I went through the body scanner only to be pulled aside and told that the scanner had detected something "in my right groin area." I said to the TSA agent something like, "Huh?" I had no shoes, no belt, no jewelry, nothing except my socks, my Chino’s, my underwear, and my shirt. And trust me on this, I am not a terrorist – I have never committed a crime and I only have that speeding ticket I mentioned earlier.
What was about to happen to me was something I never expected. And I must say, it was traumatizing, uncomfortable, embarrassing, and downright humiliating.
I was pulled into a room after waiting for several minutes in the "holding area." Two TSA agents took me into this side room. The one agent told me he was going to search me. He committed to using only the "back of his hands" during this invasive search.
What happened during the next several minutes clearly and without question violated my civil liberties. What happened to me violated my rights as a citizen of this country, the United States of America.
During the invasive process I was going through, the TSA agent touched my genitals, patted down my legs and groin area, and embarrassed me by rubbing my inner legs and buttocks.
I will ask this simple question of those of you who are reading this – how does a 65 year old man, with gray hair, his bride of 44 years by his side, and one who has a very clean record of service to education for 42 years, get treated like a common criminal – or worst yet, a terrorist – when all I was doing was getting on an American airplane as a frequent flyer with a Gold Card? What has happened to my country?
When I was an undergraduate at the University of Missouri in the 1960′s, my English teacher required me to read "1984" by George Orwell. I dutifully read the book. And the truth is, I thought it was funny. I never imagined that America would come to the vision of George Orwell. Well, think again.
I am very worried about my country. I never imagined that I would be humiliated by my own government. Our government has, in my humble estimation, crossed over the line.
Where is the ACLU? Where are those Americans that confess to protect our civil liberties? My experience in LA was a divide moment in my life. I have always loved my nation and believed in all the liberties outlined in our Constitution. But my government has let me down. When our government gropes, fondles, and touches our human body in ways in which our constitution never imagined, it is time to question what has gone incorrect.
On the other hand, it can be considered that he was only saying nothing about his person made him seem incriminating. I would presume that with my background and appearance, this might never happen to me either but evidently, the next time I fly, I ought to be sure to scrub down really well. I expect to be treated like an American civilian, a civilian until I commit a crime.
Where have my civil liberties lost? As a people has been educated in psychology, you would consider I would have been ready for the new TSA screening programs- but not even that can have prepared me for what occurred at LAX last month.
My wife and I had a wonderful trip to the Los Angeles area last week. We enjoyed the sun and fun – even rented a convertible. The ocean off Malibu Beach and Santa Monica was grand and glorious – resplendent in sunshine.
We interviewed terrific couples for our next book about successful marriage, videotaped an upcoming television show about our newest book, and, all and all, had a grand California time. It was a wonderful trip, but the journey home was a nightmare.
Here’s what happened. When we got to LAX our trip definitely turned south.
Here I am, a 65-year-old man with gray hair, wearing a pair of Chino pants and a blue blazer, traveling with my wife. I am not a very dangerous looking guy and my track record in the legal system is squeaky clean. OK, I got a speeding ticket back in the 90′s! But the truth is, I have a great record as a human being overall. My 42 years as an educator qualifies me I think as one of the good guys.
Frankly, when I saw the "full body scanner" in front of me as we were beginning the screening process at LAX, I was kind of looking forward to trying out this new technology. My optimism didn’t last very long.
I went through the body scanner only to be pulled aside and told that the scanner had detected something "in my right groin area." I said to the TSA agent something like, "Huh?" I had no shoes, no belt, no jewelry, nothing except my socks, my Chino’s, my underwear, and my shirt. And trust me on this, I am not a terrorist – I have never committed a crime and I only have that speeding ticket I mentioned earlier.
What was about to happen to me was something I never expected. And I must say, it was traumatizing, uncomfortable, embarrassing, and downright humiliating.
I was pulled into a room after waiting for several minutes in the "holding area." Two TSA agents took me into this side room. The one agent told me he was going to search me. He committed to using only the "back of his hands" during this invasive search.
What happened during the next several minutes clearly and without question violated my civil liberties. What happened to me violated my rights as a citizen of this country, the United States of America.
During the invasive process I was going through, the TSA agent touched my genitals, patted down my legs and groin area, and embarrassed me by rubbing my inner legs and buttocks.
I will ask this simple question of those of you who are reading this – how does a 65 year old man, with gray hair, his bride of 44 years by his side, and one who has a very clean record of service to education for 42 years, get treated like a common criminal – or worst yet, a terrorist – when all I was doing was getting on an American airplane as a frequent flyer with a Gold Card? What has happened to my country?
When I was an undergraduate at the University of Missouri in the 1960′s, my English teacher required me to read "1984" by George Orwell. I dutifully read the book. And the truth is, I thought it was funny. I never imagined that America would come to the vision of George Orwell. Well, think again.
I am very worried about my country. I never imagined that I would be humiliated by my own government. Our government has, in my humble estimation, crossed over the line.
Where is the ACLU? Where are those Americans that confess to protect our civil liberties? My experience in LA was a divide moment in my life. I have always loved my nation and believed in all the liberties outlined in our Constitution. But my government has let me down. When our government gropes, fondles, and touches our human body in ways in which our constitution never imagined, it is time to question what has gone incorrect.
On the other hand, it can be considered that he was only saying nothing about his person made him seem incriminating. I would presume that with my background and appearance, this might never happen to me either but evidently, the next time I fly, I ought to be sure to scrub down really well. I expect to be treated like an American civilian, a civilian until I commit a crime.
2010年11月24日星期三
Can I finally Repair the cycle?
I remember my analyst once telling me to picture that if I used to be very sick and vomited, a physician might see the things of the vomit to find out what made me ill. He said that’s what analysis is like. That I vomit, and he looks with the contents, and I am there with him when he does it. Every thing is examined cautiously, and selected apart. It’s uncomfortable and frightening. Another time he told me that we have to discharge things, and look at all the pieces, so as to know them.
Sometimes I’m unsure about my analysis, I don’t have the time, I don’t know why I’m going, I don’t know when it’s going to ever work, but not tonight. On this Tuesday night, five days separated from my last Friday meeting, I’m ready to get back on the couch.
The reason for my renewed enthusiasm isn’t that life feels grand and I’m all giddy to share it. It’s that so much feels broken inside, and I know I have to repair it.
This, of course, is a good thing. I’m realizing that the longer I’m in analysis (coming up on 4 years), the harder I’m trying to break things: Bad habits, negative cycles, and presenting problems are all in my sights – on target to get busted apart and banished.
But as so many of us in therapy know, our demons are highly capable of making a comeback the first time we beat them down, and the second. At least that’s been my experience.
Long, torturous cycles of discovery, taking months, would finally bring on breakthroughs. I felt repaired, and I would tell Ms. Analyst, with certainty, that this time I had finally turned the corner. The lifelong rupture was finally defeated. After our many sessions and my diligent work converting them into results outside of the pod I was now victorious, for real, and I was sure I would stay that way.
"I see," she would observe, "that this time feels different." And so it did. And then I would start musing about some other minor malady, perhaps even privately planning my eventual disembarkment from the pod.
Last week, after months of hard labor, I broke down one of my demons once more. Wrestled it into submission and put it in a mental chokehold. But this time really is different, because instead of thrusting my arms triumphantly into the air, I know to beware.
The problem has been neutralized, but I am not in a state of repair. I am in a state of rupture, and I will choose to stay there.
Why? Because Ms. Analyst believes – and I think I finally get it – that I must fully understand my darkest elements if I’m ever going to break free of their influence. The idea right now is not to learn how to go to a happy place, but to remain enveloped in the threatening conditions so we can see what’s really going on.
"Embrace the hopelessness," she urges, when I tell her that I’m hurting. "Embrace the chaos and destruction. Drop anchor and drill down."
It took me so long to understand what she meant by that. Wasn’t I in therapy so I could feel good? And wasn’t I telling her how I felt at the moment, which was bad? Wasn’t I effectively free associating?
But now I think I get it. I’ve modified my behavior, and earlier on that was enough to make me feel better. But now I don’t want to feel better. Not yet, odd as it sounds. We have a lot to learn from the chaos, and maybe tomorrow I’ll embrace it and unleash it in the session room, rather than just playing keep away.
How do you regress and recoil as your cycles come around? What does it take for you to turn the corner, and carry on going? Making things break, and then letting them stay seems like a stratagem strategy. But I think taking this new tack displays why it pays to stay in treatment. I’m still learning, through trial and error.
In my opinion, it’s frightening and superb. Ultimately, I don’t trust a therapy. I trust consciousness, and the ability to finally have more and more of a grasp on what we do and why, so we could do the best with that broken, complex mechanism that is our structure. That’s also a great way to see the best possible end consequence. It suggests and ongoing procedure, versus some imagined destination.
Copyright by Lucy, a beautiful girl who likes writing, singing and shopping, find articles and writing software are her hobbies.
Sometimes I’m unsure about my analysis, I don’t have the time, I don’t know why I’m going, I don’t know when it’s going to ever work, but not tonight. On this Tuesday night, five days separated from my last Friday meeting, I’m ready to get back on the couch.
The reason for my renewed enthusiasm isn’t that life feels grand and I’m all giddy to share it. It’s that so much feels broken inside, and I know I have to repair it.
This, of course, is a good thing. I’m realizing that the longer I’m in analysis (coming up on 4 years), the harder I’m trying to break things: Bad habits, negative cycles, and presenting problems are all in my sights – on target to get busted apart and banished.
But as so many of us in therapy know, our demons are highly capable of making a comeback the first time we beat them down, and the second. At least that’s been my experience.
Long, torturous cycles of discovery, taking months, would finally bring on breakthroughs. I felt repaired, and I would tell Ms. Analyst, with certainty, that this time I had finally turned the corner. The lifelong rupture was finally defeated. After our many sessions and my diligent work converting them into results outside of the pod I was now victorious, for real, and I was sure I would stay that way.
"I see," she would observe, "that this time feels different." And so it did. And then I would start musing about some other minor malady, perhaps even privately planning my eventual disembarkment from the pod.
Last week, after months of hard labor, I broke down one of my demons once more. Wrestled it into submission and put it in a mental chokehold. But this time really is different, because instead of thrusting my arms triumphantly into the air, I know to beware.
The problem has been neutralized, but I am not in a state of repair. I am in a state of rupture, and I will choose to stay there.
Why? Because Ms. Analyst believes – and I think I finally get it – that I must fully understand my darkest elements if I’m ever going to break free of their influence. The idea right now is not to learn how to go to a happy place, but to remain enveloped in the threatening conditions so we can see what’s really going on.
"Embrace the hopelessness," she urges, when I tell her that I’m hurting. "Embrace the chaos and destruction. Drop anchor and drill down."
It took me so long to understand what she meant by that. Wasn’t I in therapy so I could feel good? And wasn’t I telling her how I felt at the moment, which was bad? Wasn’t I effectively free associating?
But now I think I get it. I’ve modified my behavior, and earlier on that was enough to make me feel better. But now I don’t want to feel better. Not yet, odd as it sounds. We have a lot to learn from the chaos, and maybe tomorrow I’ll embrace it and unleash it in the session room, rather than just playing keep away.
How do you regress and recoil as your cycles come around? What does it take for you to turn the corner, and carry on going? Making things break, and then letting them stay seems like a stratagem strategy. But I think taking this new tack displays why it pays to stay in treatment. I’m still learning, through trial and error.
In my opinion, it’s frightening and superb. Ultimately, I don’t trust a therapy. I trust consciousness, and the ability to finally have more and more of a grasp on what we do and why, so we could do the best with that broken, complex mechanism that is our structure. That’s also a great way to see the best possible end consequence. It suggests and ongoing procedure, versus some imagined destination.
Copyright by Lucy, a beautiful girl who likes writing, singing and shopping, find articles and writing software are her hobbies.
2010年11月23日星期二
That Racist Talk at a Dinner Party
Lots of people consider that racism is about very clear aware hatred of a specific group. Things turn out to be very complex when it hasn’t happened to somebody who would be horrified at being told they’re racist. That they’ve just expressed layers of unexamined unconscious assumptions.
So you’re having a good time at a supper time with friends when out of nowhere, one of your mates says something racist. It’s not anything as awful as using the "N" word, but it’s still something destructive about how Black or other nation’s people act. What would you do?
Imagine too that your kid is within earshot. Do you take your child to another room? Or do you explain to your child in front of everyone that racism is wrong?
Assuming that you are against teaching racism, here is something you can’t do: Nothing. If you say nothing, then your child and everyone else will think you agree with what that other parent is saying at the dinner table.
I have found that the following can help in such a situation: You acknowledge that you understand that the parent is speaking from his or her own experience. However, you also announce that you emphatically disagree with what is currently being said about how different racial groups act. You can say that you believe that it is very important to treat people as individuals, rather than as stereotypical members of their respective racial groups. If your kid did happen to hear the racist comment, you can explain this principle in more detail to him or her later at home.
Talking all of this rings a bell in my memory of a period in college when my soft-spoken, super-well-mannered girlfriend was driving a female acquaintance and me home from a party. She was jabbering away from the backseat and unexpectedly used the "N" word. He responded by directly pulling the car over. He resolutely told her that if she was going to use that language, she must get out of the car. He was my superhero in that minute for acting on what I didn’t have the guts to do myself back then.
I think that we can’t say nothing, but on the other hand, maybe it’s a good suggestion to build a big deal over it either, specially if children are around. If you come on too strong, you might finish up making everybody at the night meal uncomfortable, persons are supposed to be having a good time, too.
So you’re having a good time at a supper time with friends when out of nowhere, one of your mates says something racist. It’s not anything as awful as using the "N" word, but it’s still something destructive about how Black or other nation’s people act. What would you do?
Imagine too that your kid is within earshot. Do you take your child to another room? Or do you explain to your child in front of everyone that racism is wrong?
Assuming that you are against teaching racism, here is something you can’t do: Nothing. If you say nothing, then your child and everyone else will think you agree with what that other parent is saying at the dinner table.
I have found that the following can help in such a situation: You acknowledge that you understand that the parent is speaking from his or her own experience. However, you also announce that you emphatically disagree with what is currently being said about how different racial groups act. You can say that you believe that it is very important to treat people as individuals, rather than as stereotypical members of their respective racial groups. If your kid did happen to hear the racist comment, you can explain this principle in more detail to him or her later at home.
Talking all of this rings a bell in my memory of a period in college when my soft-spoken, super-well-mannered girlfriend was driving a female acquaintance and me home from a party. She was jabbering away from the backseat and unexpectedly used the "N" word. He responded by directly pulling the car over. He resolutely told her that if she was going to use that language, she must get out of the car. He was my superhero in that minute for acting on what I didn’t have the guts to do myself back then.
