Comments on Living Life Without Giving a F@$%

Stop Giving a F*ck

This post is, in part, a response to something I saw on social media. As I did not want to do something I have recently been educated to understand as thread-jacking* or possibly flaming, I elected to discuss the matter here, in my own forum. I welcome discussion and commentary, as long as it remains respectful and appropriate (from anyone but spammers, who have forced me to moderate comments…sorry).

The article referenced was posted on a site called lifehacker in their section about health issues, discussed and posted by Melanie Pinola (2014). It was recommended as including one of their “favorite pieces of advice” and summarized the information that was originally posted by Julien Smith (founder and CEO of Breather) on in 2011.

I had some mixed feelings about the article. The general premise of the article appears to be self-actualizing disclosure about letting go of societal strictures on conduct and self-esteem to be a happier person. I cannot argue with that. I really cannot. The author goes on to describe five steps that can bring you (the reader) to the Zen-like state of “not giving a f@$%” about what people think. There are some really good points that he makes: Doing things that you think are embarrassing, accepting awkwardness, refusing boundaries, telling the truth, and beginning your new life by trying new things. All of these are some pretty decent suggestions for living a fuller life. I also agree with the author in his observation that assumptions that people are worried about or paying any attention to what you are doing, saying, or anything else are generally irrational and arrogant. It’s true. While we waste our time and precious cognitive energies on worrying about what people are thinking about us, they are usually doing the same thing and couldn’t give a rip about anything outside their own little self-centered bubble of neuroses. People who worry consistently about what people think of them and about them and live their lives to the script written in their own imaginings of what they believe others to want are a bit arrogant. Yes, arrogant. The rest of the world probably doesn’t care a whole lot about what you do if it isn’t impacting their own freedoms and comforts. One of my favorite quotes from a different source: “Breaking news from Galileo! The world does not actually revolve around you!” People have their own stuff. They are worried about their own lives, their own loves, their own interests. Aside from the occasional busy-body that feels compelled to be in everyone else’s stuff (usually to avoid dealing with their own, shocker!), people don’t actually let their thoughts and concerns drift outside the sphere of their own personal daily concerns.

So far, so good. However, here is where we come to the sticking point. There is a difference between being genuine and confident and “not giving a F@$%”. I can hope that the majority of people who read the articles referenced will glean the pertinent and positive from them. Unfortunately, I fear that there are an equal number of people that will read these pieces as license to stomp all over the thoughts, feelings, and comforts of others that brush their lives in the bustle of daily interaction. One thing I do care about is respect, for myself and for others, and I strongly suspect that there are a number of people who have or will read these articles as “I don’t have to have respect for anyone else’s feelings or thoughts or opinions. I can be a bigoted, opinionated, hateful asshat and that’s cool because I’ve stopped giving a F@$% about what other people think.” I don’t necessarily believe that was the intent of the author, but intent can so frequently be misconstrued and misused by those who are probably going to be bigoted, opinionated, hateful asshats with or without permissive support of electronic or print media.

I have reached an age (or perhaps a phase since it seems to hit people at different times) where I am less concerned about the opinions or thoughts of strangers. I am not so very vain as to assume that most of the people I run into at the grocery store even notice that I am there (though I think I will still avoid wearing my pajamas or see through pants). I do not actively seek the approbation of the world at large for my appearance or actions (though I do try to avoid confrontation with civil and federal statutes that might result in my incarceration). I do not live my life always to the plan of others who share my path, but… and this is a big one… I have people in my life that I care for deeply. Not all of us share the same opinions, lifestyles, interests, or approaches to obstacles in our shared path. In some instances, the differences might surprise, disappoint, or hurt those for whom I have affection. There are many who would say that if they cannot accept the things about me that make me different from them, that I do not need them in my life and good riddance. I cannot embrace such a philosophy. Yes, there are people who it might be no great loss to amputate from my circle of influence, but there are others who it would hurt me greatly to lose or even disappoint. I do not want to cause disappointment or emotional pain to anyone for whom I care. So, despite living my life without seeking the approval of the world, I will continue to live my life in a way that will avoid causing my loved ones pain or shame, and I will hope to make those I love proud to claim connection with me. All that aside, I still embrace the idea of freedom and joy in the spirit of one of my favorite poems by a lady named Jenny Joseph:

When I am an old woman I shall wear purple
With a red hat that doesn’t go, and doesn’t suit me,
And I shall spend my pension
on brandy and summer gloves
And satin sandals,
and say we’ve no money for butter.
I shall sit down on the pavement when I am tired,
And gobble up samples in shops and press alarm bells,
And run my stick along the public railings,
And make up for the sobriety of my youth.
I shall go out in my slippers in the rain
And pick the flowers in other people’s gardens,
And learn to spit.
You can wear terrible shirts and grow more fat,
And eat three pounds of sausages at a go,
Or only bread and pickle for a week,
And hoard pens and pencils and beer mats
and things in boxes.
But now we must have clothes that keep us dry,
And pay our rent and not swear in the street,
And set a good example for the children.
We will have friends to dinner and read the papers.
But maybe I ought to practice a little now?
So people who know me
are not too shocked and surprised,
When suddenly I am old
and start to wear purple!

My parting words: Read the articles. The disapprobation of others should never prevent you from making healthy and happy choices for your life. There are some really good points, but try to remember that while “not giving a F@$%” gives you freedom, truly not caring is not freedom, it is sociopathic. So, live a life embracing joy and enjoying activities that promote your wellbeing and self-esteem without worrying about the approbation of strangers. You will be healthier and happier in the long run. But please consider the feelings of people who care about you and whether you are willing to cause them pain. You might still give a F@$% about them, and hopefully, if they care about you, they will support you in your genuineness and positive self-esteem.

References and Acknowledgements:

*Threadjack – To take over the content of message thread by changing the subject of discourse to a topic outside the purview of the original subject and/or forum, while maintaining the subject line. A form of amusement for trolls. Threadjacking is distinguished from flaming, as flames are quasi-personal attack on a poster or on a poster’s style of discourse, where threadjacking is deliberately steering the discussion off topic.

