I really hate posting this stuff. I can think of countless other topics I would prefer. I’ve drained my tank of political diatribe. That ship sailed out of my emotional dock many months ago when I decided it was healthier to take a breath and envision the next election which is closer in sight now.
So much for that plan.
The Covid virus situation has now supplanted my short lived peace of mind and once again made it difficult to contain my stress because of other people’s behavior. Again, I am challenged to channel myself away from it all, but this time, its harder.
Its harder, because, unlike confrontational political creatures who we can physically distance ourselves from, we can only distance ourselves so much from the behavior of people flouting social distancing guidelines in a pandemic. The inconvenient truth is that flouters of social distance guidelines affect our public health risk. In a big way. In a (Knock! Knock! Hello! Is anyone home??) PANDEMIC kind of way.
What’s really disturbing to me is how people around me in my own community, and circles, and clearly too many other parts of this country, seem to think there is a straight line from deciding, or not deciding, to observe social distance guidelines. Their rationale appears to be, if I don’t want to relax my own social guidelines, then I don’t have to be around those who are willing to relax them, and I should not be lecturing, or spoiling anybody else’s fun.
I don’t recall seeing “teacher” show up on the career compatibility test I took when I was twenty-one, but I am called upon to play that role now.
Today’s lesson begins and ends with the simple formula of how a pandemic starts…
Person #1 observes social distancing tightly, controlling contact outside their household to essential purposes.
Person #2 observes social distancing loosely, interacting in social gatherings beyond household members.
Person #2 contracts the Covid-19 virus from the social gatherings.
Person #2 then comes in contact later with Person #1.
Person #1, who practiced tighter social distancing than Person #2, is now exposed to the same Covid-19 virus because of Person #2.
All of this potentially takes place in a single day or two with no one knowing it because the symptoms take 1-2 weeks to appear, which then allow both Persons #1, and #2, to unknowingly transmit the virus to someone else. The rate of transmission is reported to be 3 to 1. Do the math. Presto! Pandemic!
If the above crash course lesson doesn’t explain why someone else’s behavior is completely relevant to mine, and exponentially, everyone else, who is trying to hold the fort here, then I can’t help you any further. You may think social distancers like me are spoiling your fun, but if this trend below plays out further, you will be the ones spoiling it for everybody.
>MB
From ABC News:
Why People are Flouting Coronavirus Social Distancing Precautions That We Know Save Lives
Experts say factors like risk aversion play a heavy role.
By
Ivan Pereira
May 30, 2020, 10:57 AM
10 min read
People packed into a pool at Lake of the Ozarks, Missouri.Parks in New York City, the epicenter of the outbreak, jammed with sunbathers.A crowded brunch spot in Colorado with diners celebrating Mother’s Day.With more than 100,000 Americans dead and rising from the novel coronavirus, health experts and other leaders have been pleading for people to adhere to their strict guidelines to keep people safe.But all too recently, these and other examples, large and small, have emerged of people blatantly defying social distancing and face-covering rules.
Psychology experts said they haven’t been surprised by this type of behavior, since it’s been a long-standing issue with public health: the ability for people to assess risk. Rajita Sinha, a professor of psychiatry at Yale University and the founding director of the Yale Stress Center, said the uncertainty about when the pandemic will end, access to information and one’s underlying beliefs can influence someone to flout precautions.
“Those features of the current pandemic really put into gear people’s need for control which is an important aspect of coping,” she told ABC News. “Gaining control is a basic way we cope.”
Sinha and other health experts say there is no easy solution to the problem, but there are ways to help those individuals see the need for health precautions.
She noted that risk is a very abstract concept to people. While some people may look at the COVID-related news and feel fear from the images of sick patients, others may want to take their chances, Sinha said.
“If you’re in a bad scenario where there is a lot of danger…if you worried you may not be able to get yourself out, there is a mechanism where we just plow along,” she said.
Joshua Ackerman, associate professor of psychology at the University of Michigan, who has studied behaviors related to infectious diseases, said individualism also plays a part in adhering to guidelines.
“If people think masks are self-protection and you don’t think you’ll need protection, you won’t wear them,” he told ABC News.
Sten Vermund, the dean of Yale School of Public Health, likened the behavior to running a red light.
“They don’t perceive enough personal risk and they don’t have a sense of altruism that is acute,” he told ABC News.