I think that we can’t say nothing, but on the other hand, maybe it’s a good suggestion to build a big deal over it either, specially if children are around. If you come on too strong, you might finish up making everybody at the night meal uncomfortable, persons are supposed to be having a good time, too.
2010年11月22日星期一
Who’s Afraid of Borderline Personality Disorder?
Far too many ladies suffering from domestic violence have been misdiagnosed with borderline personality disorder when, in reality, they were just victims of on-going serious misuse by men who slicked back their hair, assumed a debonair air, and sweet-talked their wives’ employers, counselors, societal workers, psychiatrists, pastors, attorneys, and judges into thinking they were rational men and their wives were just simple nuts. In reality, there is a diagnosis for those men: antisocial personality disorder, and for those women: acute stress disorder, chronic.
If you ask psychological health experts which diagnostic classification they most dread, they won’t generally answer "schizophrenia," or "bipolar," or "drug abuse." More often, they are going to reply with the sneering (and formless) designation, "borderline." To be sure, Borderline Personality Disorder frequently refers to demanding, unstable, and hard persons. They might idealize beyond measure those whom they will soon come to revile without reason.
Disappointment slides into litigation. It sometimes seems that everyone’s first wife was a borderline. Often, BPD becomes a diagnosis of countertransference, the label attributed to a patient who lacks the graciousness to get better, or who just aggravates the doctor.
Recent research, however, defies the myths that BPD represents willful spoiled brattiness and never improves. Neurobiological and genetic information demonstrates that DNA vulnerability may combine with environmental circumstance to yield distinctive changes in brain function. In such individuals, those parts of the brain associated with impulsivity and emotionality may be overly stimulated. Specific and directed treatment approaches, such as Dialectical Behavioral Therapy among others, have resulted in marked improvement in functioning. Even without any treatment most BPD patients eventually improve significantly.
Even though the traditional stereotype of borderline personality disorder is the mutating personality played by a lady in the movie "Fatal Attraction," less spiteful figures fulfill defining characteristics. Biographers of the lady expose that this beloved woman possibly suffered from borderline personality disorder. Persons with borderline personality can be attractive, gifted people, who, over time, live full and content life.
If it is like that, lots of personality disordered people could get better. On the other hand, it’s not all on them, and their problem doesn’t always just influence them. Many people ought to be weary for the reason that before the person gets better, it’s usually after they have abused some people in their lives. Second, Abusers can be very gifted and productive person. But this is also scary. The fact is lots of abusers especially non physical abusers never end up in jail. They only emotionally misuse those close to them and when they lastly see the light, they may look help for it.
If you ask psychological health experts which diagnostic classification they most dread, they won’t generally answer "schizophrenia," or "bipolar," or "drug abuse." More often, they are going to reply with the sneering (and formless) designation, "borderline." To be sure, Borderline Personality Disorder frequently refers to demanding, unstable, and hard persons. They might idealize beyond measure those whom they will soon come to revile without reason.
Disappointment slides into litigation. It sometimes seems that everyone’s first wife was a borderline. Often, BPD becomes a diagnosis of countertransference, the label attributed to a patient who lacks the graciousness to get better, or who just aggravates the doctor.
Recent research, however, defies the myths that BPD represents willful spoiled brattiness and never improves. Neurobiological and genetic information demonstrates that DNA vulnerability may combine with environmental circumstance to yield distinctive changes in brain function. In such individuals, those parts of the brain associated with impulsivity and emotionality may be overly stimulated. Specific and directed treatment approaches, such as Dialectical Behavioral Therapy among others, have resulted in marked improvement in functioning. Even without any treatment most BPD patients eventually improve significantly.
Even though the traditional stereotype of borderline personality disorder is the mutating personality played by a lady in the movie "Fatal Attraction," less spiteful figures fulfill defining characteristics. Biographers of the lady expose that this beloved woman possibly suffered from borderline personality disorder. Persons with borderline personality can be attractive, gifted people, who, over time, live full and content life.
If it is like that, lots of personality disordered people could get better. On the other hand, it’s not all on them, and their problem doesn’t always just influence them. Many people ought to be weary for the reason that before the person gets better, it’s usually after they have abused some people in their lives. Second, Abusers can be very gifted and productive person. But this is also scary. The fact is lots of abusers especially non physical abusers never end up in jail. They only emotionally misuse those close to them and when they lastly see the light, they may look help for it.
2010年11月21日星期日
Your future happiness depends more you might think than on the present
Most of people would have a thought like this: the happier I am at this moment, the less likely I am to predict what will make me glad in the future; while the less happy I am at this moment, the more likely I am to predict what will me happy in the future. Their future happiness has much to the present. However, your future happiness depends less on the present than you might think.
You are making some of choices according to how you think they are going to make you feel in the future. Car sellers ask you to take into consideration how happy you’ll be driving an attractive fashionable car. Advertisements for seafaring cruises ask you to think about how great you’ll feel after a calming holiday. On the other side, people work hard for a new promotion believing that if they don’t move forward in their position, they are going to be devastated.
The evidence is pretty clear, though, that big positive and negative events don’t have an enormous impact on people’s happiness. In a 1998 paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Dan Gilbert, Tim Wilson, and their colleagues found that college faculty being evaluated for tenure believed they would be quite unhappy if they were denied tenure. Several months after their tenure decision, though, college faculty who had been denied tenure was no less happy than those who had gotten tenure.
This finding, that we believe future positive and negative events have a bigger impact on our future happiness than they do, is called an affective forecasting error. One thing about these errors that is not well understood: Why don’t they go away over time? We all have experience with these errors. As a kid, I remember toys that I really wanted because I had seen them in a catalog. When I actually got one of those toys, though, it was never quite the life-changing experience I expected. So, why don’t examples like this get rid of affective forecasting errors?
These researchers find that people have difficulty remembering their initial prediction for how they would feel after a positive or negative event. In one study, they asked voters in the 2008 election how they would feel a week after the election if Obama won. Supporters of John McCain rated that they would be quite unhappy. A week after the election, these same voters were contacted again and asked how happy they were. They were also asked to recall how happy they said they would be before the election. These voters were significantly happier than they predicted they would be (that is the affective forecasting error). They also remembered their prediction as being less extreme than it was. That is, they did not remember predicting that they would be very unhappy.
The researchers demonstrated that this poor memory for previous predictions makes it hard for people to learn to predict better in the future. In this study, some people were reminded of their initial prediction, and those people who were reminded of what they actually predicted showed smaller affective forecasting errors in the future.
In the first session of the experiment, people ranked their preference for flavors of jellybeans, and then were asked how much they would enjoy eating jellybeans that they liked moderately well after eating either a jellybean that they really like or one that they don’t like much at all. People usually predicted that they would like a moderate jellybean less after eating one they really like, than after eating one they don’t like at all.
People came back for a second session, and actually ate sequences of jellybeans and rated their enjoyment. As it turns out, preference for jellybeans isn’t affected at all by the one you just ate, and so there was an affected forecasting error. The participants were able to look at their ratings and see that they enjoyed the jellybean equally well regardless of what else they ate. One group of participants was then shown their original prediction (which showed that they expected a difference in enjoyment). The other group was not reminded of their original prediction.
Then, everyone did a similar task. They ranked a series of ice cream flavors. Then, they were asked how much they would enjoy eating a flavor they like moderately well either after having a spoonful of an ice cream they really enjoy or after having a spoonful they do not like at all. Obviously, this judgment is quite similar to the one about the jellybeans.
Those people who were reminded of their original judgment with the jellybeans correctly predicted that their enjoyment of ice cream would not be affected much by what they had eaten before. Those who were not reminded of their earlier judgment predicted that their enjoyment of the ice cream would be influenced by the flavor they ate before. So, those people who were not given a reminder still showed an affective forecasting error.
Overall, then, it seems like we continue to wrongly predict how events will affect our future happiness because we have difficulty remembering the predictions we make.
Do these affective forecasting errors really matter? In fact, these errors may be both a blessing and a curse.
On the positive side, it can be motivating to be very concerned about a future event. College faculty approaching tenure is often quite productive in the years before their evaluation, because they believe that the outcome of this decision will hugely influence their career. Even though the actual tenure decision won’t influence their future happiness much, this hard work may still lay important groundwork for their research in years to come.
On the negative side, though, these affective forecasting errors can also lead to bad decisions. If you really believe that a sports car will make you happier, you may overpay to own it. That means that you will spend a lot of money on a purchase that ultimately won’t affect your happiness that much.
After all, it might be finest to keep in mind that there are many reasons that influence how happy you are going to be in the future, and that no single event will have that big an influence on that happiness.
Even though the original result may not have a long lasting factor on your happiness, like getting a sports car will make you happy for a quick period of time, results stemming from that decision, increased dates, higher self confidence, and so on. Can all have huge effects on your happiness in the future. I think the only forecasting fault is not forecasting enough.
You are making some of choices according to how you think they are going to make you feel in the future. Car sellers ask you to take into consideration how happy you’ll be driving an attractive fashionable car. Advertisements for seafaring cruises ask you to think about how great you’ll feel after a calming holiday. On the other side, people work hard for a new promotion believing that if they don’t move forward in their position, they are going to be devastated.
The evidence is pretty clear, though, that big positive and negative events don’t have an enormous impact on people’s happiness. In a 1998 paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Dan Gilbert, Tim Wilson, and their colleagues found that college faculty being evaluated for tenure believed they would be quite unhappy if they were denied tenure. Several months after their tenure decision, though, college faculty who had been denied tenure was no less happy than those who had gotten tenure.
This finding, that we believe future positive and negative events have a bigger impact on our future happiness than they do, is called an affective forecasting error. One thing about these errors that is not well understood: Why don’t they go away over time? We all have experience with these errors. As a kid, I remember toys that I really wanted because I had seen them in a catalog. When I actually got one of those toys, though, it was never quite the life-changing experience I expected. So, why don’t examples like this get rid of affective forecasting errors?
These researchers find that people have difficulty remembering their initial prediction for how they would feel after a positive or negative event. In one study, they asked voters in the 2008 election how they would feel a week after the election if Obama won. Supporters of John McCain rated that they would be quite unhappy. A week after the election, these same voters were contacted again and asked how happy they were. They were also asked to recall how happy they said they would be before the election. These voters were significantly happier than they predicted they would be (that is the affective forecasting error). They also remembered their prediction as being less extreme than it was. That is, they did not remember predicting that they would be very unhappy.
The researchers demonstrated that this poor memory for previous predictions makes it hard for people to learn to predict better in the future. In this study, some people were reminded of their initial prediction, and those people who were reminded of what they actually predicted showed smaller affective forecasting errors in the future.
In the first session of the experiment, people ranked their preference for flavors of jellybeans, and then were asked how much they would enjoy eating jellybeans that they liked moderately well after eating either a jellybean that they really like or one that they don’t like much at all. People usually predicted that they would like a moderate jellybean less after eating one they really like, than after eating one they don’t like at all.
People came back for a second session, and actually ate sequences of jellybeans and rated their enjoyment. As it turns out, preference for jellybeans isn’t affected at all by the one you just ate, and so there was an affected forecasting error. The participants were able to look at their ratings and see that they enjoyed the jellybean equally well regardless of what else they ate. One group of participants was then shown their original prediction (which showed that they expected a difference in enjoyment). The other group was not reminded of their original prediction.
Then, everyone did a similar task. They ranked a series of ice cream flavors. Then, they were asked how much they would enjoy eating a flavor they like moderately well either after having a spoonful of an ice cream they really enjoy or after having a spoonful they do not like at all. Obviously, this judgment is quite similar to the one about the jellybeans.
Those people who were reminded of their original judgment with the jellybeans correctly predicted that their enjoyment of ice cream would not be affected much by what they had eaten before. Those who were not reminded of their earlier judgment predicted that their enjoyment of the ice cream would be influenced by the flavor they ate before. So, those people who were not given a reminder still showed an affective forecasting error.
Overall, then, it seems like we continue to wrongly predict how events will affect our future happiness because we have difficulty remembering the predictions we make.
Do these affective forecasting errors really matter? In fact, these errors may be both a blessing and a curse.
On the positive side, it can be motivating to be very concerned about a future event. College faculty approaching tenure is often quite productive in the years before their evaluation, because they believe that the outcome of this decision will hugely influence their career. Even though the actual tenure decision won’t influence their future happiness much, this hard work may still lay important groundwork for their research in years to come.
On the negative side, though, these affective forecasting errors can also lead to bad decisions. If you really believe that a sports car will make you happier, you may overpay to own it. That means that you will spend a lot of money on a purchase that ultimately won’t affect your happiness that much.
After all, it might be finest to keep in mind that there are many reasons that influence how happy you are going to be in the future, and that no single event will have that big an influence on that happiness.
Even though the original result may not have a long lasting factor on your happiness, like getting a sports car will make you happy for a quick period of time, results stemming from that decision, increased dates, higher self confidence, and so on. Can all have huge effects on your happiness in the future. I think the only forecasting fault is not forecasting enough.
2010年11月18日星期四
First of all,Think Inside the Box
Imaginative people are stuck inside the box. They don't love being trapped in a Skinner Box so they use something known as "imagination" to run away. They learned how to fantasy their instruction and school days away. I have heard this before and I believe it. So many people think you must throw away everything and "think outside the box". If you notice the puzzle, you should go inside the box before you can create the lines which are outside.
I use as some word as anybody, but there are some that I will not trot out for the reason that I have come to hate them immensely. "Think outside the box" is one of those expressions. In fact, it is so inside the box. I just did an internet search for the precise phrase and found 1,200,001 hits.
I have no problem with what the expression tries to convey - the importance of looking at things in a new way. That is, after all, one of the defining features of a creative act and a creative person. But increasingly, I hear the expression used as if it were the only defining feature of creativity, which it is not.
Most who think seriously about creativity agree that it entails not only novelty (that outside the box stuff) but also utility, and in order to be useful, it has to go above-and-beyond what is already known.
Whenever I hear people say that they "think outside the box" I cringe, because I have rarely heard folks who are genuinely creative so describe themselves. I also am suspicious because I hear these people saying - and here I may be unfair in some cases - that one need not know what is well-accepted.
As a teacher, I want my students to know what is inside the box. This is not because I am a defender of the academic or intellectual status quo. It is because knowing what is inside the box is the only way to get outside the box in a useful way once the basics are mastered.
Psychologists who study prodigious accomplishments, in science, music, or art, speak about the 10,000-hour rule, meaning that in order to do something notable in some fields, one must devote 10,000+ hours to mastering the discipline in question. Practice, practice, and practice, and appreciate that much of this practice needs to be done inside the box.
