How to Deal With Social Anxiety

Eric Barker offer a well researched post on how to deal with social anxiety. Here's an excerpt:

  1. Mindfulness recommends “noting” troublesome thoughts like fear. Recognize and accept them to let them go.
  2. Neuroscience advocates “labeling.” (Frankly, this is a lot like noting but backed by some PhDs and an fMRI.)
  3. Stoicism has “premeditation.” That’s when you ask, “What’s the worst that could happen?” and realize it’s not that bad.
  4. Neuroscience also recommends “reappraisal.” This is reinterpreting your feelings with a new story that makes them less scary.

A random bunch of tips? Nope. So what do they all have in common? You gotta use your brain. You gotta think. Some might reply, “I am thinking, I’m thinking about all the awful stuff that could happen if I embarrass myself. In fact, I can’t STOP thinking about it!” But you’re not thinking. You’re reacting. Fight or flight. Like an animal would.

Here's something Barker's article that I didn't appreciate.  Intense mental focus "smothers" anxiety.

When your thinking brain — the prefrontal cortex — is highly engaged, it slams the brakes on feelings. And you can use this trick deliberately. Anything that gets you thinking actively can smother anxiety.

This makes perfect sense, given the limited scope of attention. If you fill your head with challenging problem solving, there simply isn't room for anxiety.  Barker suggests that one thing to focus your mind on is your fears--face your fears, and it will keep anxiety at bay.  Barker reminds that we are not our thoughts.   Therefore, instead of saying, “I’m feeling anxious,” say say, “There is anxiety.”  Instead, note the existence of scary thoughts. I'll keep this advice in mind.

Continue ReadingHow to Deal With Social Anxiety

The dark underbelly of competition

From Truthdig,

Societies worldwide are suffering epidemics of mental illness because “human beings, the ultrasocial mammals, whose brains are wired to respond to other people, are being peeled apart,” writes George Monbiot at The Guardian. “Though our wellbeing is inextricably linked to the lives of others, everywhere we are told that we will prosper through competitive self-interest and extreme individualism.” The consequence? “[P]lagues of anxiety, stress, depression, social phobia, eating disorders, self-harm and loneliness.”

Continue ReadingThe dark underbelly of competition

Why we SHOULD talk to strangers

Kim Stark has made a career of talking to strangers. She made it her task to try to understand why she does that, in this TED talk. She has decided that it is better to use one's perceptions than to use categories, such as the category of "stranger." Using this category means that we are not treating others as fully human. There are other benefits. Some studies show that people are more comfortable opening up to strangers than to people they believe they know. We expect that people we know understand us--we expect them to read our minds. Not so with strangers, with whom we start from scratch. Sometimes they do understand us better. Maybe we need strangers, but how should we interact with them, how do we balance both civility and privacy, which are the guiding rules in the U.S. In other countries there are other rules. In Denmark, many folks are extremely adverse to talking to strangers. Stark offers and exercise that involves smiling, and then "triangulation," commenting on a third person or a thing. Or engage in "noticing," such as complimenting the other person on something (and you can most easily talk to a stranger's dog or baby). Or engage in "disclosure," sharing a personal experience, and this tends to cause the "stranger" to reciprocate. Stark's main message is that we need to stop being so wary of strangers and to make a place for them in our lives. At The Atlantic, James Hamblin follows up with his own explorations on talking to strangers.

Continue ReadingWhy we SHOULD talk to strangers

Glenn Loury discusses racism with Sam Harris

I found this discussion of race issues by Glenn C. Loury and Sam Harris to be a lively, challenging and candid discussion. Consider, for example, this excerpt on "structural racism":

This is one of the reasons why I think the term “structural racism” is so compelling to many people. But I, a social scientist, find the evocation of that kind of one-size-fits-all narrative—structural racism—inadequate to getting an account of what’s actually going on. It’s not as if there’s a bunch of white people meeting somewhere deciding to make the laws in order to repress blacks. And it’s not as if the outcomes that people are concerned about—in the example at hand, disparities in the incidence of incarceration—are independent of the free choices and decisions that are being made by people, in this case black people, who might end up finding themselves in prison. They made a decision to participate in criminal activities that were clearly known to be illicit and perhaps carried the consequences that they are now suffering, didn’t they? Sometimes the decisions they make have enormous negative consequences for other black people. Do we want to inquire about what’s going on in the homes and communities and backgrounds from which people are coming who are the subjects of this racial inequality? Or are we to assume that any such deficits or disadvantages that are causally associated with their involvement in lawbreaking, and that are related to their own community organization, structures of family, attentiveness of parenting, and so forth, are nevertheless themselves the consequence of white racism? Black people wouldn’t be acting that way if it weren’t for white racism. If there were greater opportunity, if the schools were better funded, if it hadn’t been for slavery, the black family wouldn’t have… So forth, and so on. [more . . . ]

Continue ReadingGlenn Loury discusses racism with Sam Harris