Attitudes on masks and social distancing are mixed in the U.S., according to polling from ABC News and Ipsos. At the end of April, a large majority of the country (82%) were concerned about coronavirus and just 14% thought stay-at-home orders restricted personal liberty. Earlier in April, an ABC News/Ipsos poll found that 55% of Americans had worn a mask in the last week.
While guidance on social distancing has largely been consistent and long-standing — staying 6 feet away from others to prevent the transmission of respiratory droplets, avoiding large gatherings and staying home — wearing a mask has been has been much murkier. Public health officials initially suggested that people not wear masks and instead reserve them for health workers, but on April 3, they recommended that people wear cloth masks in public to prevent asymptomatic transmission.
That message has been further confused by President Trump generally refusing to wear a mask, despite the CDC recommendation.
Information, particularly that which is circulating in one’s immediate circle, is an important factor for people’s behavior’s during the pandemic, according to Ackerman. Even though the U.S. leads the world with over 1.7 million cases, there are whole counties, particularly in rural communities, where there are few or no cases. The pandemic looks very different in those places compared to hotspots such as New York City.
Ackerman said the lack of centralized and consistent health-related messaging from local, state and federal leaders and the polarization of news sources will lead people to make different choices.
“People listen to information and they use that to calculate their own risk. In situations like this, sometimes the accuracy of the information is far less important to the availability of that information,” he said.
Tune into ABC at 1 p.m. ET and ABC News Live at 4 p.m. ET every weekday for special coverage of the novel coronavirus with the full ABC News team, including the latest news, context and analysis.
Sinha said that the sometimes lax response to COVID can be amplified where others act similarly for the same reasons. She pointed out the examples of rallies and other demonstrations of people who have expressed frustration with the rise in unemployment and the loss of other social norms.
“They’re worried about work and unemployment and other stressors affecting them and family. They’re not paying attention to everything else,” Sinha said. Many protesters at reopening rallies around the country have, however, worn masks.
Vermund said there are also Americans who don’t have direct connections with the people most vulnerable to COVID, like the elderly or immunocompromised, so it may take longer for them to grasp the need for precautions. Although the true number of infected is unknown, just a fraction of the country has had confirmed COVID cases and a vast number of those have been concentrated in the urban Northeast.
“We lived through this during the HIV era,” he explained. “During the early years, 1981, 1982, people were not changing their behaviors because they weren’t so close to people who got ill. By 1985, the pandemic was so striking and so many people got to know people who got ill and died, that behaviors started to change.”
Ackerman said there will likely be increasing cases of people not adhering to social distancing and face-covering precautions as states being to reopen their economies. He noted the psychological notion of “goal completion” — in this case, the sense that the pandemic may be over because life appears to be returning to normal — may give some people a false sense of security.
“If we think about the information provided to people…one of the goals given was that we have to flatten the curve. To the extent that people think that the curve has been flattened, they might think the worst is behind them,” he said.
He and other health experts, however, said the public can still turn things around and increase compliance with social distancing rules. Sinha said people are more prone to comply with health orders if they have a clear understanding of how it affects the people around them.
Even if it is just one person articulating to a friend or family member that the face masks and distracting practices help the greater good, it could get them to change their minds and pass it on, according to Sinha.
“There is no reason it can’t be done if you can build a narrative around it. If you articulate the full narrative that we are shifting gears and preparing for the next phase, some people will listen,” she said.
First off, contrary to the posed question of the headline below, I am most certainly NOT ready to expand my quarantine bubble. I’ve been off the radar for any social hubbubs for three months. I don’t see any compelling reason to return to the fray at this moment in time. It ‘aint gonna kill me to wait awhile longer. My id, ego, superego, and other parts of my psyche will survive intact. I’m not going to decline some dark rabbit hole of shrinking self worth because I can’t drink bloody mary’s and or martinis in meetups for another few weeks. It ‘aint gonna kill me. And it ‘aint gonna kill you. On the other hand, if you don’t want to wait to do your social thangs, shop, eat out, and pocket your mask in confident defiance, that could kill you. And, it could kill me. I didn’t write this script, folks. Somebody else did. I’m just not interested in re-wrtiing it.
“Why not?” You may ask. To which I would answer with another question to you…”Why should I?” To which you may answer…”Well, the state is reopening and relaxing social guidelines.” To which I would say…”Oh really? Why are they doing that?” To which you would answer “Positive test results have gone down.” To which I would say,..”That is an unreliable marker at this time, which may not reflect the true viral presence. You need to read more about how higher testing volume skews reality, plus the bad testing itself, which is only 50% accurate, plus bungled CDC and state testing results.” To which you might answer…”I don’t have time for this banter, or to read these things. I miss my friends. I miss shopping. I miss eating out!” To which I would say… “Good luck, take care, and I’ll see you every two weeks between your forays.”