Pinola, M. (2014). Stop caring about what others think, and get back your self-respect. Retrieved from

Smith, J. (2011). The complete guide to not giving a fuck. Retrieved from

lifehacker online web publication/e-zine with multiple contributors and some interesting articles

Breather is a company that designs and provides peaceful spaces for corporate or private use and can be reserved in a number of different locations

Don’t Pet My Peeves

Before anyone gets the bright idea that this is a nicely gift-wrapped manual for how to get under my skin, I will preface this post with a declaration that not all of these little peculiarities are my own. I have gleaned from conversations with friends and colleagues a few of the little things that really bug them, and I’ve added some of my own. As it is, I believe it presents an interesting collection of quirks that range in response from rolled eyes to grinding teeth. This is by no means an exhaustive list, and I’m sure there are a good many others that could be added, but to capture them all might break the internet.

Pet peeves are those little things that bother us just enough to irritate, but never so much as to excite rage. Generally, they are insignificant behaviors or aspects of life that other people around us may not even notice, or at the very least find perfectly acceptable. The first use of the term seems to have originated in the turn of the last century. It allegedly is derived from the word peevish or annoyed. The point being that whatever the occurrence in question, the response was less explosive than seething.

And on with the show…

1. The “correct” way to hang toilet paper:

So, I’ve seen this over and over. There are polls and memes and you-name-it all over the internet debating the right or wrong way to hang the toilet paper roll on the holder. By this, of course, we are talking about whether the loose end goes over the top and comes to the front or if it goes back towards the wall and pulls from underneath the roll.

Seriously, people. I will admit that my preference has always been the towards-the-front application, but I strongly suspect that was instilled by my mother who always went the extra step of folding the end into a neat little triangle before guests arrived (don’t even ask). Truth be told, I don’t very well understand getting all that torqued over the perspective of the loose end of something with which I am going to wipe my bum. Generally, I am just thrilled when people actually think to put a new roll on the holder when the old one is spent.

2. I have an ideal. Axe me something about nucular strategery, irregardless of the previous topic, ekcetera:

We’ve all heard them, right? Those colloquial pronunciations that don’t quite match the spelling or Oxfordian English presentation of the vernacular. People will generally notice if it is a public figure making a general ass of himself or herself before the camera lens of publicity, especially if it also makes said individual look to have the verbal IQ of a mollusk. For the most part, however, people will usually overlook the occasional misquoted, poorly articulated presentation of the SAT wordlist. I do have to say, that there is some small nerve in my spinal cord that jumps every time people put that extra consonant on the word “idea” to make the concept into the superlative or place a ‘k’ in the Latin word to indicate “and so on”. It is worse when the speaker is supposed to be not only educated but also holds a professional role of some prominence and representative of my own field, institution, or position. While, I am aware that I may be the only person hearing it; it does make me concerned that the audience will tar me with the same brush of incompetence that could be construed by their ignorance of the English language (even if it is just a frequently used Latin term).

3. The recently much-abused Oxford comma:

This particular grammatical functionary has received way more attention in the “interwebs” of late than I ever would have suspected possible. For those who might not even understand the term to which I refer, the Oxford or serial comma is used when listing more than two items in a phrase or sentence. I found out in the process of editing my dissertation that this particular particle of punctuation is now considered optional. Um… optional? Really? When I was but a wee lass learning to actually compose sentences on paper (yes, sometime around the invention of written language, I know), we were taught about things like subjects, predicates, nouns, and verbs… (see what I did there?) AND the comma in a serial list of objects, people, entities, and ideas was always used before the conjunction (and, or, nor, but, etc.). This was so that you didn’t group the last two items in the list as one entity.

However, this small, insignificant punctuation mark has apparently gone the way of the dodo and is now considered unnecessary. It came as a complete shock to me, I can tell you. However, this seems to be the way of the new world in which we live. I read an article just yesterday about the new punctuation and how our use of texting and social media has changed how we punctuate due to implied emotional content. This goes back to my “Antisocial Media” article and some of the discussions I have had recently about what technology has done to our language and learning. I caution my readers (all three of you now, I think) not to give into this new lackadaisical application of the traditional grammatical forms. Punctuation is important, people! Just think:

It’s time to eat Grandma! vs It’s time to eat, Grandma!

Punctuation saves lives.

4. BTW, txt b4 omw:

While the above is probably an exaggeration, one of the things that appalls me in our current society is the all too frequent use of the “text speak” in what I might consider formal publications. Now, I am not suggesting that the editors of all the scholarly journals on the planet have suddenly decided to take a powder and leave off their duties as grammar police and guardians of comprehensive communication. I have not yet found any glaring incidents of seeing the ridiculous acronyms and abbreviations used for the character and time limited formats of the text environment; BUT sadly, I have seen too many of these used in emails, sometimes those of an alleged professional nature. This is truly a travesty in a world of informality that we cannot at least keep some professionalism with regards, say… formal memorandum sent to an entire department or company sector, correspondents between academic department heads, emails to professional colleagues, or official event fliers in the workplace. I know you are probably thinking, “She’s exaggerating again. Surely professionals wouldn’t do that!” Sorry… I’ve seen it. What people fail to consider (at least those used to communicating in that immediately gratifying way of technology and the speed of electronic transfer) is that when you send something across the internet, there is the very distinct possibility that the document (albeit brief) has the potential longevity to be there in perpetuity and be displayed to an entirely different audience than originally intended. I have found some of them truly amusing, in part because I know that the writer is not nearly as unprofessional as they appear in print. However, to the potential unknown reader, what might the impression be? I can appreciate the convenience of the acronym and abbreviation. I can even support the use of some of these expressions as an almost secret code-like communication, but for the love of all that is sacred to your dignity, please use language in its full beauty when composing communication that might be seen by a broader audience or presented as professional correspondence.

5. Uggs:

Let’s depart for a moment from the intellectual and academic arguments of things that make one peevish. Instead we shall briefly delve into the realm of fashion.