If you never venture outside the box, you will probably not be creative. But if you never get inside the box, you will certainly be stupid.
The source of the expression is not obvious, but it started to be popular because of the eight-dot puzzle, now a administration consultancy staple that poses an issue: how to link eight dots with three straight life drawn by never lifting one's pencil? The temptation is to draw a box, which does not resolve the problem. Rather, one have to draw lines outside the confines of the box shape recommended by the arrangement of the eight dots.
I see many words like this so often. It is essential to know the foundational material that inside that box that so many refer to before taking dangers that are not in that area. Starting outside of the box doesn't make any sense. Why bring up the box in the first place if it will probably be unnoticed in the statement?
I use as some word as anybody, but there are some that I will not trot out for the reason that I have come to hate them immensely. "Think outside the box" is one of those expressions. In fact, it is so inside the box. I just did an internet search for the precise phrase and found 1,200,001 hits.
I have no problem with what the expression tries to convey - the importance of looking at things in a new way. That is, after all, one of the defining features of a creative act and a creative person. But increasingly, I hear the expression used as if it were the only defining feature of creativity, which it is not.
Most who think seriously about creativity agree that it entails not only novelty (that outside the box stuff) but also utility, and in order to be useful, it has to go above-and-beyond what is already known.
Whenever I hear people say that they "think outside the box" I cringe, because I have rarely heard folks who are genuinely creative so describe themselves. I also am suspicious because I hear these people saying - and here I may be unfair in some cases - that one need not know what is well-accepted.
As a teacher, I want my students to know what is inside the box. This is not because I am a defender of the academic or intellectual status quo. It is because knowing what is inside the box is the only way to get outside the box in a useful way once the basics are mastered.
Psychologists who study prodigious accomplishments, in science, music, or art, speak about the 10,000-hour rule, meaning that in order to do something notable in some fields, one must devote 10,000+ hours to mastering the discipline in question. Practice, practice, and practice, and appreciate that much of this practice needs to be done inside the box.
If you never venture outside the box, you will probably not be creative. But if you never get inside the box, you will certainly be stupid.
The source of the expression is not obvious, but it started to be popular because of the eight-dot puzzle, now a administration consultancy staple that poses an issue: how to link eight dots with three straight life drawn by never lifting one's pencil? The temptation is to draw a box, which does not resolve the problem. Rather, one have to draw lines outside the confines of the box shape recommended by the arrangement of the eight dots.
I see many words like this so often. It is essential to know the foundational material that inside that box that so many refer to before taking dangers that are not in that area. Starting outside of the box doesn't make any sense. Why bring up the box in the first place if it will probably be unnoticed in the statement?
A look of Nike Trainer SC 2010 Bonus- ‘Bo Knows’ Pack | New Pictures
The series of Nike are so fashionable and good quality, maybe lots of people want to know something about Nike Trainer SC 2010 Premium. As you can see from the picture of Nike Trainer SC 2010 Premium - ‘Bo Knows’ Pack | New Images below, you can know what's going on with the Nike, and why are they so popular?
Nike could have been the pioneer in the variety of coaching footwear over the time. They have designed this edition of shoe ranges which can guarantee you about the quality and the comfort factor to the fullest. On the other hand, they often design this collection in the names of most important trainers of the game as well. In the field of sports, it is the gamers who get the attention all of the time.
The trainers who are also responsible for the excellence of their game always remain behind the curtain. We hardly come to about their contribution, and the player’s success tells us about his contribution. If you pay a bit attention to the Nike Trainer SC 2010 Premium - ‘Bo Knows’ Pack | New Images, you will feel that it a tribute to the selfless trainers who make the quality sports persons.
In this regard, it was turn for renowned trainer of the Baseball, Bo Jackson, to get the attention. In order to mark his contribution in the game, that has produced innumerable sports personalities, Nike has redesigned their Trainer SC collection in a new format. To mark the theme of Baseball, they have chosen a number of different colorways that will resemble you about the Gloves used in Baseball game.
The material selected for this collection is the brown and toned quality leather, which completely synchronized with the Swede final touch. The mudguard will make sure about the defense from exterior injuries. Actually, the quality shoe symbols the attendance of trainers in the most important way.
Now I know more about the famous brand Nike, I plan to buy some as presents to my friends and brothers, because they are also like Nike very much. It was so happy when we all weared Nike and played together, especially when we ran together on our way home, I felt so happy at that time, and I really want to have a life like that.
Copyright by Lucy, a beautiful girl who likes writing, singing and shopping, free article directory and writing software are her hobbies.
Nike could have been the pioneer in the variety of coaching footwear over the time. They have designed this edition of shoe ranges which can guarantee you about the quality and the comfort factor to the fullest. On the other hand, they often design this collection in the names of most important trainers of the game as well. In the field of sports, it is the gamers who get the attention all of the time.
The trainers who are also responsible for the excellence of their game always remain behind the curtain. We hardly come to about their contribution, and the player’s success tells us about his contribution. If you pay a bit attention to the Nike Trainer SC 2010 Premium - ‘Bo Knows’ Pack | New Images, you will feel that it a tribute to the selfless trainers who make the quality sports persons.
In this regard, it was turn for renowned trainer of the Baseball, Bo Jackson, to get the attention. In order to mark his contribution in the game, that has produced innumerable sports personalities, Nike has redesigned their Trainer SC collection in a new format. To mark the theme of Baseball, they have chosen a number of different colorways that will resemble you about the Gloves used in Baseball game.
The material selected for this collection is the brown and toned quality leather, which completely synchronized with the Swede final touch. The mudguard will make sure about the defense from exterior injuries. Actually, the quality shoe symbols the attendance of trainers in the most important way.
Now I know more about the famous brand Nike, I plan to buy some as presents to my friends and brothers, because they are also like Nike very much. It was so happy when we all weared Nike and played together, especially when we ran together on our way home, I felt so happy at that time, and I really want to have a life like that.
Copyright by Lucy, a beautiful girl who likes writing, singing and shopping, free article directory and writing software are her hobbies.
2010年11月17日星期三
An Example of Why You Shouldn't Be Too Hard on Yourself
Two years ago, I was too hard on myself, and I had been someone like that for about three years. I wasn't happy that time, and I realized that I was wrong to myself. Everyone can have a happier life if he or she isn't too hard on himself or herself.
By now, one assumes that all people internet-searchers know about Elizabeth Smart’s ongoing trial in Utah. Smart has made, it would appear, an unbelievable recuperation after her abduction ordeal by the hands of Briae David.
The media reports today on something that no doubt a lot of people have wondered. It’s become clear over the past few years that Smart was out in public on a number of occasions, but didn’t try to escape. (To be clear, there is no world in which I fault her for that there were obviously many, many issues at play that I will never understand, and she was doing her best to survive.) But how does she feel about those moments? Well, now we know.
During testimony, Smart recounted a time in a public library where she ran into a police detective who tried to lift her veil, but was reprimanded by Mitchell that the veil was there for “religious reasons,” so he put it back down. She had this to say:
“‘I was mad at myself that I didn’t say anything,’ she said on her second day of testimony at Mitchell’s trial in federal court in Salt Lake City. ‘I felt terrible that the detective hadn’t pushed harder and had just walked away.’”
Granted, the majority of us haven’t been kidnapped, and most of the things we beat ourselves up over aren’t of this caliber. But it’s a great reminder that for the most part, we’re all just doing the best we can. If your reply to Elizabeth Smart would be, “no, don’t beat yourself up!” that ought to be your reply to yourself, too. So, you know, keep on keeping on.
I think this is a good example of someone who is too hard on himself. So we should try to relax ourselves on a proper time if we want to live better, we should believe that our happiness isn't far to us, and sunshine always after the rain and storm.
By now, one assumes that all people internet-searchers know about Elizabeth Smart’s ongoing trial in Utah. Smart has made, it would appear, an unbelievable recuperation after her abduction ordeal by the hands of Briae David.
The media reports today on something that no doubt a lot of people have wondered. It’s become clear over the past few years that Smart was out in public on a number of occasions, but didn’t try to escape. (To be clear, there is no world in which I fault her for that there were obviously many, many issues at play that I will never understand, and she was doing her best to survive.) But how does she feel about those moments? Well, now we know.
During testimony, Smart recounted a time in a public library where she ran into a police detective who tried to lift her veil, but was reprimanded by Mitchell that the veil was there for “religious reasons,” so he put it back down. She had this to say:
“‘I was mad at myself that I didn’t say anything,’ she said on her second day of testimony at Mitchell’s trial in federal court in Salt Lake City. ‘I felt terrible that the detective hadn’t pushed harder and had just walked away.’”
Granted, the majority of us haven’t been kidnapped, and most of the things we beat ourselves up over aren’t of this caliber. But it’s a great reminder that for the most part, we’re all just doing the best we can. If your reply to Elizabeth Smart would be, “no, don’t beat yourself up!” that ought to be your reply to yourself, too. So, you know, keep on keeping on.
I think this is a good example of someone who is too hard on himself. So we should try to relax ourselves on a proper time if we want to live better, we should believe that our happiness isn't far to us, and sunshine always after the rain and storm.
2010年11月16日星期二
Cool Art therapy Intervention 1, The Art Therapist’s 3rd Hand
In art treatment, art therapists' brains are cataloging artwork and pictures. I believe the conversation was associated with art and diagnosis and signs in art. Theoretically, if you take that one footstep further, maybe our brains also catalog art interventions and we pull from these and our experiences to make an intervention appropriate to the customer. Maybe this is how we develop our intuitive third hand.
Cool Art treatment Intervention is probably not a way or method, but the essence of what makes art therapists unusual from other helping specialists who use art as form of therapy. It's known as the "third hand" and to me, it's art treatment's edition of mindfulness, insight and empathy. By explanation, it's an overarching method of thinking about intervention that describes how art therapists apply their artistic competence and thoughts in service of other people.
Edith Kramer, a renowned US art therapist, artist and author, is credited with coining the term "third hand," an idea central to her approach to art as therapy. To Kramer, art treatment's purpose is to enable the individual to create visual images that eloquently and truthfully communicate experience, and to the best of the person's abilities. Kramer's stance echoes psychoanalyst Theodore Reik's Listening with the Third Ear, a treatise describing how psychotherapists intuitively use their own unconscious minds to decipher and understand their clients.
While it might seem that a "third eye" for seeing the metaphors, symbols, and meta-messages in art expressions would be enough, the practice of art treatment goes much deeper. An effective art therapist must have a command of the third hand to enhance a client's creativity without being intrusive, imposing one's own style or artistic values, and misinterpreting meanings found in images. Ultimately, the responses of the therapist to a client's process of art making reflects and supports that client's worldview, creative potential, and ability to use art for reparation and recovery.
Here's an explanation of third hand intervention in its simplest form. When working with a child client, I might develop a drawing for the child to finish as a way of establishing a relationship or communication. In another situation, I might save a child's clay figure from falling apart by showing the child how to reinforce the legs or armature. Sometimes an art therapist literally becomes the hands for an individual; an adult with a debilitating medical illness may need me to help cut and arrange photos for a collage. Other times, I might make art during the session along side a client if it is therapeutically helpful or I might even communicate something non-verbally through an art expression rather than use words.
Most importantly, an art therapist's third hand perceives and capitalizes on appropriate metaphors via art-based interventions to help clients. I am reminded of couples art therapy session facilitated by art therapist and family therapist Shirley Riley, a master of therapeutic metaphor via imagery. The couple came to Riley for help with their marriage; they had decided that their age difference was insurmountable because the wife was eight years older than the husband. In response, Riley went along with their belief, but also asked that they each bring a copy of their birth certificates to the next session. At that point she suggested that they cut up the copies and colloboratively create a collage incorporating the pieces. In brief, the couple realized that they could not change the age gap, but the process of cutting up the certificates and making a collage together from the pieces gave them a new vision for what worked in their relationship rather than what could not be changed. It was the perfect "third hand" metaphor to get them to re-story their relationship and recommit to their marriage.
To me, what Kramer calls the "third hand" in art therapy echoes what physician and neuroscience guru Dan Siegel speaks of as "mindsight," a capacity for insight (knowing what one feels) and empathy (knowing what others feel). Trauma expert Bruce Perry uses the term "attunement," the ability to be able to read the non-verbal communication and rhythms of others. In other words, it is perceiving not only what individuals say, but also attending to eye signals, facial gestures, tone of voice, and even breathing rate; in art treatment, it also means attending to the content of images and creative process. If this all sounds incredibly intuitive, to some extent it is; on the other hand, it is the mindful focus essential to achieving the magical moments of success in any form of treatment.
As I said in the beginning of the Top Eight Coolest Art treatment Interventions, all helping experts know that nobody intervention could be applied to all customers or all situations. That is the daily challenge of our work, to use our third hand, sympathy, attunement or whatever you select to call it to facilitate change, insight, and well-being in those we come across. And "third hands" down, it's positively the "coolest" part of my work as an art therapist.
I really do believe that this way of working is what makes us unusual than say counselors who use art to help people. But I sometimes wonder if higher education is really teaching our new graduates to use this method; I get so many requirements from new experts for a set of activities to use and my feeling is they are not being educated on how to think with artistic empathy.
Copyright by Lucy who likes shopping online, going fishing, often searches discount coach purses and oakley m frames on the Internet.
Cool Art treatment Intervention is probably not a way or method, but the essence of what makes art therapists unusual from other helping specialists who use art as form of therapy. It's known as the "third hand" and to me, it's art treatment's edition of mindfulness, insight and empathy. By explanation, it's an overarching method of thinking about intervention that describes how art therapists apply their artistic competence and thoughts in service of other people.
Edith Kramer, a renowned US art therapist, artist and author, is credited with coining the term "third hand," an idea central to her approach to art as therapy. To Kramer, art treatment's purpose is to enable the individual to create visual images that eloquently and truthfully communicate experience, and to the best of the person's abilities. Kramer's stance echoes psychoanalyst Theodore Reik's Listening with the Third Ear, a treatise describing how psychotherapists intuitively use their own unconscious minds to decipher and understand their clients.
While it might seem that a "third eye" for seeing the metaphors, symbols, and meta-messages in art expressions would be enough, the practice of art treatment goes much deeper. An effective art therapist must have a command of the third hand to enhance a client's creativity without being intrusive, imposing one's own style or artistic values, and misinterpreting meanings found in images. Ultimately, the responses of the therapist to a client's process of art making reflects and supports that client's worldview, creative potential, and ability to use art for reparation and recovery.
Here's an explanation of third hand intervention in its simplest form. When working with a child client, I might develop a drawing for the child to finish as a way of establishing a relationship or communication. In another situation, I might save a child's clay figure from falling apart by showing the child how to reinforce the legs or armature. Sometimes an art therapist literally becomes the hands for an individual; an adult with a debilitating medical illness may need me to help cut and arrange photos for a collage. Other times, I might make art during the session along side a client if it is therapeutically helpful or I might even communicate something non-verbally through an art expression rather than use words.