Ready to expand your quarantine bubble? Here’s what you need to know
The answer, experts say, depends on where you live and what social precautions you practice.
As states reopen, the public is grappling with how to have safe social interactions. (Getty Images.)
TODAY
By Maura Hohman
With restaurants and other nonessential businesses reopening across the country, many Americans have taken this as a sign it’s safe to return to behavior from before the coronavirus lockdown.
The truth is, though, whether you can socialize freely depends largely on where you live, Dr. Sten Vermund, dean of Yale’s School of Public Health in New Haven, Connecticut, told TODAY.
For example, in towns where the case count is zero, it may be safe “to go back to life normally,” he said. For areas with relatively low circulation of the virus, he added, the question for public health professionals becomes: What’s the probability that social interaction will “rekindle the forest fire” of widespread transmission?
Regardless of the state you live in, knowing the case counts and local guidance for your area is paramount. Vermund recommended websites like COVIDcommitment.org and HowWeFeel.org.
This data should inform how you decide to socialize, if at all, as nothing right now is “100% risk-free,” Robert Bednarczyk, PhD, professor at Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, told TODAY.
Here’s more specific guidance to determine if it’s safe to see friends and family now and in the future.
Is it safe to see friends right now?
Again, the answer depends largely on where you live. If that’s an area that still has stay-at-home orders in place, like New York City or Los Angeles, then you should stick to socializing just with people in your household, Hilary Godwin, PhD, dean of University of Washington’s School of Public Health in Seattle, told TODAY.
Right now, most if not all states have banned mass gatherings, like you’d see at a bar or concert. So continue to avoid these settings, even outdoors, and don’t have large groups at your home.
For interactions less packed than parties but aren’t outdoors with 6 feet, Bednarczyk explained that there’s “spectrum” of safety. “It’s not necessarily a good-versus-bad type of situation … Having one person over to your house is at a lower end of the spectrum.”
Godwin also stressed that the physical distance aspect is the most important part of reducing risk.
“The most frequent way (COVID-19) seems to be spreading is people in close proximity to each other indoors for extended periods of time,” she explained. “The perfect way to reintroduce getting together socially with friends would be sitting out on your front porch on chairs that are 6 feet apart … hanging out with good separation outside where there’s air circulating.”
How can we socialize safely in the coming weeks to months?
Following guidance from local health departments is the best way to gauge what’s safe, Vermund said, adding that until there are explicit changes, take as many precautions as possible.
In the absence of specific rules, Godwin advised expanding social interactions slowly so authorities can determine whether they’re impacting the spread of the coronavirus in the community. It’s not “a light switch” where groups gathering will suddenly be safe, she said.
Before meeting up with friends, look for signs that your community can handle the risk, Godwin continued. For example, if you live in an area with sparse testing or frequent news coverage of an overwhelmed health care system, these are signs it’s not a good time to expand your circle.
If you choose to socialize with people outside your household, she recommended picking “COVID buddies” — people who only interact with each other and have similar risks related to the coronavirus and behavioral patterns. You also want people with similar “philosophies on precautions,” she said. This way, if one person takes risks, there’s no unnecessary exposure for others because the rest of the group behaves the same way.
But again, keep an eye on your local health department’s website. It can take weeks for the effects of reopening to materialize, and it’s possible that restrictions will tighten again, Vermund said.
What will the rest of the year look like for social interactions?
“What we’re all hoping for is in the next month or two, most regions will start shifting into this limited social interaction phase,” Godwin said. “While we’re in that phase, we’ll check to make sure the number of cases don’t get out of control, and then we’ll start allowing slightly larger gatherings.”
In the mean time, pay attention to state and local guidance, and follow the big four, as Vermund called them:
Physical distance of 6 feet
Face coverings
Hand hygiene
Opting for the outdoors
What if you’re high risk for the coronavirus?
For demographics who could become severely ill from COVID-19, like people over 65 or with underlying conditions, the inevitable risks of social interaction are greater. These groups “need to avoid getting infected at all costs,” Vermund said.
So, be “aggressive” about precautions, he added. Tell people around you to wear masks and maintain 6 feet of distance. In addition, Godwin encouraged these individuals to self-isolate ideally until there are no cases of the coronavirus in their area.