People who know me would tell you, I am not a fashionista, and I am not one to sacrifice comfort or large portions of my bank balance for the latest trends. That being said, the fashion in footwear called Uggs just perplexes me. I can only assume that the name comes from the word ugly. As far as I can tell, these foot coverings were created to look like something that should never leave the house and were designed with the intent to make the leg look as short and wide as possible. Apparently, the origin of these heinous things is actually Australia, where they were actually designed to keep the feet of surfers warm when out of the water. I can see how they might actually be effective in that capacity. I understand that they are warm and comfortable. My problem is that they have become the height of fashion and they can cost as much as $200. If I spend a couple of Benjamins on a set of footwear, they better make me look like the winner of America’s Top Model. Instead, what I generally see is young girls wearing these hideous things on their feet accompanying a miniskirt or leggings and a long sweater or possibly even skinny jeans (and that is a whole other discourse). The effect is incredible. Even if said gal was remarkably well-formed and legs that went from the ground to the sky, what this choice of wardrobe does is cut her off horizontally to produce a wider and shorter silhouette. Why would someone want to do this? Anyhow, out of curiosity, I looked up ugg boots to see what it was all about and found something I found both humorous and interesting:

THE Canadian Inuit call them mukluks, the Native American Indians call them moccasins, and here in Australia we just call them uggies — but no matter what you call them, no matter what part of the world you come from, the fur or wool-lined soft-leather winter boot will always be associated with daggy fashion sense, bogan behaviour, and the outer suburbs.” (Katz, 2006)

Now, anyone need a translation? Daggy and bogan are Australian slang terms that mean unfashionable, ugly, what we Stateside folk might call “the people of Walmart” (no offense to people who just choose to shop from that entity). The author actually states that the ugliest boots on the planet are warm and comfortable, but fashionable… not so much.

6. Uncomfortable non-silence:

Ever met those people who just seem completely unable to stand silence? I expect that going to a library would be pure torture for them. I don’t particularly mind the traditional chatterbox. They are lively people with a lot on their minds and have no apparent internal monologue as they tend to have a running commentary on everything that comes to their notice. It can be entertaining. It is not really these types that are the focus of disapprobation. Instead, I refer you to the random (and sometimes not so random) individuals who in an atmosphere of conversational lull have to fill the lack of speech, to ease their own discomfort, with a plethora of banalities that serve no purpose save to make noise.

Sitting with silence is not always easy. It is one of the most difficult skills that my own profession needs to cultivate before embarking on the path of providing counsel to those in need. I have found myself feeling a bit discomfited by the client who sits for a half-hour span without so much as a word spoken aloud. Sometimes, those are the most revealing and healing moments, however, and I have found my own Herculean effort to remain silent rewarded surprisingly by clients who have said that having a “calm, safe space” was the best therapy they have ever had.

7. Autocorrect hell:

The advent of the autocorrect function for most people have saved time and provided clarity of commonly used verbiage. On the flip side of that argument, I have seen some of the most ridiculous gaffs and blunders created by my own phone that assumes that it knows better than I what it was I was trying to impart. I am certain that you all have enjoyed some of the more spectacular failures of the autocorrect function. Personally, I have spent inordinate amounts of time perusing the damnyouautocorrect site and laughing uproariously at some of the unintended hilarity there.

That being said, I get somewhat aggravated when I am trying to type something in my text frame (or other electronic media) and the suggested words available are not even related to what I was going to say. Combined with the autopopulate feature, it usually takes twice the normal amount of time spent backing up and retyping my original word. Sometimes, I am genuinely baffled by the suggestions. At other times, I want to hurl the phone sharply against the most convenient hard surface because it will not accept that perhaps I know what I am saying and continues trying to convince me of my error by inserting the wrong word over, and over, and over again. Too many of us have become reliant upon our spellcheck and autocorrect for everything from spelling to punctuation and grammar. Sadly, these marvels of modern technology are not perfection and will sometimes substitute extraordinary things into our typed correspondence. So, my public service advisory for this item would be to always proof read rather than rely upon your technology to represent your thoughts in the way you intended.

And last one, for now…

8. The thing that does the thing with the thing:

We’ve all been there; that moment when someone asks you something believing you to be the source of knowledge on which they could rely, and you draw a beautiful blank from your internal repository of related facts on the topic of your supposed expertise. I admit, not gladly but truthfully, that I am ignorant of a good many subjects in this big, wide world in which we live. I get accused of being a know-it-all on occasion, but the more accurate assessment would be that I know just enough to be dangerous about too many things. I am Jill of all trades and master of not-so-much. I’ve always been curious. Hearing a smattering of conversation about something that I’ve never heard before will usually provoke me to look up anything I can find on the topic for my own edification. This way lays the evil of the Wikipedia rabbit hole and other such sources. It tends to make me annoying in a game of Trivial Pursuit and probably even more so in social conversations that range an extensive breadth of topics. I cannot, therefore, be terribly irritated by others of my ilk that have the same general bent about what used to be called “general knowledge” in a different academic age. There are the people out there, though, that don’t fall into the same category. In fact, these folk are so common that they have been canonized frequently in various entertainment genres. Think for a moment (those of you who remember) of Cliff Clavin, played by John Ratzenberger or of the seagull friend of Ariel, Scuttle, played by Buddy Hackett. These poor souls rely on and take pride in their reputations as the sagely sources of knowledge. The humor comes in when they don’t have all the verifiable facts and confabulate, sometimes even to the extent of creating new words to describe, explain, and elucidate their expertise in all things. We laugh at these caricatures of people that exist out in the real world, but when it comes to the ones we actually meet or experience in the course of our lives, it’s different. Nothing is more frustrating, or embarrassing, than having something explained (say a technical problem with some sort of technology at work) by someone who allegedly gets paid for knowing the problem only to be laughed at by those with real knowledge when you repeat what you were told. As difficult as it is to admit, sometimes it truly is better to admit you do not know something and appear ignorant than to blather on in a sea of confabulation to mislead others and appear an even larger jackass than would have been the case with acknowledgment of ignorance.

And that concludes the list for now. I am sure there are some other entertaining peeves out there for people to share. Be my guest. Some of them are amusing to others, though annoying to us. I dare say I can commiserate with a few of your own submissions, if not more. The point is, these are insignificant blips in the course of our daily lives, probably not even worthy of concern; but perhaps, if we avoid committing some of them ourselves, we can make someone’s life a little less annoying by not petting their peeves.