Most importantly, an art therapist's third hand perceives and capitalizes on appropriate metaphors via art-based interventions to help clients. I am reminded of couples art therapy session facilitated by art therapist and family therapist Shirley Riley, a master of therapeutic metaphor via imagery. The couple came to Riley for help with their marriage; they had decided that their age difference was insurmountable because the wife was eight years older than the husband. In response, Riley went along with their belief, but also asked that they each bring a copy of their birth certificates to the next session. At that point she suggested that they cut up the copies and colloboratively create a collage incorporating the pieces. In brief, the couple realized that they could not change the age gap, but the process of cutting up the certificates and making a collage together from the pieces gave them a new vision for what worked in their relationship rather than what could not be changed. It was the perfect "third hand" metaphor to get them to re-story their relationship and recommit to their marriage.
To me, what Kramer calls the "third hand" in art therapy echoes what physician and neuroscience guru Dan Siegel speaks of as "mindsight," a capacity for insight (knowing what one feels) and empathy (knowing what others feel). Trauma expert Bruce Perry uses the term "attunement," the ability to be able to read the non-verbal communication and rhythms of others. In other words, it is perceiving not only what individuals say, but also attending to eye signals, facial gestures, tone of voice, and even breathing rate; in art treatment, it also means attending to the content of images and creative process. If this all sounds incredibly intuitive, to some extent it is; on the other hand, it is the mindful focus essential to achieving the magical moments of success in any form of treatment.
As I said in the beginning of the Top Eight Coolest Art treatment Interventions, all helping experts know that nobody intervention could be applied to all customers or all situations. That is the daily challenge of our work, to use our third hand, sympathy, attunement or whatever you select to call it to facilitate change, insight, and well-being in those we come across. And "third hands" down, it's positively the "coolest" part of my work as an art therapist.
I really do believe that this way of working is what makes us unusual than say counselors who use art to help people. But I sometimes wonder if higher education is really teaching our new graduates to use this method; I get so many requirements from new experts for a set of activities to use and my feeling is they are not being educated on how to think with artistic empathy.
Copyright by Lucy who likes shopping online, going fishing, often searches discount coach purses and oakley m frames on the Internet.
2010年11月15日星期一
What makes it hard to believe in yourself.
I am presently nineteen and not living at home and it seems at this age, learning to believe in yourself turns into more important. I am comforted to read the part on getting better at trusting yourself as you practice truly doing things requiring you to believe in yourself. I had a childhood characterized by my father and mother volatile emotional connection to me and consequently I have a hard time learning to emotionally believe in people.
Many years ago I was working with a customer who was expecting her another baby. She was excited but nervous, and her worries focused on the ache of childbirth. As was real of many of her past experiences, she could not remember much about the birth of her first baby several years earlier, but she had an unclear sense that it had been pretty dreadful. She was scared of getting stuck in pain and not having the ability to do anything on it.
At the time I was also pregnant and a little worried myself. My obstetrician believed that too much pain was not good for mother or child and carefully explained how he liked to manage the discomfort. Still nervous, I spoke with a friend with several children who said, "You can trust your body. It will know how to do this."
It was a fascinating concept. While I knew that women had, indeed, been giving birth for thousands of years, I also knew these words would not help my client. My work with women with eating disorders had taught me how hard it is for many people to believe in their bodies. The idea of eating when hungry and stopping when full was completely unattainable for these women.
The book helped open up a dialogue between body and mind for some of my clients, but it underscored for me how difficult it is for many people to intuitively know when to eat, sleep or exercise, even without an eating disorder.
Freud introduced us to the idea that what we think we know about ourselves may have nothing to do with what is actually going on in our psyches. In fact, some of our behavior is directed by unconscious wishes or beliefs that are the exact opposite of what we think we want or believe to be true.
Recent neuroscience research has added to this sense that we can't always believe in our thoughts and/or feelings to tell us what is going on inside of us. In fact, I sometimes think that brain research has just confirmed that sometimes the right hand literally doesn't know what the left is doing. Certainly the recently discovered information that the right part of our brain doesn't always communicate clearly or well to the left part (and vice versa) explains some of the confusion.
Of course difficulty knowing what we think or feel can be related to childhood experiences - painful memories we have pushed away; problematic tools for coping with feelings handed down from parents to their children (like using food to make ourselves feel better); inadequate or hurtful responses to our developing self over the years. But it can also be simply a fact of human development. Sometimes even the best adjusted of us, having had good parenting and essentially good lives, may encounter a moment or an experience in which we doubt ourselves - in which we don't trust our bodies or our thoughts or our feelings or our competence to get through a particular situation.
What do we do then? Here are four ideas that have helped many of my clients over the years. Hopefully they will be useful to you:
1) Find people you trust: Surround yourself with them. The more you feel connected to and safe with the people in your life, the more comfortable you will feel with yourself.
2) Put things into words: Talk, talk, and talk some more. Neuroscientists have shown that talking about what you are thinking and feeling to someone else, someone who is listening and who responds to what you say - not just reflecting back what you have said, but adding their own ideas and thoughts to the mix - can actually change the neurological makeup of your brain. It can help your right brain speak more clearly to your left brain, and your left to your right. It can help your unconscious become conscious, unrecognized beliefs to be recognized, and everything to get clearer. (Writing helps this process as well, but it might be even more helpful if you can share your writing with someone.) Of course, this goes back to the issue of finding people you can trust with these feelings.
3) Practice makes perfect: Like the old joke about how to get to Carnegie Hall, the key to all of this is "practice, practice, practice." None of us learns to believe in ourselves magically or instantaneously - nor, in fact, should we! A perfect example is driving a car. We don't get into a car to drive for the first time with all of the right instincts ready to go. We get learner's permits, and we practice - a lot. We get a lot of verbal instruction as well - "pull up closer to the stop sign, start braking farther back, don't brake on wet pavement, etc." And over time we put together the verbal information with the physical experience of actually driving, of watching out for other drivers, of learning what we can expect and how we can deal with the unexpected and gradually (hopefully) we become mature, safe and trustworthy drivers.
4) Be trustworthy: If you want to believe in yourself, be trustworthy with others. Try to give what you would like to receive, whether it is understanding, empathy, counsel, or simply a quiet presence. Try to recognize what your friends and family need from you and try to honestly give what you can, when you can - without sacrificing yourself. Setting boundaries is part of any caring relationship; and negotiating needs (yours, theirs, someone else's) helps you know and believe in yourself, and helps others know and believe in you as well.
So, whether you're trying to eat more consciously or start making presentations without panicking, you need to know that you won't get it right the first time (or the fifth or the tenth). When it comes to having a baby (and some other activities) of course, practice isn't exactly an option; so then the first two suggestions become more important. Surround yourself with people you trust - not just the professionals, and not just your loved one(s), but a combination. And talk, talk, and talk some more.
To go back to my pregnant client - as she talked with me, and with her mother and her friends and her partner, she realized that she did not completely trust her midwife. She couldn't quite put her finger on why, but she began interviewing other professionals and found someone she felt much more comfortable with. And while her anxiety did not disappear, it diminished to much more manageable levels.
My child came early, before my husband and I had completed our birthing classes; but even though I didn't "know" what I was supposed to do, with the help of the professionals, a dear friend, and my husband, we did just fine.
What about you? I've found your responses to other questions so considerate and helpful, I'd like to hear what you should say about believing in yourself. What kinds of things have helped you develop it? What types of things have made it difficult for you?
Personally, it's one of the ways in which psychoanalysis could be really helpful. You need a psychoanalyst who is trained to hear you and help you figure out what makes it difficult for you to believe in yourself. That's usually something family and friends can't do for us.
Many years ago I was working with a customer who was expecting her another baby. She was excited but nervous, and her worries focused on the ache of childbirth. As was real of many of her past experiences, she could not remember much about the birth of her first baby several years earlier, but she had an unclear sense that it had been pretty dreadful. She was scared of getting stuck in pain and not having the ability to do anything on it.
At the time I was also pregnant and a little worried myself. My obstetrician believed that too much pain was not good for mother or child and carefully explained how he liked to manage the discomfort. Still nervous, I spoke with a friend with several children who said, "You can trust your body. It will know how to do this."
It was a fascinating concept. While I knew that women had, indeed, been giving birth for thousands of years, I also knew these words would not help my client. My work with women with eating disorders had taught me how hard it is for many people to believe in their bodies. The idea of eating when hungry and stopping when full was completely unattainable for these women.
The book helped open up a dialogue between body and mind for some of my clients, but it underscored for me how difficult it is for many people to intuitively know when to eat, sleep or exercise, even without an eating disorder.
Freud introduced us to the idea that what we think we know about ourselves may have nothing to do with what is actually going on in our psyches. In fact, some of our behavior is directed by unconscious wishes or beliefs that are the exact opposite of what we think we want or believe to be true.
Recent neuroscience research has added to this sense that we can't always believe in our thoughts and/or feelings to tell us what is going on inside of us. In fact, I sometimes think that brain research has just confirmed that sometimes the right hand literally doesn't know what the left is doing. Certainly the recently discovered information that the right part of our brain doesn't always communicate clearly or well to the left part (and vice versa) explains some of the confusion.
Of course difficulty knowing what we think or feel can be related to childhood experiences - painful memories we have pushed away; problematic tools for coping with feelings handed down from parents to their children (like using food to make ourselves feel better); inadequate or hurtful responses to our developing self over the years. But it can also be simply a fact of human development. Sometimes even the best adjusted of us, having had good parenting and essentially good lives, may encounter a moment or an experience in which we doubt ourselves - in which we don't trust our bodies or our thoughts or our feelings or our competence to get through a particular situation.
What do we do then? Here are four ideas that have helped many of my clients over the years. Hopefully they will be useful to you:
1) Find people you trust: Surround yourself with them. The more you feel connected to and safe with the people in your life, the more comfortable you will feel with yourself.
2) Put things into words: Talk, talk, and talk some more. Neuroscientists have shown that talking about what you are thinking and feeling to someone else, someone who is listening and who responds to what you say - not just reflecting back what you have said, but adding their own ideas and thoughts to the mix - can actually change the neurological makeup of your brain. It can help your right brain speak more clearly to your left brain, and your left to your right. It can help your unconscious become conscious, unrecognized beliefs to be recognized, and everything to get clearer. (Writing helps this process as well, but it might be even more helpful if you can share your writing with someone.) Of course, this goes back to the issue of finding people you can trust with these feelings.
3) Practice makes perfect: Like the old joke about how to get to Carnegie Hall, the key to all of this is "practice, practice, practice." None of us learns to believe in ourselves magically or instantaneously - nor, in fact, should we! A perfect example is driving a car. We don't get into a car to drive for the first time with all of the right instincts ready to go. We get learner's permits, and we practice - a lot. We get a lot of verbal instruction as well - "pull up closer to the stop sign, start braking farther back, don't brake on wet pavement, etc." And over time we put together the verbal information with the physical experience of actually driving, of watching out for other drivers, of learning what we can expect and how we can deal with the unexpected and gradually (hopefully) we become mature, safe and trustworthy drivers.
4) Be trustworthy: If you want to believe in yourself, be trustworthy with others. Try to give what you would like to receive, whether it is understanding, empathy, counsel, or simply a quiet presence. Try to recognize what your friends and family need from you and try to honestly give what you can, when you can - without sacrificing yourself. Setting boundaries is part of any caring relationship; and negotiating needs (yours, theirs, someone else's) helps you know and believe in yourself, and helps others know and believe in you as well.
So, whether you're trying to eat more consciously or start making presentations without panicking, you need to know that you won't get it right the first time (or the fifth or the tenth). When it comes to having a baby (and some other activities) of course, practice isn't exactly an option; so then the first two suggestions become more important. Surround yourself with people you trust - not just the professionals, and not just your loved one(s), but a combination. And talk, talk, and talk some more.
To go back to my pregnant client - as she talked with me, and with her mother and her friends and her partner, she realized that she did not completely trust her midwife. She couldn't quite put her finger on why, but she began interviewing other professionals and found someone she felt much more comfortable with. And while her anxiety did not disappear, it diminished to much more manageable levels.
My child came early, before my husband and I had completed our birthing classes; but even though I didn't "know" what I was supposed to do, with the help of the professionals, a dear friend, and my husband, we did just fine.
What about you? I've found your responses to other questions so considerate and helpful, I'd like to hear what you should say about believing in yourself. What kinds of things have helped you develop it? What types of things have made it difficult for you?
Personally, it's one of the ways in which psychoanalysis could be really helpful. You need a psychoanalyst who is trained to hear you and help you figure out what makes it difficult for you to believe in yourself. That's usually something family and friends can't do for us.
2010年11月14日星期日
Early adolescence, Few responsibility.
While parents consider that preaching is enough and allow confronting results go, not confessing to the sufferer, not hearing from the sufferer how incorrect their actions are, and not making recompense to the sufferer. Just telling children they did incorrect is the simple way out.
Symbolically speaking, liberty is the adolescent's "drug" of selection both for the latitude of action and the excitement it offers. Teenagers long for liberty in ways most kids never do. Liberty is the possibility to open up an elder world of experience, to experiment and to discover the thrill of daring the unknown and sometimes doing the forbidden.
Now the child relationship becomes more challenging and abrasive as healthy adolescents start to push for more freedom to grow as soon as they can get it and healthy parents act to restrain that push within the limits of safety and responsibility. This is the ongoing conflict of interests that plays out over the ten to twelve years that begins with the separation from childhood in late elementary or early middle school and ends with the entry into young adulthood some ten to twelve years later when functional independence is finally gained.
What drives the adolescent push for freedom is an innate need to break the old boundaries of childhood to create more room to grow and act more grown up. What drives parental restraint is an innate need to direct and protect the adolescent from harm, particularly harm of his or her own making.
This is where setting limits comes in. Parents restrict freedoms in order to moderate the risks involved, only permitting more freedoms as evidence of responsibility is given.
It is unpopular for parents to set limits, taking stands for the adolescent's best interests against what he or she wants. Furthermore, it takes consistency and supervision to make them stick. Parental inconsistency sends a damaging double message - "sometimes we mean it and sometimes we don't," the young person usually betting on "don't." The adolescent isn't grateful for the parental efforts on his or her behalf, but usually resents them instead. "You never let me do anything!" Now thankless parenting has begun.
Most of all, it takes the willingness of parents to close the loop of responsibility when social limits are broken to show the adolescent that rules mean business, that social rules are here to stay. How is this done?