Connecticut is but one single solitary state that has clamped down on public activity, business operations, and asserted itself in cautious messaging to its residents for the last two months.
There are 49 other states in our country. Many have done the same, if not more. Some have done less. Still other state governments, in doing little from the start, or acting late, have cemented their reputation as lands of questionable judgment.
I am fortunate to live in a community with a leading educational institution that publishes articles such as these to remind readers to stay vigilant, and stay smart. But, there’s more to it than that. People can not wait for articles like this to magically drop from the sky into their lap. We need to proactively follow writers and dispensers of information that are interested in our public health and knowledge scores. Not politics and commerce interests. I “choose” to subscribe to, and trust, posts and information lines like these.
As I drove through a couple neighboring towns in New Haven this past “re-opening” week, I noticed some things that changed literally overnight. Restaurants have set up outdoor tables wherever they can in hailing distance of wait staff. At one of these outdoor table, sat four diners kicking back in their summer shorts, golf shirts, and sleeveless dresses, crowing, laughing, having a good ol time while throwing back beers as if all were finally as it should be. I couldn’t help thinking this group, as many others, felt it should’ve been this way all along since early April. Just down the road, at a popular tequila bar, sitting at a single hi-top table positioned directly on the sidewalk, just aside of its main entrance, and inarguably, encroaching on foot traffic passing by, sat five people elbow to elbow indulging in happy hour. Over the next days more of these sightings were obvious. People sitting together in parties of four, or five, just barely six feet apart from more tables with other people having food and drinks brought out to them. In virtually all of these scenarios, the tables were directly on the sidewalk, sometimes, not always, separated by a waist high iron or wooden fence, where pedestrians were walking by close enough to pick a french fry off a table.
I know I’ve got company who would find both these scenes unsettling at this time and place. I also know there are others who are next in line to grab a table and damn the torpedoes. Thus is the pervasive contradiction of human behavior which opposes as much as it embraces, sometimes with careful deliberation, sometimes with thoughtless impulse.
Ever since this viral mess reached its second month in April, no less June, there’s been as much discussion about the social casualty of isolation, as there has been about the economic and health casualties. There have been so many stress points trying to reconcile these very different vested interests, that the conversation inevitably degrades into conflict, judgment, and lost tempers among people who might not otherwise be colliding in their lives.
The question was glaringly obvious. How is it possible to prioritize these three distinct focal points affecting human beings in such direct and powerful ways, each of which has its own intertwined impact on the other? To me, it is almost impossible. Where does impossible leave us?
It became clear to me months ago, and remains so, that these challenging times are at the top of the list of what organized central government was conceived to address. For instance, conceiving and executing comprehensive plans to address major issues impacting our economy, our public health, and our societal well being. Sadly, during this time, it also became clear, that our federal government would fail us spectacularly in this fundamental mission.
So, are we back to impossible after all? I don’t believe it is impossible IF reality is faced, sacrifices are made, and the inevitable losses are accepted. If we as individuals, as groups, as calm, meditative thinkers, with respect for ourselves, and life around us, gather credible information about this public health risk, and act responsibly, we can salvage the best outcome for ourselves. Even given inevitable losses, there’s a control for a better or worse outcome. Its horrible. Its been horrible. People died. More will die. Business closed. More will close. People lost jobs. More will lose jobs. Still, I ask, you want better, or worse?
Covid -19 is still here. It still gets people sick, and it still kills. As true as it was in February and March, it is true now. Any single action by any given individual in the public space has the potential to trigger a transmission contact, and that person to the next, and so on, and so forth. In case any of you have lost sight of this. This is how an epidemic, and pandemic works. It’s how we got here in the first place. It’s not just about what one person does, or one small group of tipsy teenagers throwing back shots at a crooked table outside a dive bar. It still is about all of us. Its still the same. The virus is still here in plain sight. And there’s still no cure for it.
Let’s all just say for the millionth time. It sucks. It sucks thinking about this all the time. But, we still have to think about it. We still have to think twice before we decide to act like we used to act.. So let’s do that. Think twice.
“Risk of Resurgence” in COVID-19 Epidemic if Connecticut Reopens Too Quickly, YSPH Report Finds
May 22, 2020
by Michael Greenwood
As Connecticut tentatively reopens this week after a two-month shutdown, a new report by the Yale School of Public Health warns that if people resume normal activities and contacts too quickly there will be a “sharp resurgence” in hospitalizations and deaths in the coming months.