Katz, D. (2006). The uggly side of life. Retrieved from

Antisocial Media? Human Contact in a Technological World

Stone Soup by Jan Eliot

Once again, my train of thought has been derailed. I promise to try getting back on track for next week. I had an idea for my post this week, but other events led me to reconsider that in favor of a little commentary on something that we all spend a large portion of our energy doing. I am talking about technology assisted socialization.

This is texting, emailing, mobile phone communication, and social media. These days, one or more of these methods make up the majority of our communication with our social group. I actually spent a large portion of my time in the past five years examining the phenomenon, and if any of you are having trouble sleeping, I’ll let you read the 200+ pages of my dissertation about it. However, I suspect that you would be more inclined to read something a little less dry.

So, as I said, about five years ago, I was out with a group of friends at one of our regular haunts for a night of social interaction and liquid refreshment. I was actually discussing with one of my companions the dilemma I was having. This dilemma was what topic I should choose for the focus of my doctoral dissertation. As she and I continued to discuss the problem talking about different interests and perplexing situations in the current events,  we both noticed silence from the others at our table punctuated by the occasional bark of laughter or “Check this one out.” We turned to observe our fellow occupants of the table to see one and all of them on some form of electronic device (phone, tablet, laptop) and each of them was busily typing and clicking. What?!? As we watched, we suddenly realized they were texting and sending things to each other. Was this what socializing with friends had become? They were not only in the same room, but actually at the same table completely absorbed in their devices! And thus, a dissertation was born. I won’t go into all the magnitude of research, testing, and analysis that was done. However, what I did find was that there are benefits and detriments to the electronic tethers we have fashioned for ourselves, and there are significant differences in the personalities of people who choose to socialize via their devices rather than through direct contact with their fellow humans. It was fascinating to me, and there were some considerable applications for my chosen field of psychology that came of this scientific exploration. I won’t bore my readers with the details. Instead I am going to type a bit on the subject of benefits and limitations of electronic socialization.

The miracle of technology has provided the ability to connect and communicate despite the impediment of geographic distance. Additionally, all the communication can take place in “real time” without the lengthy time delays of some of the other methods in history. The internet and mobile technology have provided an instant gratification scenario for social interaction at a distance. This has provided families separated by miles, continents, and oceans the ability to remain connected and share in the lives of their loved ones. The convenience of texts and mobile phones means that the forgotten item from the grocery list sent with your significant other need not be a problem. Crowds or loud environments need not be an obstacle to conversation. Compromised immune systems are no longer a source of complete isolation from human interaction. In short, social interaction is no longer limited to physical proximity or time-delayed methods.

The down side… Social interaction is no longer limited to physical proximity or time-delayed methods. Yep. I repeated myself, because one of the benefits of our modern technology has also provided some interesting detriments. The instantaneous conveyance of information across distances no longer provides the opportunity for thought and consideration put into responses. We don’t sit with writing implements considering all the best ways to put our thoughts and emotions into the prose on the page. In responding to correspondence, we no longer have the enforced delay of writing and mailing providing excellent opportunity to rethink what we just said and possibly take it back before sending it through the hands of postal workers to the person at the other end. Now, unfortunately, all that happens with the blink of an eye, blinding speed of fingers on keys, processing speeds of voice recognition software, and our knee-jerk reaction now wends its way towards the recipient with one click of the “Send” button. No take-backsies. There are delete buttons and even some ways that you can retrieve emails, but they don’t always have success in preventing a misstated comment from reaching the target.

Taking the immediacy into account, it is astounding the things that people are quite willing to say or do via electronic media that they might hesitate or even refrain from were they to find their communication companion in their physical presence. The relative anonymity of the internet has the dubious ability of making people extraordinarily unguarded in the things that they say to each other. Being unable to observe the consequences of what is said, people feel free to “flame,” berate, disparage, vilify, slander/libel, and humiliate the target. While it may seem silly or childish to be impacted by words appearing on an electronic screen, words can be powerful, sometimes more powerful that we expect or realize. Words have swayed populations of individuals who, though not inherently bad, were persuaded to follow leaders who advocated horrific deeds. On a singular level, the “cyber-bullying” of one young girl that took the form of a fictional relationship created to humiliate her resulted in her suicide. The impact of “friending” and “de-friending” has also been examined due to recent events receiving media attention, including a murder perpetrated by a teen on her parents who had removed her from their Facebook friends list.

Conversely, only about 20% of communication is conveyed by the words we use. That means that the rest of the 80% comes through body language, facial expression, vocal tone, and eye contact. The majority of our electronic communication and social interaction lacks the capability of translating these elements. I know. We have webcams and face time and teleconferencing software that lets you look at the people you are talking to, but it still misses some of the important nuances that are observable while sharing the same space with the person to whom you are speaking.

There have been any number of new social rules that have spawned from the misconstrued messages of the unwary. This “netiquette” as it is termed has provided some guidelines and methods of trying to add back into the text only format a bit of the nuances of in vivo communication. So, we know that all caps is yelling or putting particular influence on a word. For venues that allow it, there is also font changes that can lend mood or tone to the prose presented. There are also collections of letters that abbreviate phrases to take sting out of something that could be considered harsh. BUT… even with all the emoticons and acronyms the “interwebs” have to offer, in the end, all emotional content of a text-based communication is entirely in the head of the recipient. People forget that when they read something that someone has put into words that the tone and intent comes from the reader, not always the intended impact or emotional content of the writer.

Another adverse side effect of technology assisted socialization is how it has changed face to face social interaction. Once upon a time, I read a science fiction novel that was set on a planet where all the inhabitants wore masks. To not wear a mask was the equivalent of going naked in public. The upshot to this cultural evolution was that society at large had lost the ability to read facial expression or even to guard their own expressions. For outsiders, lying was incredibly easy, because no one had the ability to read microexpressions or sense dissembling. This seems to be part of the problem with our modern obsession with technological social interaction. People have lost their powers of observation. They fail to see discomfort, offense, interest, and pain. They also fail to measure and moderate their own physical (facial and body language) responses. In short, people appear to have forgotten how to be civil and have lost any sense of good manners. For all the “netiquette” that has been designed, we seem to have lost the etiquette of good manners.