Consider three common social limit-breaking activities that can occur during early adolescence -vandalizing, and shoplifting. They are all usually done in the company of peers in the spirit of shared adventure, bonding, and support. At this age, what none of these young people would dare to do alone, all will encourage each other to do together.
For example, the seventh grader has two friends over for the night and about 2:00 A.M., long after parents are asleep, one of them gets this fun idea. They decide to make a threatening phone call to the old guy down at the end of block, and the result is very satisfying. He gets really upset. Thinking they have pulled it off, they are congratulating themselves when the phone rings and one of the parents picks it up. Turns out the man had Caller ID.
What do parents do? They close the loop of responsibility. They march the three young miscreants down the street to confront the victim of their prank, to hear from him what it felt like to get a call like that, and then to arrange some reparation to be made.
Or, to show a guy they all agree to dislike how much they dislike him, a group of girls sneak out and egg and oreo his parents' car. Next day they boast about it to the boy who tells his parents who call the parents of the girls. So what do the parents do? They close the loop of responsibility. They have the girls confront the victims of their vandalizing, hearing what it felt like to be attacked in this way, cleaning off the car, and coming up with some reparation to make to the boy and his parents for damage done. Vandalizing that began as girls paying mean attention to the boy ended up bringing unwanted consequences to themselves.
Or, a group of friends, not to get anything particular they wanted but to see what they could get away with, decide to shop lift CD's from a store. The police are called and they are taken to a detention center where one young man calls home. So what do his parents do?
They listen to the teary voice, promise to come down right away, wait a couple hours, then after signing out the unhappy adolescent, drive away but not, as the youngster observes, the familiar way back home. "This isn't the way home, where are we going?" he asks. "We are going back to the store," reply the parents. "I don't want to go back to the store," protests the young person.
"I know you don't," they explain, "but that is what we are going to do. And when we get there, you're going to confess to the manager. You're going to hear what it felt like to be stolen from, and then work out some way to pay that person back for what you've done." Shop lifting that began as a good idea with peers ended up as a bad experience for the adolescent.
The rule for parenting around social limit breaking in early adolescence is this. Usually, the young person is unaware of larger risks that he or she was taking, so parents have to spell them out - what might have happened for the worse, but luckily did not. For example, what the early adolescent thinks is just for fun overlooks the possibly serious side. Thus frightening an "old guy" may be less funny if the threatening prank call succeeds, the man who has a heart condition gets really scared, and fear provokes a medical emergency. Doesn't seem so funny now, does it?
Most important, they have the adolescent declare what they did to the sufferer face to face, hear what it felt like to be the sufferer, and make reparation to the sufferer for injury that was done. This is how the loop of responsibility is closed.
While parents fail to do this and dismiss societal limit breaking in early teenage years as guiltless harm or simply deal with the problem discretely by punishing the infraction at home, they are likely to encourage more significant limit breaking later on.
I'm not hearing anything new here. I believe there is a certain amount of knowledge in your basic suggestion but it isn't going to be super effective in the long term, particularly given that the attitude of the parents is not obviously addressed. From what I know, many people who passionately think that this is the correct way to parent end up in a never-ending cycle that doesn't get really bad but just kind of stays the same until the "child" outgrows the stage and break frees of his or her parents so they do not have to deal with it any longer.
Symbolically speaking, liberty is the adolescent's "drug" of selection both for the latitude of action and the excitement it offers. Teenagers long for liberty in ways most kids never do. Liberty is the possibility to open up an elder world of experience, to experiment and to discover the thrill of daring the unknown and sometimes doing the forbidden.
Now the child relationship becomes more challenging and abrasive as healthy adolescents start to push for more freedom to grow as soon as they can get it and healthy parents act to restrain that push within the limits of safety and responsibility. This is the ongoing conflict of interests that plays out over the ten to twelve years that begins with the separation from childhood in late elementary or early middle school and ends with the entry into young adulthood some ten to twelve years later when functional independence is finally gained.
What drives the adolescent push for freedom is an innate need to break the old boundaries of childhood to create more room to grow and act more grown up. What drives parental restraint is an innate need to direct and protect the adolescent from harm, particularly harm of his or her own making.
This is where setting limits comes in. Parents restrict freedoms in order to moderate the risks involved, only permitting more freedoms as evidence of responsibility is given.
It is unpopular for parents to set limits, taking stands for the adolescent's best interests against what he or she wants. Furthermore, it takes consistency and supervision to make them stick. Parental inconsistency sends a damaging double message - "sometimes we mean it and sometimes we don't," the young person usually betting on "don't." The adolescent isn't grateful for the parental efforts on his or her behalf, but usually resents them instead. "You never let me do anything!" Now thankless parenting has begun.
Most of all, it takes the willingness of parents to close the loop of responsibility when social limits are broken to show the adolescent that rules mean business, that social rules are here to stay. How is this done?
Consider three common social limit-breaking activities that can occur during early adolescence -vandalizing, and shoplifting. They are all usually done in the company of peers in the spirit of shared adventure, bonding, and support. At this age, what none of these young people would dare to do alone, all will encourage each other to do together.
For example, the seventh grader has two friends over for the night and about 2:00 A.M., long after parents are asleep, one of them gets this fun idea. They decide to make a threatening phone call to the old guy down at the end of block, and the result is very satisfying. He gets really upset. Thinking they have pulled it off, they are congratulating themselves when the phone rings and one of the parents picks it up. Turns out the man had Caller ID.
What do parents do? They close the loop of responsibility. They march the three young miscreants down the street to confront the victim of their prank, to hear from him what it felt like to get a call like that, and then to arrange some reparation to be made.
Or, to show a guy they all agree to dislike how much they dislike him, a group of girls sneak out and egg and oreo his parents' car. Next day they boast about it to the boy who tells his parents who call the parents of the girls. So what do the parents do? They close the loop of responsibility. They have the girls confront the victims of their vandalizing, hearing what it felt like to be attacked in this way, cleaning off the car, and coming up with some reparation to make to the boy and his parents for damage done. Vandalizing that began as girls paying mean attention to the boy ended up bringing unwanted consequences to themselves.
Or, a group of friends, not to get anything particular they wanted but to see what they could get away with, decide to shop lift CD's from a store. The police are called and they are taken to a detention center where one young man calls home. So what do his parents do?
They listen to the teary voice, promise to come down right away, wait a couple hours, then after signing out the unhappy adolescent, drive away but not, as the youngster observes, the familiar way back home. "This isn't the way home, where are we going?" he asks. "We are going back to the store," reply the parents. "I don't want to go back to the store," protests the young person.
"I know you don't," they explain, "but that is what we are going to do. And when we get there, you're going to confess to the manager. You're going to hear what it felt like to be stolen from, and then work out some way to pay that person back for what you've done." Shop lifting that began as a good idea with peers ended up as a bad experience for the adolescent.
The rule for parenting around social limit breaking in early adolescence is this. Usually, the young person is unaware of larger risks that he or she was taking, so parents have to spell them out - what might have happened for the worse, but luckily did not. For example, what the early adolescent thinks is just for fun overlooks the possibly serious side. Thus frightening an "old guy" may be less funny if the threatening prank call succeeds, the man who has a heart condition gets really scared, and fear provokes a medical emergency. Doesn't seem so funny now, does it?
Most important, they have the adolescent declare what they did to the sufferer face to face, hear what it felt like to be the sufferer, and make reparation to the sufferer for injury that was done. This is how the loop of responsibility is closed.
While parents fail to do this and dismiss societal limit breaking in early teenage years as guiltless harm or simply deal with the problem discretely by punishing the infraction at home, they are likely to encourage more significant limit breaking later on.
I'm not hearing anything new here. I believe there is a certain amount of knowledge in your basic suggestion but it isn't going to be super effective in the long term, particularly given that the attitude of the parents is not obviously addressed. From what I know, many people who passionately think that this is the correct way to parent end up in a never-ending cycle that doesn't get really bad but just kind of stays the same until the "child" outgrows the stage and break frees of his or her parents so they do not have to deal with it any longer.
2010年11月11日星期四
What the Biggest Fail Taught Me On Marriage
All of us want a quick fix, but that isn’t the way of fixing weight or matrimony. I think of it as being a garden, you plant your seeds, a few were a good idea, others you discover were weeds. You water it, watch it sprout, but still have to wait a very long time until you eat your tomato. Then what takes place? You begin once more, day after day, perhaps with better land, few weeds and a more knowledge.
I was watching The Biggest Loser another night. It was my first time. I know. I live under a rock the size of Mount Everest. I do not get out to the faraway very often. In any case, what really struck me concerning the show was this: the weigh in. Several of the contestants lost 2 to 6 pounds during the week. They mentioned this weight loss as "a terrible week."
Three to five pounds is a bad week?! Sure it might sound like a tiny change compared to the 11 and 12 pound losses of some of the other contestants. There are millions of dieters all over the world who would kill to get on the scale and see a number that is one half a pound lighter than the number they saw the week before. Three pounds for most dieters is usually cause for celebration.
At any rate, the show got me thinking about how we Americans have come to expect instant and dramatic results.
And that got me thinking about matrimony improvement.
As a health writer, I’ve penned dozens of diet articles. As a result I’ve written the following line more times that I can remember: It took you many years to put on those pounds. That’s why it takes a long time to get them back off.
The same thing, I’ve found, is true with marriages. As I learned from my own matrimony project, it took many years for my matrimony to go from Wedded Bliss to Planning His Funeral. As a result, I could not expect to have one deep heart-felt talk with my husband and then-poof!-all of my marital problems would be solved.
My marriage could not be fixed with the equivalent of a crash diet. No, it needed a lifelong change.
As a result, my marriage improvement progress looked like this.
Stage 1: Hopeless. I initially started working on my matrimony so I could know that I gave it my all before giving up. I didn’t truly expect the project to work. I ordered 12 marital improvement books and pledged to read them anyway. I wanted to know that I’d tried everything before giving up.
Stage 2: False Hope. Some of the techniques we tried actually worked. We started having sex again. We started hugging again. We started having conversations again. After just one or two months, I told friends that my matrimony was SAVED! I was annoyingly evangelical about my project and about how everyone else needed one, too!
Stage 3: Humbling Realization. We got in a huge fight over getting the VCR to work properly. That’s when I realized that a marriage can’t necessarily be saved in just a couple months-just as a dieter can’t necessarily lose all of her weight in just a couple weeks.
Stage 4: Real Hope. After 6 months, I could see we were consistently taking two steps forward and only one step back. It was similar to a dieter losing 3 pounds, gaining 1 and then losing three more.
Stage 5: Set Back and Anger. About a year after the project, we got in a huge fight over whether my husband could go for a bike ride. I got so angry that I screamed obscenities with our daughter nearby and I asked my husband to, "leave." I then sobbed that my matrimony would never be saved. And then I promised to try even harder.
Stage 6: Acceptance and Surrender. It has been three years. Now I see that a marriage project is never done. The journey is never truly over. If a dieter reaches her goal weight and then breaks the diet and starts regressing into bad eating and lifestyle habits again, the weight comes back on. It’s the same with matrimony.
As much as I’d like to cross a ending line, gather my "I finished a matrimony plan marathon and lived to tell about it" T-shirt, and just be done with all of it, I can’t. There are lots of days when my matrimony is simple, pleasurable and just dang fantastic. There are more days when I’m tempted to get in my car, drive away and never come back. On those weeks I have to talk to myself a lot and work on my matrimony all over again.
It is an interesting take on both the show and on the realities of matrimony. Like our dieting, matrimony does have its ups and downs and only works when you put effort and time into it. I’ve never seen the show either. But I like this reminder that improving and sustaining a good matrimony is an ongoing trip.
I was watching The Biggest Loser another night. It was my first time. I know. I live under a rock the size of Mount Everest. I do not get out to the faraway very often. In any case, what really struck me concerning the show was this: the weigh in. Several of the contestants lost 2 to 6 pounds during the week. They mentioned this weight loss as "a terrible week."
Three to five pounds is a bad week?! Sure it might sound like a tiny change compared to the 11 and 12 pound losses of some of the other contestants. There are millions of dieters all over the world who would kill to get on the scale and see a number that is one half a pound lighter than the number they saw the week before. Three pounds for most dieters is usually cause for celebration.
At any rate, the show got me thinking about how we Americans have come to expect instant and dramatic results.
And that got me thinking about matrimony improvement.
As a health writer, I’ve penned dozens of diet articles. As a result I’ve written the following line more times that I can remember: It took you many years to put on those pounds. That’s why it takes a long time to get them back off.
The same thing, I’ve found, is true with marriages. As I learned from my own matrimony project, it took many years for my matrimony to go from Wedded Bliss to Planning His Funeral. As a result, I could not expect to have one deep heart-felt talk with my husband and then-poof!-all of my marital problems would be solved.
My marriage could not be fixed with the equivalent of a crash diet. No, it needed a lifelong change.
As a result, my marriage improvement progress looked like this.
Stage 1: Hopeless. I initially started working on my matrimony so I could know that I gave it my all before giving up. I didn’t truly expect the project to work. I ordered 12 marital improvement books and pledged to read them anyway. I wanted to know that I’d tried everything before giving up.
Stage 2: False Hope. Some of the techniques we tried actually worked. We started having sex again. We started hugging again. We started having conversations again. After just one or two months, I told friends that my matrimony was SAVED! I was annoyingly evangelical about my project and about how everyone else needed one, too!
Stage 3: Humbling Realization. We got in a huge fight over getting the VCR to work properly. That’s when I realized that a marriage can’t necessarily be saved in just a couple months-just as a dieter can’t necessarily lose all of her weight in just a couple weeks.
Stage 4: Real Hope. After 6 months, I could see we were consistently taking two steps forward and only one step back. It was similar to a dieter losing 3 pounds, gaining 1 and then losing three more.
Stage 5: Set Back and Anger. About a year after the project, we got in a huge fight over whether my husband could go for a bike ride. I got so angry that I screamed obscenities with our daughter nearby and I asked my husband to, "leave." I then sobbed that my matrimony would never be saved. And then I promised to try even harder.
Stage 6: Acceptance and Surrender. It has been three years. Now I see that a marriage project is never done. The journey is never truly over. If a dieter reaches her goal weight and then breaks the diet and starts regressing into bad eating and lifestyle habits again, the weight comes back on. It’s the same with matrimony.
As much as I’d like to cross a ending line, gather my "I finished a matrimony plan marathon and lived to tell about it" T-shirt, and just be done with all of it, I can’t. There are lots of days when my matrimony is simple, pleasurable and just dang fantastic. There are more days when I’m tempted to get in my car, drive away and never come back. On those weeks I have to talk to myself a lot and work on my matrimony all over again.
It is an interesting take on both the show and on the realities of matrimony. Like our dieting, matrimony does have its ups and downs and only works when you put effort and time into it. I’ve never seen the show either. But I like this reminder that improving and sustaining a good matrimony is an ongoing trip.