Associate Professor Forrest Crawford and postdocs Olga Morozova and Zehang (Richard) Li created a mathematical model to predict COVID-19 transmission, hospitalization and deaths in the state under “slow” and “fast” reopening scenarios.
If the state reopens too quickly, a second wave may be unleashed, the effects of which could be worse than what has already happened. It could result in an estimated total of over 8,100 deaths by September 1 in Connecticut. More than 3,500 state residents have already died from coronavirus.
“If contact rates return quickly to levels seen in early March, the number of new cases could rise dramatically over the summer” said Crawford, the report’s lead author. “Connecticut decision-makers need to closely monitor data on new cases and hospitalizations, as well as transmission model projections, in order to reopen the state safely.”
Under a slow reopening scenario (defined as relaxing restrictions so that contact increases at a rate of 10 percent each month) the incidence of the disease will still increase slightly in the coming weeks but will taper off and stay at lower levels. Hospitalizations for the disease will continue to decline, rising slightly in August and the number of coronavirus-related deaths will rise slowly, with an estimated total of 4,600 to 7,100 by September 1.
Under the fast scenario (defined as increasing contact at a rate of 10 percent every two weeks), Crawford and colleagues found that the number of new infections is likely to spike throughout the summer, potentially exceeding hospitalization capacity and resulting in anywhere from 5,400 to 13,400 total deaths by September 1.
“These projections are based on the latest available data and knowledge from the scientific community,” said Li. “As we gather new evidence about transmissibility of the disease and effectiveness of interventions, our model projections will improve.”
If contact rates return quickly to levels seen in early March, the number of new cases could rise dramatically over the summer.
The researchers attributed the recent decline in hospitalizations to the reduction in contacts following distancing measures implemented by the state officials. “It is too early to return to normal. As some businesses reopen, it is even more important for people to continue practicing social distancing and avoid traveling to highly affected areas, most importantly New York City,” said Morozova.
Yale School of Public Health Professor Albert Ko co-chaired Gov. Ned Lamont’s ReOpen Connecticut Advisory Group, which strongly advised a cautious and conservative schedule as the state starts to return to normal.
“These model projections of the future risk of COVID-19 resurgence directly informed the recommendations made to mitigate this risk,” Ko said. The advisory group, which recently completed its work, was not involved in the preparation of the report.
Other key points from the report include:
Real-time metrics (such as hospitalizations, case counts and deaths) may not provide adequate warning to avoid a resurgence.
Closure of schools and the state’s stay-at-home order greatly reduced transmission of the virus.
There are substantial gaps in knowledge about critical aspects of the disease, including the proportion of infected individuals who are asymptomatic, infectiousness of children, the effects of testing and contact tracing on isolation of infected individuals and how contact patterns may change following reopening.
It’s common to use anger to deny feelings of vulnerability
Via Psychology Today, Leon Seltzer, Ph.D.
This is Part 1 of 3 parts. Parts 2 and 3 will be posted soon.
Part 1–Denying Vulnerability: “You’re Really Making Me Angry!”
To feel anxiety and not back away from whatever’s causing it requires marked self-control. Resisting the temptation to avoid anything we experience as threatening takes considerable courage.
We humans are so wired that the slightest perception of danger leads to feelings of vulnerability, setting into motion the impulse to flee, freeze or dissociate. And that sudden flash of trepidation can be prompted by anything that threatens our sense of control.
It could, for instance, relate to sharing ourselves personally in a way that exposes us to the other’s indifference, disapproval, or anger. When we confide our thoughts and feelings in another, we may also fear that our sharing won’t be reciprocated. Or that it could be used against us. Or that it won’t be empathized with, or validated. And our deepest sense of vulnerability arises when we find ourselves in situations that tap into primal fears of abandonment. Or evoke its opposite, engulfment–where our personal boundaries feel so threatened that we fear losing our very self.
Finally, whether our self-protective impulse to escape such situations is blindly followed or consciously withstood depends on our ability to stay calm during periods of emotional imbalance. And such composure isn’t at all “natural.” Rather, it’s a strength–or power–that we need to deliberately cultivate.
Frequently, when we stand firm in menacing situations, we’re able to do so only through the anaesthetizing emotion of anger. Getting angry with people who provoke our distress enables us to blame and negate them, and thus neutralize the uncomfortable feelings they’re causing us. But reactively becoming angry isn’t about overcoming our anxiety so much as covering it up. All we’re really doing here is masking feelings of uneasiness or insecurity by summoning up a self-vindicating sense of righteousness.