From all of this, you may get the impression that I am anti-technology. That is not accurate. I truly believe that the advances we have made in technology have been and will be incredible for communication, keeping in touch with family and friends, commerce and business, and for the medical and therapy fields. The opportunities are enormous for geographically or physically isolated individuals to receive services previously unavailable. Thoughts and ideas shared across a wider expanse of people and geography has the benefit of spreading understanding and letting individuals separated by continents walk in the virtual shoes of their fellow human. Aside from that, it is just more convenient and downright fun to be able to text, talk, Facebook, etc. from wherever you happen to be and whatever you happen to be doing. I love feeling that I am sharing experiences with my loved ones who are many miles away. So, I would be the last person to toss the baby out with the bathwater. I do like my tech. You are reading my ‘blog, of course. As with anything, moderation appears to be the key.

So, all that said… things to remember:

  • Moderate your electronic socialization with actual face to face socialization when possible.
  • Try to take a break from your phone and/or computer for a couple of waking hours during every 24 hour cycle (they don’t necessarily have to be sequential hours).
  • Try an “off the grid” day or even a weekend, where you do not use any technology.
  • When engaging in face to face socialization, pay attention to the people, not the gadgets.
  • Remember that what you type has power and potentially greater longevity than the words spoken aloud (minus recording equipment).
  • Remember that anything you put out there on the internet has the potential of reaching an audience you never intended and may be out there for review for a long, long… long time.
  • The emotion you read into a text, post, email, etc. may not be what the writer intended.
  • Before responding to any electronic communication, take a moment to engage in some thought and consider how what you choose to put into words might be interpreted and whether the emotional response from any reader would be precisely what you were hoping to gain.

The internet and other electronic methods of engagement are tools for  social interaction. Remember that. Be wary of allowing these tools to become the primary interaction partners in your life instead of the humans who are your fellow inhabitants of the planet. And now we return you to your regularly scheduled texting, instant messaging, posting, and tweeting.

Stone Soup is a comic by Jan Eliot. For more

Mirror, Mirror…

So… this entry started out with one inspiration, and got hit by another…

What is wrong with our self-esteem? And by us, I am talking primarily to my own gender, but guys, you are also impacted by external judgment on your physical appearance and actions in a way that can plummet your self-concept into the whirling abyss of self-loathing. It just seems that women are the most frequent and common victims in the rape of our pride in self.

I actually got into a discussion today with a friend about this very issue. He had posted an image on his Facebook timeline that illustrated the way society has changed in the image of female beauty, and I liked, commented, and shared. Yes, I did. What sparked the conversation was my comment, which was “Guilty as charged…” or something along those lines. My friend was baffled by my comment and incredulous to the verity and instant messaged me to say so. What transpired was as follows…

He never understood how I could possibly not see myself as attractive. I remember his frustrations from years before when he would give me a compliment, and I, in the traditional female fashion, would brush it aside with a “No, I’m not.” It wasn’t a fishing-for-more-compliments situation. I actually never saw myself as pretty, beautiful, attractive, or any of the other typical adjectives used to describe the female form and face. I have never had any false vanity about my appearance. Neither was I a proponent of false modesty. I am not Quasimodo, but I do not particularly fit the modern mold of the beautiful woman. For decades (I will not reveal how many), I have been aware that my best attributes would not be found by visual assessment. I knew this as well from years of observation and witnessing the females found to be irresistible by the males of my acquaintance. I looked nothing like them, and I certainly did not have to beat suitors off with a stick. Casting aside the theories of charisma and pheromones, the bottom line is that I am as susceptible as the next woman to the brainwashing of the popular media.

This is not a terribly new phenomenon. The popular conception of attractiveness and beauty has changed and evolved more than our actual DNA through the ages. What we, in the modern world, consider to be attractive and beautiful qualities would have been seen in earlier times when having a little meat on the bones meant you had the money to actually buy food to sustain yourself to be unattractive and too skinny, a truly poor choice of mate, and it might even have been assumed that the individual in question carried disease or was in some other way unhealthy. In truth, even today there are cultures that do not find the thin supermodel physique to be feminine or beautiful and prefer healthy or even Rubenesque form to be more attractive. However the popular Western concept of the ideal female comes closer to resembling Barbie than any form found in nature. Definitely not attractive qualities. That being said, there were a host of other fashion dictates in previous centuries that were not terribly healthy, including using arsenic to whiten the skin and the evils of the various corsets that could, with enough use, actually derange the organs into unnatural positions. And as for unnatural, the fact that there are people out there addicted to plastic surgery should be telling us something about the negative impact of externalized conceptions of esthetic acceptableness in physical appearance. Beauty has never really been left up to nature. However, the further we have strayed from the concept of “natural health = beauty” the more we have embraced the ideal qualities of beauty that some people give up their health to attain.

No matter how intelligent we become or believe ourselves to be, bombardment through every sense with the popular images and descriptions of the day will have an impact. I know that the advertisers of the world are just doing their jobs to make various products desirable to the market. However, it is important to remember that their consistent appeals to our vanity and self-esteem to be slimmer, prettier, sexier, and in all other ways more appealing are merely marketing strategies to make the public feel that they cannot be a whole being without purchasing the product touted as the miracle, without which you will be a pariah among your fellow humans. The problem is that subliminally, we all absorb the underlying message rather than merely what they are saying. Not so much that we have to purchase the product in question but that we are not good enough, not pretty enough, and in short… just not enough to live happily or to attain humanity’s programmed directive of being fruitful and multiplying.

Sadly, no amount of CIA-level programming can undo the years and years of impact that the media has played upon our cerebral cortexes to embed the message that we are fat, ugly, and stupid. It seems that there are individuals in the world that are immune to such things. These enviable few are sometimes looked upon negatively by their peers because they truly believe they are the hottest thing since the sun rose, but this reaction to those happy few is probably envy, envy that they have the confidence and attributes that allow them to like themselves as they are. In truth, sometimes the cause is sufficient for their self-approbation. However, at other times, it is not entirely obvious as to why these bastions of self-esteem have not succumbed to the same negative propaganda that the rest of us have failed to repel. If I could figure out the trick and bottle it, I could retire wealthier than all the producers of the products spawning the unrealistic media image of the perfect human. Alas, it doesn’t seem to have any perceivable direct cause for the positive self-image that provides immunity to the inferiority complex plaguing the rest of us.