2010年11月10日星期三
Got true conservatism?
Real conservatives see the best good served throughout defending liberty to its fullest. The government should not decrease my individual liberties to better "the common good." A free society is the only way for real victory of our country and all of its people. A free society takes care of the poor, not through government programs but through jobs and churches and charity. You'll see we don't dislike the poor or laugh at the thought of giving money to support them; it's just the part of the government in that process that we disagree on. They have no right to take a cash away from me and give it away to a different, justifying it through their own morals.
Are there any true conservatives in the country? If so, where are they? I can't see them. Candidates call themselves "conservative," but it is not obvious what they mean. What passes for conservatism these days appears to be mostly selfish obstructionism. Disagreeableness is not conservatism. Short-sighted greed isn't either. Paranoia about the present president's religion or place of birth isn't. Reckless endangerment of our future is not either.
In my view, conservatism is about conserving, respecting tradition and moving cautiously (unless there is an emergency). It is thoughtful and level-headed. It's a moral perspective that I'm having a hard time discerning in the 2010 political landscape.
These are characteristics I would expect in a real conservative:
1, A real conservative would understand liberty as concomitant with responsibility and concern for the common good (Aristotle, Augustine). We're all in this together, so let's take the wisest course together. No us- versus- them, that's for adolescents, not the wisdom of conservatism.
2, A real conservative would understand what makes people content, e.g., good and close relationships with others in the community and promote those things through social practices and policies.
3, A real conservative would support (extended) families and children above all else. They would pay attention to what children need to grow up strong, healthy and wise, and ensure that every child had those things (e.g., parents with living wages and time to be with the family without stress; good schools that teach democratic skills).
4, A real conservative would understand what makes for a peaceable, happy adult. Autonomy in work life, opportunities for skill development, good quality work culture.
5, A real conservative would respect other cultures and peoples. This means not invading other countries (which dishonors the traditions of those cultures).
6, A real conservative would conserve for the next generations. They would protect our resources like air and water from pollutants. They would not squander resources for short-term gain, whether taxpayer money, oil, or forests. They would be able to look carefully at the science and realize that global warming is underway and take action to mitigate it.
7, Real conservatives would figure out ways to rely on American ingenuity to meet energy needs, instead of relying on oil from countries who don't respect us. They would not let a small set of self-interested players dictate what we do about energy.
8, A real conservative would understand tradition. Whose and which traditions? It is most logical to look back at the style of 98% of human existence and see what worked to keep societies peaceful and sustainable.
9, A real conservative would understand that people will make good choices if they are given the tools, opportunities and autonomy to do so. Laws should be minimized (which works only in the context of a good society that ensure that citizen needs are met.)
People tell me that Bush was not a conservative yet the insurance policies touted by people running as "conservatives" are practically similar to his insurance policies. So I'm puzzled.
Our creator gave us the native rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and also the role of government is to guard those rights and nothing more. This inherently limits government and provides us the most liberty. How we could tell if a public policy is a bad or good policy is to use this philosophy as a filter. If a policy steps on any of those natural rights, it’s not a good policy. The 2nd Amendment protects all four natural rights, abortion treads on all natural rights, high taxes on anybody treads on the final 2 natural rights, a powerful military protects all 4 natural rights.
Are there any true conservatives in the country? If so, where are they? I can't see them. Candidates call themselves "conservative," but it is not obvious what they mean. What passes for conservatism these days appears to be mostly selfish obstructionism. Disagreeableness is not conservatism. Short-sighted greed isn't either. Paranoia about the present president's religion or place of birth isn't. Reckless endangerment of our future is not either.
In my view, conservatism is about conserving, respecting tradition and moving cautiously (unless there is an emergency). It is thoughtful and level-headed. It's a moral perspective that I'm having a hard time discerning in the 2010 political landscape.
These are characteristics I would expect in a real conservative:
1, A real conservative would understand liberty as concomitant with responsibility and concern for the common good (Aristotle, Augustine). We're all in this together, so let's take the wisest course together. No us- versus- them, that's for adolescents, not the wisdom of conservatism.
2, A real conservative would understand what makes people content, e.g., good and close relationships with others in the community and promote those things through social practices and policies.
3, A real conservative would support (extended) families and children above all else. They would pay attention to what children need to grow up strong, healthy and wise, and ensure that every child had those things (e.g., parents with living wages and time to be with the family without stress; good schools that teach democratic skills).
4, A real conservative would understand what makes for a peaceable, happy adult. Autonomy in work life, opportunities for skill development, good quality work culture.
5, A real conservative would respect other cultures and peoples. This means not invading other countries (which dishonors the traditions of those cultures).
6, A real conservative would conserve for the next generations. They would protect our resources like air and water from pollutants. They would not squander resources for short-term gain, whether taxpayer money, oil, or forests. They would be able to look carefully at the science and realize that global warming is underway and take action to mitigate it.
7, Real conservatives would figure out ways to rely on American ingenuity to meet energy needs, instead of relying on oil from countries who don't respect us. They would not let a small set of self-interested players dictate what we do about energy.
8, A real conservative would understand tradition. Whose and which traditions? It is most logical to look back at the style of 98% of human existence and see what worked to keep societies peaceful and sustainable.
9, A real conservative would understand that people will make good choices if they are given the tools, opportunities and autonomy to do so. Laws should be minimized (which works only in the context of a good society that ensure that citizen needs are met.)
People tell me that Bush was not a conservative yet the insurance policies touted by people running as "conservatives" are practically similar to his insurance policies. So I'm puzzled.
Our creator gave us the native rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and also the role of government is to guard those rights and nothing more. This inherently limits government and provides us the most liberty. How we could tell if a public policy is a bad or good policy is to use this philosophy as a filter. If a policy steps on any of those natural rights, it’s not a good policy. The 2nd Amendment protects all four natural rights, abortion treads on all natural rights, high taxes on anybody treads on the final 2 natural rights, a powerful military protects all 4 natural rights.
Vampires vs Zombies: Who's the Winner of the Recession Psyche?
As much as I love zombie knowledge, vampires tend to be more dynamic. There is a indisputable fact that the slow zombie is an emblem for the power of cooperation. Then there's the fast zombie. A mild-mannered nobody, maybe mired in a dead-end work, struggling to feed his family and pay his bills is suddenly changed into somebody whose only activities are to eat, run, and reproduce.
Rounding the corner to Christmas, I have monsters on the mind. Numerous things in this world are unsure, but the lasting charm of monsters isn't one of them. You can rely on monster magic like you can rely on good coffee - it never let's you down while you need it. These day vampires and zombies are taking turns mauling our limbic systems.
I'm of the opinion that the horror we appreciate most tends to mirror what's going on in our lives. Since we've been suffering the worst recession in nearly a century, makes sense that the monsters we gravitate toward will be projections of what we're feeling - and we haven't been feeling so great.
A lot of us feel like zombies - working ourselves into mindless nubs of barely recognizable humanity; brain numbed by catastrophic news; depressed by the absurdity of it all.
Plus, consider the flexibility of the zombie: put them in a horror movie and they're the perfect fit. Put them in a satire and they're the perfect fit. You want to send a social message about humanity's inevitable collision with bad karma? Zombies are what you need. You want to populate the post-war/plague/asteroid/climate-change world? Zombies got your mojo.
On the other hand, it's hard to shake our perennial lusty affair with the vampire. While the zombie may symbolize our pain and exhaustion, vampires offer the great escape. They're ethereal, powerful. Though we know they're evil, we can't help ourselves - their otherworldliness is like a really good drug lifting us above the world of stress and strife, consequences are damned.
And could there possibly be a monster with more staying power than the vampire? From young to old, people gorge themselves on vampire books, movies and TV shows like the idea of a blood drinking demon was just invented. I'm told that teenage girls aren't just still reading all of the Twilight books, they're re-reading them, sometimes three or four times over! HBO's series True Blood, which I admittedly like a lot, is on its way to Soprano-level popularity. And if you want to get people to your movie, put a vampire in it, or better yet a bunch of them. We never tire of their cunning wiles.
So which is it, the earthy representation of our angst, or devilish escape from what ails us? It could very well be a stalemate, but I'm going to call it anyway.
Vampire wins.
Why? Because when it comes right down to it, zombie love will only last so long. Eventually we'll pull out of our slump and reach something approaching stability again. At that point our passion for the decaying corpse will wane and we'll go back to just liking zombies. We'll always like our zombies.
However the vampire is the freak for all time. While we're hurting they provide a way out, and when we're feeling good they provide excitement. They're the last manifestation of power and terror, a combination that's as lasting as feeling itself. Like its namesake, vampire love just will not die.
I think we underestimate the liberating release of zombie horror. While it's real that the traditional slow zombie is a rampant metaphor for all our troubles, what comes about to this kind of zombie? The humans blast them away. Every head shot is like another aim accomplished, another boss rebelled against, and another cubicle slave set free.
Copyright by Lucy, a beautiful girl who likes swimming, shopping online and has a shop with discount coach purses and oakley m frames.
Rounding the corner to Christmas, I have monsters on the mind. Numerous things in this world are unsure, but the lasting charm of monsters isn't one of them. You can rely on monster magic like you can rely on good coffee - it never let's you down while you need it. These day vampires and zombies are taking turns mauling our limbic systems.
I'm of the opinion that the horror we appreciate most tends to mirror what's going on in our lives. Since we've been suffering the worst recession in nearly a century, makes sense that the monsters we gravitate toward will be projections of what we're feeling - and we haven't been feeling so great.
A lot of us feel like zombies - working ourselves into mindless nubs of barely recognizable humanity; brain numbed by catastrophic news; depressed by the absurdity of it all.
Plus, consider the flexibility of the zombie: put them in a horror movie and they're the perfect fit. Put them in a satire and they're the perfect fit. You want to send a social message about humanity's inevitable collision with bad karma? Zombies are what you need. You want to populate the post-war/plague/asteroid/climate-change world? Zombies got your mojo.
On the other hand, it's hard to shake our perennial lusty affair with the vampire. While the zombie may symbolize our pain and exhaustion, vampires offer the great escape. They're ethereal, powerful. Though we know they're evil, we can't help ourselves - their otherworldliness is like a really good drug lifting us above the world of stress and strife, consequences are damned.
And could there possibly be a monster with more staying power than the vampire? From young to old, people gorge themselves on vampire books, movies and TV shows like the idea of a blood drinking demon was just invented. I'm told that teenage girls aren't just still reading all of the Twilight books, they're re-reading them, sometimes three or four times over! HBO's series True Blood, which I admittedly like a lot, is on its way to Soprano-level popularity. And if you want to get people to your movie, put a vampire in it, or better yet a bunch of them. We never tire of their cunning wiles.
So which is it, the earthy representation of our angst, or devilish escape from what ails us? It could very well be a stalemate, but I'm going to call it anyway.
Vampire wins.
Why? Because when it comes right down to it, zombie love will only last so long. Eventually we'll pull out of our slump and reach something approaching stability again. At that point our passion for the decaying corpse will wane and we'll go back to just liking zombies. We'll always like our zombies.
However the vampire is the freak for all time. While we're hurting they provide a way out, and when we're feeling good they provide excitement. They're the last manifestation of power and terror, a combination that's as lasting as feeling itself. Like its namesake, vampire love just will not die.
I think we underestimate the liberating release of zombie horror. While it's real that the traditional slow zombie is a rampant metaphor for all our troubles, what comes about to this kind of zombie? The humans blast them away. Every head shot is like another aim accomplished, another boss rebelled against, and another cubicle slave set free.
Copyright by Lucy, a beautiful girl who likes swimming, shopping online and has a shop with discount coach purses and oakley m frames.
2010年11月9日星期二
Does Marriage Frighten You?
I dislike the thought of marriage, and I’m a female who lives together with her (male) significant other. What frightens me is the societal stress, you’ve been together for some time, why don’t you “make it official”? So, it wasn’t official that I was living with this people before? For the reason that I’m very sure I signed a lease with them.
I was out with one of my male friends another night and he pointed out that he thought his girlfriend was thinking of them getting married.
“You’re just projecting stuff. What makes you think she even wants to get married?” I said, “She said ‘I think we should think about getting married.’” “Oh. Yeah. I guess she might be thinking about that, then.” “I think women just all love that stuff. Like, women are born wanting to get married. And guys just don’t.
Okay, first of all, this is stupid, because marriage does nothing but benefit men. It makes men live longer and be happier. Not even being happily married. Marriage is going to make guys happy and not die.
Second of all, this is stupid because women have just as many reasons to be scared of marriage as men. Want some reasons? Here are some:
1) You won’t be able to eat yogurt and drink vodka while sprawling thousand piece puzzles on the coffee table and mumbling things to yourself without anyone else noticing anymore. If someone else was just sitting in the room, you’d feel self conscious about that. (Okay, that’s my reason).
2) (This is a more general reason) The person you married could be a serial killer.
3) What if you meet a non-serial killer clown with Brad Pitt’s face and Jesus’ abs tomorrow?
4) You could be really bad at it. Like, the proximity to another person every day could turn you into a psycho bitch.
5) Are you sure you’re not a lesbian? Maybe you owe it to yourself to experiment.
6) Does it mean you’ll have to do someone else’s laundry and learn to cook and generally be a grown-up? Because that sounds terrify.
7) The person you marry could decide that they want to pursue their life dream of becoming a clown.
Okay, you could find your reasons here. Bonus points if they don't have anything to do with the truth that you’re man.
Not being able to move after my marriage. I miss my family, he doesn’t mind so much. If one of us has an amazing work but we’d have to move far away, another people must give up his or her life, job and move, then have to find another work in the new city. That one is an actual concern for me.
I was out with one of my male friends another night and he pointed out that he thought his girlfriend was thinking of them getting married.
“You’re just projecting stuff. What makes you think she even wants to get married?” I said, “She said ‘I think we should think about getting married.’” “Oh. Yeah. I guess she might be thinking about that, then.” “I think women just all love that stuff. Like, women are born wanting to get married. And guys just don’t.
Okay, first of all, this is stupid, because marriage does nothing but benefit men. It makes men live longer and be happier. Not even being happily married. Marriage is going to make guys happy and not die.
Second of all, this is stupid because women have just as many reasons to be scared of marriage as men. Want some reasons? Here are some:
1) You won’t be able to eat yogurt and drink vodka while sprawling thousand piece puzzles on the coffee table and mumbling things to yourself without anyone else noticing anymore. If someone else was just sitting in the room, you’d feel self conscious about that. (Okay, that’s my reason).
2) (This is a more general reason) The person you married could be a serial killer.
3) What if you meet a non-serial killer clown with Brad Pitt’s face and Jesus’ abs tomorrow?