For example, when a person experienced as crucial to our welfare (say, our spouse) sharply criticizes us, we’re likely to feel threatened, our emotional equilibrium suddenly turned upside down. Very few of us can simply “sit” with the criticism, objectively evaluate its merits, and respond accordingly. On the contrary, unless we depressively slink away from our mate, we’re likely to experience a strong urge to react antagonistically–attempting to protect against the felt assault to our self-esteem by either strenuously defending ourselves or by attacking them right back. Thrown off balance by the criticism, desperate to restore a positive sense of self, we look for a way–any way–to discredit our “assailant.”
But the immediate sense of strength our defensive anger yields is finally much less like bravery than bravado. And beyond allaying our anxiety, it doesn’t solve a thing. We haven’t coped with the threatening situation by sharing honestly and directly about how it made us feel (i.e., vulnerable), but merely substituted a much less disturbing feeling to camouflage our distress. For the moment, we’ve successfully resorted to anger to quiet our fears, but this anxiety reduction has been achieved mostly at our partner’s expense. And when we get into the habit of alleviating uncomfortable feelings by getting mad at our spouse, we invariably end up creating more discord in our relationship–setting ourselves up for continuing conflict (and of course the need for more and more anger).
Power struggles in relationships are in fact mostly efforts to get our dependency needs met without ever confessing to our mate the anxiety their refusal would cause us. And typically we’re not at all conscious of how much our deepest feelings of security hinge on our partner’s positive response. Yet even if we were aware of the primal source of our relational fears and frustrations, it’s unlikely we’d be willing to take the risk of straightforwardly admitting these unmet needs–whether for attention, reassurance, empathy, support, validation, or simple warmth. The readiness to honestly and unashamedly admit these needs simply calls for more psychological courage than most of us have available.
To betray just how dependent on our spouse we were (with all the vulnerability such dependency implies) would likely only exacerbate our most secret fear that we couldn’t be sufficiently cared about–or that maybe we weren’t even worth being so cared about. And if we were actually to reveal just how much power our partner had over our feelings, how could we avoid further endangering our sense of personal safety in the relationship?
Along with our fears, most of us also feel a certain shame about divulging our dependencies. After all, as adults it’s almost always considered a virtue to be autonomous and self-reliant, whereas the mere suggestion of neediness is generally associated with being weak. So even though all of us may have quite legitimate dependency needs left over from childhood, revealing our hurt feelings when they’re not being met would expose our susceptibility to a degree that hardly seems tenable.
And so we’re far more likely to criticize our partners when they ignore or deny us–or angrily demand from them what they’ve already refused–than to openly confess feelings of deprivation. But by self-protectively reacting to them negatively and taking out our frustrations on them, we decrease yet further the chance that in the future they’ll be more inclined to provide us with the succor we may so desperately need from them.
Anger is certainly one of the most common ways we protect against feeling vulnerable (and here, note my piece, “Feeling Vulnerable? No Problem—Just Get Angry“). But how do we counteract such feelings without defaulting to the pseudo-empowering reaction of anger? When we’re feeling accused, devalued, powerless, rejected, or unloved, how do we stay in touch with the anxiety these feelings typically generate and literally think ourselves out of anxiety–eventually getting to the other side where we’re able to feel safe and okay? How, in short, can we muster the strength to deal more openly with all the things that imperil our sense of well-being?
Psychologically, accomplishing this feat of staying present and holding onto our emotional poise when it feels under siege may well be one of our greatest challenges in life. But if we can develop this ability, we’ll likely discover a sense of personal power greater than any we’ve ever experienced. And in learning how to share our hurts–and our fears of being hurt–we may at last realize our potential for emotional intimacy, one of the greatest rewards of a committed relationship.
Cultivating such an invaluable personal resource–one that may well represent the ultimate in self-control–lies in our ability to (1) self-validate, and (2) self-soothe.
NOTE 1: Part 2 of this post centers on how we can become more self-validating, while Part 3 takes up the various ways we can learn how to better soothe ourselves.
NOTE 3: To explore other posts I’ve written for Psychology Today,:please click here.
About the Author
Leon F. Seltzer, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist and the author of Paradoxical Strategies in Psychotherapy. He holds doctorates in English and Psychology. His posts have received over 39 million views.