On the other side of the argument is that women who have confidence in their physical appearance and character are often misinterpreted, poorly understood, and generally labeled with unflattering titles and damaging assumptions. What is wrong with people?!? And why does it seem to be the desire of much of the world to control the image and aspects of feminine body, spirit… oh, and reproductive functions (can’t forget those). Are we really that scary? (The males in my family are not allowed to answer that). If we don’t follow the fashion and body image trends of the current societal expectations, we are somehow inferior. However, if we do… we are vain, immoral, and ask for unwanted attention. How confusing is that? It is no wonder that women in the world today cannot get a solid grasp of self-esteem and hold onto it. We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. I am not saying that all people are judgmental asses with no sense of empathy or beauty in all forms, but… ok, yeah, I am probably saying that there are a greater number of people that fall into that category than otherwise, and that is a sad statement. Women (and men, too) should be able to appreciate and fulfill what is healthy for them. They should be able to enjoy their style and express it as long as it is not negatively impacting others who have the same rights. A woman should be able to be healthy, happy, and feel beautiful without having to conform to identical shapes of some adolescent, exaggerated fantasy of sexy. Additionally, we should be able to feel sexy and good about our appearances without the unwelcome assumptions that we are open to any sexual advance. Is that a double standard and confusing? Perhaps, and now you know how we feel trying to make sure that we look good enough without looking too good, and failing on both counts. Wow, did I write myself into a corner! I know that there have been some efforts in promoting healthy images for female and male ideals, but we still seem to be a long way from truly representing healthy human beauty in all the forms it takes.

As the years have progressed, I find that I am less subject to the media-fueled misrepresentations of beauty. Part of this is possibly that my brain has accepted that I am no longer part of the “breeder” group and no longer am I fighting to obtain and retain a mate. However, I prefer to see it as a maturity that eventually comes to most of us: If I am healthy and making choices that allow me to feel good and participate in the activities I enjoy, then screw a bunch of other people with their expectations of how I should look while doing so…! I wish I were really that confident. In actuality, I find that while for the majority of the time I don’t really think about my appearance or compare it to the other examples of feminine grace around me; I am on occasion still a victim of the mirror. I still want to feel pretty and look, if not appealing at least inoffensive to the rest of the humanity around me. I am more apt to find the flaws of age and nature than perhaps someone less familiar with the image I see every day while brushing my teeth. Familiarity breeds contempt, and never is that more true than when you are looking at yourself in the mirror trying to get ready for work and hoping to appear to your best advantage before peers, employers, employees, customers, or even that social acquaintance that caught your eye. I think that I will start practicing more acceptance in my own self-esteem regimen. Baby-steps… I’ll start looking for the things that I like about myself instead of looking for the flaws. Perhaps I can even give myself a little “Not too shabby” affirmation on occasion. Who knows? I might see some of what my friend always tried to tell me.

Instead of tearing down those around you who might appear to your eye to have what you do not in order to make yourself feel better, try appreciating the positives and differences between individuals to recognize that uniqueness makes the world much more interesting than a multitude of carbon copies. We aren’t all of a pattern. So, no one should try forcing us into the same molds, not even we ourselves.

Title image retrieved from

Memoirs of a Former Button-Pusher

Back in the days of my existence as a particularly unpleasant species of teenager (shortly after dinosaurs roamed the earth), I found that I had the extraordinary superpower of button pushing. And this was well before the days of Nintendo and Xbox and whatever other gaming systems exist out there with their controllers that require two hands and several tentacles to find the sequence of down-down-left-right-up to unlock a secret ninja move (FINISH HIM!!!). I can assure you that buttons exist within every person on the planet, and I had all the cheat codes.

Granted that teenagers are generally a misery to themselves and everyone else, I was just a prodigy at the skill of pissing everyone off. Misery loves company, and there is no doubt in my mind that I was as miserable a teenager as they come. The unwilling and pitiable recipient of my mad skills of manipulation was my mother. It wasn’t that she was worthy of such ill treatment, but as is common in the parent-child relationship; she presented a ready target for my adolescent angst. It is not a chapter of my life that I look upon with pride or pleasure.

My mum is pretty awesome generally. She has a touch of the Mary Poppins thing going on, but she is loving and supportive, if somewhat overprotective. I still am not quite certain what she did in a former life to be saddled with me as a daughter, but there it is. Some have “greatness” thrust upon them, and so I was my mother’s particular burden to bear. On the down side, my mother has a hair-trigger emotional response system. This isn’t entirely negative. She never was one to scream and yell, though the sound of my full given name is still a bit of an issue for me. However, she would cry for almost any emotional extreme. I am talking about happy, angry, sad, touched, proud… you name it. If there was an emotion involved, mum’s tear ducts got a workout. This was the particular facet of her personality that prompted my sadistic teenage prowess. I found that if I pushed all the right buttons, the tears would flow. Right-up-up-down-left… and cue tears. I win! Evil, right? I was a horrible child. I am well aware of it. I suppose that somewhere in the cockles of my consciousness I was aware of it even then, but as is the way of the self-centered adult in forming, I never let that awareness get in the way of me trying my superpower on my most convenient victim.

Karma, as they say, is a bitch. That being said, my years of torturing my mother’s tear production led apparently to a career path rife with the angst of teens and their conflicts with parental units. No one likes being reminded of their less than stellar moments, and I had chosen a field that put the mirror of my flagrantly ungrateful and malicious emotional manipulation front and foremost during the majority of my waking hours.

I recall one particularly dreary evening in the emergency room. I was not entirely certain if the reason for the parents bringing the child to the ER was due to her behavior or due to something else and the behavioral issues were just a bonus. Whatever the scenario, I was called in due to the excessive emotional conflict that ensued. I should have been warned by the looks on the faces of doctors and nurses alike in the ambulatory ward. This would have immediately prepared me for the onslaught of vexatious personality that was to greet me, but as usual, in the rush of my normal working life, I was primarily focused on task and failed to see the rolled eyes and looks of consternation on the faces of my colleagues.