4) You could be really bad at it. Like, the proximity to another person every day could turn you into a psycho bitch.
5) Are you sure you’re not a lesbian? Maybe you owe it to yourself to experiment.
6) Does it mean you’ll have to do someone else’s laundry and learn to cook and generally be a grown-up? Because that sounds terrify.
7) The person you marry could decide that they want to pursue their life dream of becoming a clown.
Okay, you could find your reasons here. Bonus points if they don't have anything to do with the truth that you’re man.
Not being able to move after my marriage. I miss my family, he doesn’t mind so much. If one of us has an amazing work but we’d have to move far away, another people must give up his or her life, job and move, then have to find another work in the new city. That one is an actual concern for me.
2010年11月8日星期一
Is it good to make kids frightened?
As the culture has gotten so desensitized to violence and horror doesn’t mean that children’s developmental needs have changed, it may have bad effect on children, their sleep, their study, even their whole life, but is it good to make them afraid?
I remember when my parents took the family to a triple characteristic that included the Brides of Dracula. I put my head in my mom’s knees a lot. I was six. On an extensive, hosted visit in Korea when I was nine, we were taken to the film house to see a slasher film where Korean members of the family were chopping one another up with axes in the heavy rain, a lot of rain. Once more, my head stayed mostly in my mother’s knees.
As we approach Halloween, it is important for adults to remember to be sensitive to the needs of children. Joanne Cantor has documented how seeing the wrong movie at the wrong time (under 12) can scar a person for years. Do you need to sleep with a light on? (Although you might think this is not a big deal, it is important for cancer prevention to sleep in the dark.)
What we know is that kids of different ages perceive media in different ways:
1, children under 5 have problems distinguishing reality and fantasy in media.
2, children under 7 are usually scared by spooky fantasy (e.g., The Incredible Hulk, sharks in Finding Nemo). It doesn’t much matter what the adult says because it feels real to the child.
3, kids 8-12 are most frightened by realistic violence (e.g., people breaking in the home, storms).
Even more so today, we immerse our children in scary images without thinking much about it. It used to be that teen-scary programming was not shown till after primetime, with the assumption that children would be in bed by then. This has eroded considerably. These days television programmers and advertisers seem to make few accommodations for young viewers. For example, during football games on Sundays, advertisements for scary movies and shows are shown on the screen simultaneously with the game. I have complained about this in letters and some networks are more careful.
One of the most important characteristics for healthy development is a sense of trust. Watching violent and scary media beyond one’s control leads one to mistrust one’s caregivers and the world. When people think the world is a dangerous place (as those who watch a lot of TV do), they are less sensitive towards others and more self-concerned. See here for more information on violent media effects on kids.
I’m not saying that kids should not have scary experiences. But they should be within their control. In our ancient past, children would have listened to the adults telling stories and interpreting dreams. Listening to stories allows the individual to imagine as much as scariness they can handle.
At the request of my nephew, I used to read Berenstain Bears and the Spooky Old Tree over and over as he learned to deal with his own fears and imagined escaping them. It’s easy with books for children to have control. They can walk away or shut the book if it is too much.
But when we take a child to a movie or sit them with the family in front of the television, they cannot easily escape and can be fascinated with the more benign action that leads up to the scariness, leaving them vulnerable to the surprise. Joanne Cantor has written a book to help parents with young children deal with media trauma, Teddy’s TV Troubles.
Was I scarred by my early movie experiences? Thank god for my mother’s lap! Yes, it took me concerted effort as a young adult to learn to enjoy the dark (going camping alone in the Rocky Mountains) and not expect rainstorms to also bring people with axes.
Wouldn’t be nice to cultivate in our children, an enjoyment of the dark so that they can feel as John Muir did at midnight under Yosemite falls:
"I will have a wonderful walk along the hill in this slender, white light, over the unlock brows grayed with Selaginella and through the thick back shadow caves in the live oaks, all stuck filled with snowy lances of moonlight."
I agree that given the way films are marketed to children, it’s simple for parents to make a different guess about a movie’s suitability. And that’s why it’s so significant for parents not to pooh-pooh their kid’s reactions but to acknowledge that lots of kids have been afraid by similar films, and to be patient and eager to help them deal with their worries. We have become so desensitized that a lot of parents don’t remember this.
Copyright by Lucy, a beautiful girl who likes swimming, shopping online and has a shop with juicy couture watch and juicy couture bikini.
I remember when my parents took the family to a triple characteristic that included the Brides of Dracula. I put my head in my mom’s knees a lot. I was six. On an extensive, hosted visit in Korea when I was nine, we were taken to the film house to see a slasher film where Korean members of the family were chopping one another up with axes in the heavy rain, a lot of rain. Once more, my head stayed mostly in my mother’s knees.
As we approach Halloween, it is important for adults to remember to be sensitive to the needs of children. Joanne Cantor has documented how seeing the wrong movie at the wrong time (under 12) can scar a person for years. Do you need to sleep with a light on? (Although you might think this is not a big deal, it is important for cancer prevention to sleep in the dark.)
What we know is that kids of different ages perceive media in different ways:
1, children under 5 have problems distinguishing reality and fantasy in media.
2, children under 7 are usually scared by spooky fantasy (e.g., The Incredible Hulk, sharks in Finding Nemo). It doesn’t much matter what the adult says because it feels real to the child.
3, kids 8-12 are most frightened by realistic violence (e.g., people breaking in the home, storms).
Even more so today, we immerse our children in scary images without thinking much about it. It used to be that teen-scary programming was not shown till after primetime, with the assumption that children would be in bed by then. This has eroded considerably. These days television programmers and advertisers seem to make few accommodations for young viewers. For example, during football games on Sundays, advertisements for scary movies and shows are shown on the screen simultaneously with the game. I have complained about this in letters and some networks are more careful.
One of the most important characteristics for healthy development is a sense of trust. Watching violent and scary media beyond one’s control leads one to mistrust one’s caregivers and the world. When people think the world is a dangerous place (as those who watch a lot of TV do), they are less sensitive towards others and more self-concerned. See here for more information on violent media effects on kids.
I’m not saying that kids should not have scary experiences. But they should be within their control. In our ancient past, children would have listened to the adults telling stories and interpreting dreams. Listening to stories allows the individual to imagine as much as scariness they can handle.
At the request of my nephew, I used to read Berenstain Bears and the Spooky Old Tree over and over as he learned to deal with his own fears and imagined escaping them. It’s easy with books for children to have control. They can walk away or shut the book if it is too much.
But when we take a child to a movie or sit them with the family in front of the television, they cannot easily escape and can be fascinated with the more benign action that leads up to the scariness, leaving them vulnerable to the surprise. Joanne Cantor has written a book to help parents with young children deal with media trauma, Teddy’s TV Troubles.
Was I scarred by my early movie experiences? Thank god for my mother’s lap! Yes, it took me concerted effort as a young adult to learn to enjoy the dark (going camping alone in the Rocky Mountains) and not expect rainstorms to also bring people with axes.
Wouldn’t be nice to cultivate in our children, an enjoyment of the dark so that they can feel as John Muir did at midnight under Yosemite falls:
"I will have a wonderful walk along the hill in this slender, white light, over the unlock brows grayed with Selaginella and through the thick back shadow caves in the live oaks, all stuck filled with snowy lances of moonlight."
I agree that given the way films are marketed to children, it’s simple for parents to make a different guess about a movie’s suitability. And that’s why it’s so significant for parents not to pooh-pooh their kid’s reactions but to acknowledge that lots of kids have been afraid by similar films, and to be patient and eager to help them deal with their worries. We have become so desensitized that a lot of parents don’t remember this.
Copyright by Lucy, a beautiful girl who likes swimming, shopping online and has a shop with juicy couture watch and juicy couture bikini.
2010年11月7日星期日
Have You Hugged Your Wife Today?
Parents can completely give their children quite a real feel of unity and safety whether there is a conventional husband, wife and kids all living in the same house of not. And children surely learn harmful styles of relationship while parents fight, are impolite to one another or disregard one another. Children deserve a cheerful home in whatever form it takes, and parents have the best interests of their children at mind.
Whenever you hug your partner, it’s not only a boost for both of you; it’s also good for your children. When they see you cheerful and pleased with one another, it makes their world. In reality, why don’t you make hugs the norm for everybody in your family?
Hugs bring smiles to faces and warmth to hearts. They are uplifting when you’re down, encouraging when you’re in the midst of challenges, and celebratory when you’ve reached your goal. When someone hugs you, it gives you a sense of approval and bolsters your self-esteem. Hugs strengthen friendships, and increase feelings of love, support and loyalty.
And they’re free! So there’s no reason to hold back.
Some parents may hug their children, but think it’s inappropriate to show affection for one another in front of the children. Recently, a therapy client told me that when she was growing up, she never saw her parents display affection towards each other. When her dad came home each evening, he gave her mom one quick, stiff, perfunctory hug-and that was the sum total of the "affection" she ever saw them share. There was no juice in that hug. No love; no joy. Her parents were civil; they were polite; they were friendly.
When she went to her friends’ homes, she saw the lively, loving interactions of her friends’ parents that she longed for in her home too. But it never came. She became embarrassed to bring children to her house because her dinner table was emotionless and rather antiseptic by comparison.
In therapy we worked on learning how to love and show affection-something she should have learned naturally at home.
Have you ever seen your children break into a big, wide grin when you hug your husband? Usually, they love it. If not, maybe they feel left out and jealous because they want to be hugged too. Let them know how valuable they are to you; how much you love and treasure them. Kids want to feel like they belong, so include them in family hugs and be sure to show them how hugs cross gender boundaries. Dads can hug their sons as well as their daughters. Being held, cuddled and kissed is not a sissy thing. It’s a human thing.
When you model affection for your kids, it promotes a more positive attitude which makes them more resistant to challenges in their lives.
Let me tell you how.
1. It models for your kids what healthy love looks like. Parents teach much more by example than by words. And kids imitate what they see much more than what they hear. So when you hug your husband, treat him with respect and show sensitivity to his feelings, you’re teaching your children invaluable lessons in relationship.
Loving relationships don’t just grow behind closed doors in the bedroom. They spill out into the whole house. When you and your husband are playful-enjoying each other and having fun together, it gives your kids the opportunity to see how all encompassing your love is. They absorb the lessons without even being aware of it.
2. It makes your kids feel safe and secure. In a world where strife, dissonance and divorce are rampant, your children want to know that your family is solid and rooted. You can have disagreements with your husband in front of your kids as long as you treat one another respectfully and sensitively. Your children understand that occasionally two people don’t see eye to eye and they need to talk it through and come to a resolution. But when they see you hug, they know their world is safe and in tact.
3. It shows children that affection can be expressed in a variety of ways. Of course, a good part of your love for your husband should be expressed privately. But a great deal of love for family and friends is shown through gentle touch, kind words and thoughtful behaviors. By modeling these three manifestations of love with your husband, you teach your children to be comfortable with affection. They’ll learn to be generous in giving it and generous in receiving it.
4. It teaches your kids how to create their own happy love relationships when they become adults. Kids see plenty of dysfunctional relationships on a constant basis-on TV, in the movies and in the neighborhood. What a gift you can give your children to counterbalance the unhealthy models that surround them. When they see a bad relationship on the screen or in real life, they’ll notice how dramatically it deviates from the standards they’re used to at home. They’ll be much more likely to reject similar situations for themselves and choose healthier relationships.
5. It makes you a happier wife and a better mom. Every time someone hugs you, it reinforces their love for you and increases your joy. Ask any children which he’d prefer: an unhappy mom or a happy one. You already know the answer. When you’re happy, you’re also more tolerant, more patient and more fun to be around.
You’ll add your probability that your children will talk with you, share their emotions with you and be close to you. And that makes you a greater mother. Let your affection flow in abundance. Watch everybody in your family light up when you hug your partner. It’s good for your relationship and it injects happiness into your house.
I think it’s important to mold a fit, affectionate relationship with a husband or partner or kid’s other parent when possible, and I think it’s similarly important and stabilizing to prove for your children what fit love seems like by not staying in a relationship that is void of affection, physical and otherwise.
Copyright by Lucy who likes shopping online, going fishing, often searches juicy couture watch and juicy couture bikini on the Internet.
Whenever you hug your partner, it’s not only a boost for both of you; it’s also good for your children. When they see you cheerful and pleased with one another, it makes their world. In reality, why don’t you make hugs the norm for everybody in your family?
Hugs bring smiles to faces and warmth to hearts. They are uplifting when you’re down, encouraging when you’re in the midst of challenges, and celebratory when you’ve reached your goal. When someone hugs you, it gives you a sense of approval and bolsters your self-esteem. Hugs strengthen friendships, and increase feelings of love, support and loyalty.
And they’re free! So there’s no reason to hold back.
Some parents may hug their children, but think it’s inappropriate to show affection for one another in front of the children. Recently, a therapy client told me that when she was growing up, she never saw her parents display affection towards each other. When her dad came home each evening, he gave her mom one quick, stiff, perfunctory hug-and that was the sum total of the "affection" she ever saw them share. There was no juice in that hug. No love; no joy. Her parents were civil; they were polite; they were friendly.
When she went to her friends’ homes, she saw the lively, loving interactions of her friends’ parents that she longed for in her home too. But it never came. She became embarrassed to bring children to her house because her dinner table was emotionless and rather antiseptic by comparison.
In therapy we worked on learning how to love and show affection-something she should have learned naturally at home.
Have you ever seen your children break into a big, wide grin when you hug your husband? Usually, they love it. If not, maybe they feel left out and jealous because they want to be hugged too. Let them know how valuable they are to you; how much you love and treasure them. Kids want to feel like they belong, so include them in family hugs and be sure to show them how hugs cross gender boundaries. Dads can hug their sons as well as their daughters. Being held, cuddled and kissed is not a sissy thing. It’s a human thing.
When you model affection for your kids, it promotes a more positive attitude which makes them more resistant to challenges in their lives.
Let me tell you how.
1. It models for your kids what healthy love looks like. Parents teach much more by example than by words. And kids imitate what they see much more than what they hear. So when you hug your husband, treat him with respect and show sensitivity to his feelings, you’re teaching your children invaluable lessons in relationship.
Loving relationships don’t just grow behind closed doors in the bedroom. They spill out into the whole house. When you and your husband are playful-enjoying each other and having fun together, it gives your kids the opportunity to see how all encompassing your love is. They absorb the lessons without even being aware of it.
2. It makes your kids feel safe and secure. In a world where strife, dissonance and divorce are rampant, your children want to know that your family is solid and rooted. You can have disagreements with your husband in front of your kids as long as you treat one another respectfully and sensitively. Your children understand that occasionally two people don’t see eye to eye and they need to talk it through and come to a resolution. But when they see you hug, they know their world is safe and in tact.