I entered the room to witness a full blown stand-off worthy of a spaghetti western. Adult female on one side of the room; smaller and younger version of same on the other side sporting the makeup and clothing that appeared for all the world that a gang of Marilyn Manson groupies had attacked her with charcoal and chalk. The glares were palpable, the silence deafening and deadly. I immediately reassessed and took stock of my surroundings, noting every potential weapon (or shield) available in the room. Now was my cue. I broke the tableau by announcing my name and role. The mother had a momentary response of relaxing shoulders and look of relief. Here was someone to fix her problem child and relieve her of the parenting burden! The response from her antagonist was a narrowing of black-rimmed eyes and a visual assessment of my person, tinged with a soupçon of curiosity.

Much of what I did back in the day was a form of diplomatic negotiation. I assessed the situation, heard both sides, and attempted to reach détente between the warring parties. Occasionally, this was not possible and other arrangements had to be made. Primarily, though, my job was to keep the battle off the hospital grounds and avoid collateral damage. In this particular case, it appeared that the issues at hand were that the mother was completely ignorant of the latest trends without which life was not worth living in the social circles of middle school. Mother’s issue was that her child looked like she was playing as an extra on a new sequel of The Crow. There was much maneuvering by each party to get me to take their respective sides. I valiantly parried their advances to remain in neutral. However, it was a vain attempt. I really should have known better. As an adult, with no apparent fashion sense, I had been clearly relegated to the tribe of “THEM” in this pitched battle of wills. I witnessed the mother take a few shots of vituperative spleen and her eyes filled. As I attempted redirection, I received “What do you know?!? You’re just taking her side, and you obviously don’t care what you look like!” It really got no better after that. I did manage to gain some concessions on both sides. I convinced the young diva that perhaps she might try using less than half the cosmetics aisle at the Walgreen’s during the daylight hours of school, and I attempted to sooth the mother’s feelings with some tried and true wisdom about this being a developmental phase and was her daughter’s attempt to define herself as an individual. This too would pass… or else she would be authorizing us to lock her up in a tower until she reached her majority. Thus is the plight of the parent. I’m not sure any of my efforts actually resulted in relational improvement, but it kept down shrapnel and both parties were escorted from the unit sniffing and huffing with reddened eyes to make their way home.

I sat in an emotionally exhausted heap behind the nurses’ station to complete my charting. Beside me was the obligatory 17 billion line phone that is the norm in hospital settings. I stared at it for a few moments before picking up the receiver. Without thinking, I dialed the number to my parents’ home. It was not so late in the evening that it would register alarm, and my mother answered on the second ring.


“Hi, mum. I am sorry I was ever 13.” Click. I would have given some excessive sums of money to have seen the look on her face. It was likely a mixture of bafflement and awe. That was the first of my apologies throughout the years. Over the course of many long hours in emergency services and working with children and adolescents, I have now apologized for every year of my life from age 10 to age 21. I’m pretty certain that there are a few questionable choices and actions that I made outside that general span of years, but I figure I have caught the majority of the glaring errors of my ways. Perhaps with the years have come a little wisdom, and perhaps, if I show true remorse, my mother will never regret not drowning me at birth.

“When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.” ~ quote attributed to Mark Twain but never verified

The Ins and Outs

First, let me start by saying that this is a blog, not a doctoral dissertation on the psychological concept of the personality. Despite the prevalence of alleged personality surveys and quizzes available on the internet, it is not so easy to define the different personality factors, nor is it easy to define the profile of any given individual. While it is fun to find out which Star Wars, Harry Potter, or Disney Princess character you may arbitrarily match via the bubble gum magic of the various Cosmo-quizzes available… These do not constitute an accurate measure of personality and certainly do not enable the responder to suddenly understand with brilliant insight the complex workings of the human brain and personality. As this is far too brief a venue for the purposes of elucidating readers to the complexity of psychological development, and I’m certainly not claiming to explain it all either; I will attempt to steer clear of the more in depth discussion of human development and neurochemistry. However, I will address some misimpressions about one of the personality factors and what it actually means.

Probably the most familiar form of personality assessment is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). It has been probably one of the most abused tests in the history of personality assessment. Having the dubious privilege of being one of the most user-friendly assessments, it is the one usually latched onto by human resources, professional trainers, online dating sites, and sadly, the makers of magazine and internet quizzes flooding the popular media. So, you access the point and click online survey, and after answering a bunch of forced-choice (yes or no) questions, you are assigned a “personality type” that defines your character in four easy letters… or descriptive types and characters reflecting said factor combinations. Would that it were just that easy.

The thing is, it’s not that easy. While the original Myer-Briggs was a great boon to the counseling (and especially the career counseling) field, this was not really meant for the lay person to grab up and start attributing characteristics to their friends and family. The profiles that come from taking this particular personality instrument allow you to identify parts of your own personality that clarify why you interact in certain ways and what situations and scenarios might be more your style. The point is that personality factors and profiles are not restricted to this particular theoretical perspective. There are a metric @#$%-ton (yep, clinical term) of personality theories and instruments that assess and develop unique personality profiles. I could actually write a dissertation on that (and have done), but this is not the place or time (and probably not the audience, unless you are suffering from insomnia and looking for a non-pharmaceutical cure) for that discussion. So, for now, I will restrain myself to the popular MBTI.

And now with all of that out of the way, you will find that the MBTI addresses personality from the perspective that there are four main factors that contribute to a personality type. This was founded on the concept of psychological preferences extrapolated from Jung’s theory of personality. Jung focused on the dichotomy of the personality as it addressed the rational and irrational functions. The original authors of the MBTI initially studied personality factors during the second world war. The first of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator survey was published in the early 1960’s. The MBTI addresses preferences. This is the most likely way that an individual will respond to particular situations. Truth is, it is not what we in the psychology field like to call a predictive or projective measure. It mainly indicates a preference on the continuum of the factors. It also does not tell the person interpreting the test whether someone is more or less of one factor or another than any other individual on the same scale. It just  indicates the tested individual’s presence within the aspects of their own preferences and personality. The four factor continuums are as follows:

  • Introversion vs. Extraversion (I vs E)
  • Intuition vs. Sensory (N vs S)
  • Thinking vs. Feeling (T vs F)
  • Judging vs. Perceiving (J vs P)

While all these spectrums are interesting in their own right, and the combination of traits are what give the reader the actual personality profiles; the spectrum that is the focus of this particular post is the Introversion-Extraversion scale. Perhaps, at a later date, I may actually address the whole bloody mess; but for this moment, the I vs. E will be the focus.

Introversion vs. Extroversion addresses the aspects of personality that impact how the individual deals with their environment, including socialization… on an energy level. This is what people primarily misunderstand. The immediate response when someone hears “I’m and introvert” or “I’m and extrovert” is the amount of time and energy that any individual spends interacting with their fellow humans, often in a noisy and raucous manner, or determined by the size of the crowd in which the individual could be found at any given time. A lot of people assume that introversion means something to the tune of say… Howard Hughes, and conversely attributes to the extrovert the personality of Charlie Sheen on a binge. WRONG!

The scale is a spectrum, not a switch with an “on” and “off” position. Introversion and extraversion are descriptive analyses of the energy the individual acquires from interacting with the world. Introverts are energized by thought and contemplation. The typical introvert primarily obtains their energy from being alone. They expend energy by action and need down time to recharge from the day to day brush and bump with the world at large. Extroverts, on the other hand, are energized from their contact with the rest of the human race and need the constant interaction of society to power their processes. Extraverts obtain and draw their energy from action. They act first, then evaluate the outcomes, and act again. At their extremes, these two very different types seek alternate means of maintaining their processes by arranging their circumstances to suit their preferences. This has fueled the assumption that individuals on the introversion end of the scale are reclusive types that avoid all social interaction and the extroverts of the world cannot exist in a vacuum, removed from the atmosphere of constant society.

In truth, few people can guess who is an introvert and who is an extrovert by pure observation. Training gives some insight, but most people exist not on the extreme ends but instead fall somewhere along the spectrum with varying degrees of intensity and magnitude. Contrary to the belief that they are antisocial or pathologically shy, introverts can often be found socializing with friends and having a decent time doing so. And similarly, even the most extroverted individual will occasionally seek out the solace of some alone time. However, primarily these two different types generally seek to recharge in their own very different ways, true to their natures. There is nothing maladaptive or wrong about either method.

Where the fly gets into the ointment and one of the main conflicts that I have observed (and experienced) is when an introvert and extrovert have close interaction or enter into a relationship of some intimacy (not necessarily physical intimacy). The introvert will need to retreat into their cave of solitude and the extrovert, not understanding why anyone would ever seek to have so much time in silence or loneliness, will assume an emotional content to that lack of interaction, conversation, or response. Negative emotional content at that. Much confusion and conflict can result from such assumptions, and unfortunately, a lot of frustration and eventual explosive discharge from the introvert who, like a cornered animal, may lash out to make everyone leave them hell alone. The introverts come across to their counterparts as cold, distant, or moody. Conversely, the poor extrovert may be perceived as a needy, clingy, self-centered, spotlight whore who cannot be still. It is an inaccurate description, a very poor profile for either to carry around with them, and is unworthy of their true natures.

As odd as it may seem to the extroverts out there, it is entirely possible to be content and live well without human contact or conversation, including communication via non-face-to-face media. When an introvert has retreated to the cave for recharge, this does not mean it is time to repeatedly ask what is wrong, if there is something that they need, or to send supportive texts to bolster their spirits. What they need is peace and quiet. When do they want it? NOW! Leave them alone. They will eventually come out of their caves, or off the top of their mountain, or whatever metaphor works best. They will reenter the world of social interaction after their recharge and be better for their time away to collect themselves.

Similarly baffling to the introvert is the seeming inability of an extroverted individual to be at peace. To be still and silent for any amount of time appears an alien concept to the extrovert worthy of Close Encounters. They may spend some time without human companionship, but they will fill the social void with phone, text, social media, or any other form of communication that will give an outlet of to their need for human contact in any form available. Lack of interaction and enforced solitude frequently results in bouts of depression exacerbating the extrovert’s attempts to resolve the situation by reaching out to any and every person they know by whatever media available. It is often helpful for the healthy, happy extrovert to have a large pool of natural supports from which to draw their energizing social contact so as not to overtax the introverts among their friends.

The upshot of all this rambling discussion is that people are different (Really Columbo? What was your first clue?). Not everyone participates in this game we call life in the same way or with the same strategy, and there are no prizes, not even for first place. What matters is that we understand that all individuals tick in their own way and at their own pace, and no one is a piece with another (even identical twins can present remarkably different personality profiles). How we interact with each other is the important part. Additionally, while the concept of personality is that there is a constellation of consistent traits that make up the identity of the person, and that these traits are reliable and unchanging over time; research has found that personality factors do change, subtly, but they change. Traits moderate and shift with age, with events, and sometimes even week to week due to chemical and hormonal changes experienced by the individual. Generally, these changes are not drastic enough to completely change one person from an introvert to an extrovert or vice versa. Changes on the spectrum usually are within the same side of the scale but with greater or less intensity to make someone more introverted as they get older or just maybe less extroverted.

I suppose the actual point that I was trying to make is that your choice to take one of the personality profiling tests should be to understand more about yourself  and is entirely a matter for fun or self-exploration. That is admirable. If you take one of the full surveys and find your type, read up on it and think about how that works for you or might present obstacles in your path. Use it to your best advantage by doing what you need to recharge and enhance your daily interactions. Avoid making assumptions about how in applies to others, because, in truth, it probably doesn’t. Personality profiles are not absolute. People are unique. If you want to use personality profiles or even any projective measure, use it to understand yourself and what you need from your own interaction with this world and the other inhabitants of it instead of trying to profile those around you. Our first and most difficult battle always begins within our own mind and body, and the only personal actions we can truly control with any amount of accuracy is our own.

The author is an INTJ.