3. It shows children that affection can be expressed in a variety of ways. Of course, a good part of your love for your husband should be expressed privately. But a great deal of love for family and friends is shown through gentle touch, kind words and thoughtful behaviors. By modeling these three manifestations of love with your husband, you teach your children to be comfortable with affection. They’ll learn to be generous in giving it and generous in receiving it.
4. It teaches your kids how to create their own happy love relationships when they become adults. Kids see plenty of dysfunctional relationships on a constant basis-on TV, in the movies and in the neighborhood. What a gift you can give your children to counterbalance the unhealthy models that surround them. When they see a bad relationship on the screen or in real life, they’ll notice how dramatically it deviates from the standards they’re used to at home. They’ll be much more likely to reject similar situations for themselves and choose healthier relationships.
5. It makes you a happier wife and a better mom. Every time someone hugs you, it reinforces their love for you and increases your joy. Ask any children which he’d prefer: an unhappy mom or a happy one. You already know the answer. When you’re happy, you’re also more tolerant, more patient and more fun to be around.
You’ll add your probability that your children will talk with you, share their emotions with you and be close to you. And that makes you a greater mother. Let your affection flow in abundance. Watch everybody in your family light up when you hug your partner. It’s good for your relationship and it injects happiness into your house.
I think it’s important to mold a fit, affectionate relationship with a husband or partner or kid’s other parent when possible, and I think it’s similarly important and stabilizing to prove for your children what fit love seems like by not staying in a relationship that is void of affection, physical and otherwise.
Copyright by Lucy who likes shopping online, going fishing, often searches juicy couture watch and juicy couture bikini on the Internet.
2010年11月4日星期四
CounterKicks x Li-Ning Conquer - Teaser Pics
I was born in New York and went to school there, but I have a family in China, I married a Chinese girl last year. Now we have a happy life, and we have three children, they are all very clever.
It is the Chinese market, which has made great development in the recent times. Not surprisingly, they are thought to be one of fastest developing economy in the world scenario. In all of the sectors, Chinese goods are making their attendance in the most significant way.
Just like other sectors in the trade, they are making their presence felt in the sports shoe industries as well, and are giving the other leading shoe manufacturers a tough and stiff completion. Price effectiveness is their key, but that does not mean that they are making compromises with the quality. Quality at the affordable price range is their X-factor in the sports shoe range. If you pay a look on the CounterKicks x Li-Ning Conquer - Teaser Pics, you will get some hints regarding their capability in the shoe trades. In order to promote this collection, they have chosen the eminent figure in the NBA sports circuit, Li Ning.
Li Ning has been trying their hands in the shoe trades for quite some time, and this time they have teamed up with Counterkicks to offer this exclusive Basketball shoe collection. This shoe collection has two very interesting features. The combination of Yellow with black makes a very cool and interesting duet, and this Tiger like combination will lead you to the Chinese culture a bit, as Tiger holds a very important and significant value in their culture.
Another characteristic comprises the gem studding right at the upper collar, and this throws very fashionable appeal on this collection. Just have a close look on the Internet, and you will feel there is nothing better than this collection to show the flavor of Chinese civilization.
My eldest son really like the series of Li Ning shoes, so I decide to buy a pair of the newest style for him. However, we had a promise that he has to get a high score at the final exam, or he wouldn't get the present.
It is the Chinese market, which has made great development in the recent times. Not surprisingly, they are thought to be one of fastest developing economy in the world scenario. In all of the sectors, Chinese goods are making their attendance in the most significant way.
Just like other sectors in the trade, they are making their presence felt in the sports shoe industries as well, and are giving the other leading shoe manufacturers a tough and stiff completion. Price effectiveness is their key, but that does not mean that they are making compromises with the quality. Quality at the affordable price range is their X-factor in the sports shoe range. If you pay a look on the CounterKicks x Li-Ning Conquer - Teaser Pics, you will get some hints regarding their capability in the shoe trades. In order to promote this collection, they have chosen the eminent figure in the NBA sports circuit, Li Ning.
Li Ning has been trying their hands in the shoe trades for quite some time, and this time they have teamed up with Counterkicks to offer this exclusive Basketball shoe collection. This shoe collection has two very interesting features. The combination of Yellow with black makes a very cool and interesting duet, and this Tiger like combination will lead you to the Chinese culture a bit, as Tiger holds a very important and significant value in their culture.
Another characteristic comprises the gem studding right at the upper collar, and this throws very fashionable appeal on this collection. Just have a close look on the Internet, and you will feel there is nothing better than this collection to show the flavor of Chinese civilization.
My eldest son really like the series of Li Ning shoes, so I decide to buy a pair of the newest style for him. However, we had a promise that he has to get a high score at the final exam, or he wouldn't get the present.
2010年11月3日星期三
Contemptuous Liberals and Angry Conservatives
I lean more left than right, but I’ve always taken the naive stance that I will vote for the one who will do the best job. Here in New York, we have three exceedingly lame gubernatorial candidates. I voted for the Republican for the reason that he is the more capable candidate, and he is the best option for potential state government action regarding my employer. But regardless, here in deep red New York, he will win anyhow.
Conservatives are annoyed. They are annoyed on President, about taxes, and about government spending. If it were lawful, Tea Party conservatives want to vaporize much of Blue America.
Liberals are not annoyed, they are disgusted. If it were legal, liberals would move all of red America behind a large screen where its antics would be less embarrassing.
If the dominant tone of conservatives is shrill, the dominant tone of liberals is sarcastic. The philosophical position of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, expressed in body language, would be a raised fist and a clenched jaw. The philosophical position of Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher would be a raised eyebrow and a wrinkled nose. Annoyed coverage on Fox News has become the standard bearer of the right. Irony and mockery on Comedy Central have become the standard bearer of the left.
Right-wing blogs reek of blood and guns, violence and revolution. The tree of liberty, they remind us, needs to be refreshed with the blood of patriots. Look at the weapons of the left, Colbert’s sly smile, Maher’s snigger, and the endless jokes about the stupidity of George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Christine O’Donnell. Even the bumper stickers of the right are grave in tone. They ask, "What Would Jesus Do?" Their opponents’ bumper stickers respond, "What Would Scooby Doo?"
In the conspiracy theories propounded by the right, Barack Obama is not an idiot but a clever double agent whose purpose is to destroy capitalism, Christianity, and America from within. If you listen to the left, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are small children who have gotten their hands on very large bazookas and need to be told to put down the weapons preferably using words with few syllables.
Both anger and contempt have deep psychological roots. Anger usually stems from feelings of unfairness or betrayal. Contempt is anger mixed with disgust. Anger and contempt are not just emotions. They are scripts that determine our political conversation. If you are a conservative blogger, you will hunt out material that shows liberals to be unpatriotic and dangerous, because your audience wants affirmation of its underlying feelings. If you are liberal, you will play up material that shows conservatives to be stupid, because your audience wants affirmation of its sense of superiority.
This selective weeding does not always happen consciously. Just as interpersonal relationships have unconscious scripts that determine how people talk and argue, so, too, our national conversation follows scripts that are more powerful because they are unconscious. When we treat one another badly because we mean to behave badly, we know we are doing something wrong. When scripts inside our hidden brains make us treat others badly, we do not realize we are behaving badly. Couples in distress who come to marriage counselors are invariably blind to how their internal scripts are helping to produce the problems that mark their daily lives. If conservative America and liberal America were married to one another, this relationship would have one side wearing overalls, swilling beer, and screaming all the time, while the other sipped cappuccinos, read The New Yorker, and pretended it couldn’t hear a word.
If marriage research were a guide to politics, we could say that the scripts of the right and the left do us all harm and that the left may be doing more harm to the relationship than the right.
In recent decades, the field of marriage research has been changed by a paradigm known as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Invented by marriage researcher John Gottman, the paradigm suggests that dysfunctional relationships often have four markers criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling.
Criticism is anger expressed. Broken pots and pans, and abusive relationships, often follow. But Gottman and others have found that while contempt may seem more dignified than anger, it is the single best predictor of an impending divorce. Of all the horsemen, it is the worst. Human beings, it turns out, will live with black eyes and bruises sooner than they will live with disrespect and disgust. Telling someone, "You piss me off," is not as bad as telling them, "You repulse me."
Couples in marriage therapy invariably have loads of evidence to justify their feelings. If you could haul liberal and conservative America into a counselor’s office, the left would produce loads of evidence showing that conservatism is regularly anti-intellectual when it comes to questions of evolution or global climate change. Sarah Palin really did evince a limited knowledge of foreign affairs during the 2008 election. Conservatives would tell the counselor about how liberals are always slow to see threats to national security, always "blaming America" and always quick to support international institutions such as the U.N. and the International Court of Justice.
What couples learn in counseling is that their conflicting visions are accurate, but accurate in the way caricatures are accurate. They miss nuance and fail to see how different underlying dreams prompt each side to value things differently. Surely underlying personality and different upbringing have much to do with the desire among so many liberals to see a president who is, first and foremost, smart, and the desire among so many conservatives to have a president who is, first and foremost, a patriot?
I will be the first to confess that marriage is not a perfect analogy for politics. Liberal and conservative America don’t need to love each other for the country to work. They just need to get along. And it isn’t as if the complex feelings that liberals and conservatives feel could be simplistically divided into one-side-is-always-annoyed and the-other-side-is-always-disdainful. Liberals are often annoyed, and conservatives are regularly disdainful. But as liberals and conservatives bring their warring marches to Washington this fall demanding, alternately, a return to honor and a return to sanity, it is quite obvious that the wedding investigation does have something helpful to tell us about our unconscious scripts.
How can a country function while conservatives continually want to show liberals the light and liberals constantly want to show conservatives the door? I think some of the mockery from the left comes from a sense of impotence with regards to the far right, I know that’s where my sarcasm comes from. Some actions on the right do reject me. They make me ill to me stomach, and want to scream or weep.
Conservatives are annoyed. They are annoyed on President, about taxes, and about government spending. If it were lawful, Tea Party conservatives want to vaporize much of Blue America.
Liberals are not annoyed, they are disgusted. If it were legal, liberals would move all of red America behind a large screen where its antics would be less embarrassing.
If the dominant tone of conservatives is shrill, the dominant tone of liberals is sarcastic. The philosophical position of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, expressed in body language, would be a raised fist and a clenched jaw. The philosophical position of Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher would be a raised eyebrow and a wrinkled nose. Annoyed coverage on Fox News has become the standard bearer of the right. Irony and mockery on Comedy Central have become the standard bearer of the left.
Right-wing blogs reek of blood and guns, violence and revolution. The tree of liberty, they remind us, needs to be refreshed with the blood of patriots. Look at the weapons of the left, Colbert’s sly smile, Maher’s snigger, and the endless jokes about the stupidity of George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Christine O’Donnell. Even the bumper stickers of the right are grave in tone. They ask, "What Would Jesus Do?" Their opponents’ bumper stickers respond, "What Would Scooby Doo?"
In the conspiracy theories propounded by the right, Barack Obama is not an idiot but a clever double agent whose purpose is to destroy capitalism, Christianity, and America from within. If you listen to the left, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are small children who have gotten their hands on very large bazookas and need to be told to put down the weapons preferably using words with few syllables.
Both anger and contempt have deep psychological roots. Anger usually stems from feelings of unfairness or betrayal. Contempt is anger mixed with disgust. Anger and contempt are not just emotions. They are scripts that determine our political conversation. If you are a conservative blogger, you will hunt out material that shows liberals to be unpatriotic and dangerous, because your audience wants affirmation of its underlying feelings. If you are liberal, you will play up material that shows conservatives to be stupid, because your audience wants affirmation of its sense of superiority.
This selective weeding does not always happen consciously. Just as interpersonal relationships have unconscious scripts that determine how people talk and argue, so, too, our national conversation follows scripts that are more powerful because they are unconscious. When we treat one another badly because we mean to behave badly, we know we are doing something wrong. When scripts inside our hidden brains make us treat others badly, we do not realize we are behaving badly. Couples in distress who come to marriage counselors are invariably blind to how their internal scripts are helping to produce the problems that mark their daily lives. If conservative America and liberal America were married to one another, this relationship would have one side wearing overalls, swilling beer, and screaming all the time, while the other sipped cappuccinos, read The New Yorker, and pretended it couldn’t hear a word.
If marriage research were a guide to politics, we could say that the scripts of the right and the left do us all harm and that the left may be doing more harm to the relationship than the right.
In recent decades, the field of marriage research has been changed by a paradigm known as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Invented by marriage researcher John Gottman, the paradigm suggests that dysfunctional relationships often have four markers criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling.
Criticism is anger expressed. Broken pots and pans, and abusive relationships, often follow. But Gottman and others have found that while contempt may seem more dignified than anger, it is the single best predictor of an impending divorce. Of all the horsemen, it is the worst. Human beings, it turns out, will live with black eyes and bruises sooner than they will live with disrespect and disgust. Telling someone, "You piss me off," is not as bad as telling them, "You repulse me."
Couples in marriage therapy invariably have loads of evidence to justify their feelings. If you could haul liberal and conservative America into a counselor’s office, the left would produce loads of evidence showing that conservatism is regularly anti-intellectual when it comes to questions of evolution or global climate change. Sarah Palin really did evince a limited knowledge of foreign affairs during the 2008 election. Conservatives would tell the counselor about how liberals are always slow to see threats to national security, always "blaming America" and always quick to support international institutions such as the U.N. and the International Court of Justice.
What couples learn in counseling is that their conflicting visions are accurate, but accurate in the way caricatures are accurate. They miss nuance and fail to see how different underlying dreams prompt each side to value things differently. Surely underlying personality and different upbringing have much to do with the desire among so many liberals to see a president who is, first and foremost, smart, and the desire among so many conservatives to have a president who is, first and foremost, a patriot?
I will be the first to confess that marriage is not a perfect analogy for politics. Liberal and conservative America don’t need to love each other for the country to work. They just need to get along. And it isn’t as if the complex feelings that liberals and conservatives feel could be simplistically divided into one-side-is-always-annoyed and the-other-side-is-always-disdainful. Liberals are often annoyed, and conservatives are regularly disdainful. But as liberals and conservatives bring their warring marches to Washington this fall demanding, alternately, a return to honor and a return to sanity, it is quite obvious that the wedding investigation does have something helpful to tell us about our unconscious scripts.
How can a country function while conservatives continually want to show liberals the light and liberals constantly want to show conservatives the door? I think some of the mockery from the left comes from a sense of impotence with regards to the far right, I know that’s where my sarcasm comes from. Some actions on the right do reject me. They make me ill to me stomach, and want to scream or weep.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)