Power Breakfast Work Life Balance YouTube 360p

Conquering Writers Block III When life gets in the way

My previous posts on writer's block, wherein I introduce the model and then discuss the various "flavors" (based on a completely unscientific poll) are here and here, respectively.

If you read Monday's post, you'll recall that I said I was going to discuss the first two flavors today, but then I realized there was just too much to tell you, so I'm going to do a post on the second flavor (brain clog) on Friday, and I'll focus on only the first (broader life/mental health issues) today.

Now, it would be kind of flip of me to say to you: "If it's broader life/mental health issues, just go deal with those and come back when you're done. Then your writer's block will be gone!"

I would suck if I said that. It doesn't work like that. Sure, there are transient life situations, like moving apartments, or starting college or a new job, or having any kind of illness that is treatable and goes away. Sometimes you can just wait things out. But if there's something chronic, if you are a typical adolescent or grown-up who is juggling multiple roles ... telling you to go "deal with that" so you can get back to writing is pretty laughable. It's far more complex than that. You do have to deal with it, though. Every day. But it's probably more of a management process than a "clear the decks so everything else is perfect" thing.

Now, if you think you might have a clinical issue, like depression or anxiety, that is affecting your ability to write, it's worth taking a look at. I won't go into too much depth here, but I would say that it would be worth it to consult with a competent professional to see if you can get treatment to improve your ability to manage those symptoms across settings and situations.

But as for the other "chronic life stuff" issues ... you'll get back on track quicker if you take the time to figure it out and sort it out. On Monday I responded to a comment by Lydia Sharp, soon-to-be-published author and blogger extraordinaire. She basically asked what to do when there are multiple life-and-other-stuff causes for writer's block. It reminded me that ... this is usually the case, actually. I responded to that comment with a (kinda long) comment of my own, which I present again today. Only with pictures. And no spelling errors.

[By the way? This? This is how I work with clients. No magic--just systematic approaches to complex problems...]

If you were to come to me and say, "Help! I haven't written a page in over a month!" ...

I'd sit down with you and map out the problem. We'd put the writer's block in the middle (like in the diagram I presented on Monday), but I'd make it specific to YOU. Like, whatever you as a writer are having trouble doing (e.g., getting a certain amount done, failing to make time in the busy schedule for writing, or whatever it is--and if there's more than one thing, we'd do this for each one).

Then we'd build a model of what's causing the block, just like in that diagram. But again, for an individual person, it would be more specific. We'd think of as many causes, no matter how big or small, and write them around the problem.

Here's what one of those diagrams might look like:

After we make our map (it might be more complex than this one), we know the things that *could* be targeted to get you writing again. We could target some of the different thoughts, or the structure of the schedule, or the supportiveness of the partner and other natural supports, etc. But there's no way we can tackle all of them at once! We have to prioritize.  So we would consider a few questions:

1. Which one do YOU think would make the most difference, and which one(s) are you willing to work on?

2. Which one(s) would give us the biggest bang for our buck? Like, are there any that could have a big, quick impact or affect several writing problems (or problems in other areas of your life)?

3. Are there any practical, quick and easy fixes? We can tackle those--as long as we're also tackling more fundamental ones as well. These would be things like finding a way to get the computer fixed or finding a way around that.

4. Are there any that have to be addressed before we can get to some of the other ones?

5. Are there any that have been proven to affect writer's block? (like, research shows that thinking you're a failure can really decrease mood and productivity)

6. Are there any causes that are tightly connected to the problem and happen right before the problem crops up? (again, often the thoughts)

7. Which one(s) are happening right now, as opposed to being historical causes (things that might have happened a long time ago--usually those historical events/causes give rise to the things in #6, so that's how those are addressed)?

The causes we choose to tackle wouldn't have ALL those characteristics, only one or two of them, but based on your priorities, we'd pick one or two, and then we'd develop a specific intervention to address them. What would YOU choose? Should we design an intervention to address some of those negative thoughts? Should we discuss how to restructure your schedule? Should we talk about how you can ask your partner for some mutual support?

We'd reassess frequently to see if the intervention is working, and if it's not, we'd analyze why (using the same process as above!)

And ... that's it. It's not a perfect, simple process, but it organizes something that can often feel unmanageable and therefore undoable. I promise you--mapping it out instead of letting it stay big and hairy and overwhelming ... it will help you feel better and more in control. And that is an excellent first step.

I'll be back on Friday to talk about BRAIN CLOG.

Book Review High Price by Dr Carl Hart A Life and the Lies in Drug Abuse Research

For a long time I have been critical about conclusions drawn from animal experiments which purported to be models for addictive behavior with drugs in humans. In particular, I got annoyed hearing over and over about how rats and rhesus monkeys would press levers to get cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine compulsively, even until they died, choosing drugs over even food and water. These experiments were touted  incessantly by so-called experts. As I mentioned in a previous post, the head of the National Institute for Drug Abuse, Dr. Nora Volkov, even had the nerve to say that rats and humans could have the same phenotype!

My usual response to this was that rats and monkeys do not know about the damage the drugs might do to them, but that humans do, and that makes the comparison ridiculous if not completely preposterous. Furthermore, if a monkey experienced the “crash” that followed stopping cocaine or meth, it would not know that the crash was due to the drug, only that the drug stopped the crash.  And scientists even STILL have had no luck in finding rats who hide bottles of alcohol.

As it turns out, these points, while probably valid, are only minor considerations in determining the lessons to be learned from these animal studies. A far bigger issue was that the experiments were not even accurately or honestly described by those touting them. In an outstanding new book called High Price by African-American neurospsychologist Carl Hart, a faculty member at Columbia University, the author points out that descriptions of the environments in which the animals were kept were completely missing from the descripions, but that environmental factors were key in determining animal drug use behavior.

Dr. Carl Hart

The animals in these experiments were essentially kept in solitary confinement, as they had throughout most of their lives, and had nothing else to do but push the lever!  If they were instead placed in an enriched environment with alternatie activities available and other animals with which to socialize, their “drug-seeking” behavior changed drastically.

A series of experiments that the drug warriors don't want you to know about were conducted in the 1970s, and known as Rat Park. Researchers allowed two groups of rats to self-administer morphine. They housed the first group in stark cages, one rat to a cage. They placed the second group in an “enriched environment,” which offered opportunities to burrow, play, and copulate. The isolated rats drank 20 times more morphine-laced sugar water than those enjoying the Rat Park. These results have been reproduced using both cocaine and amphetamine.

Dr. Hart points out that if you were held in solitary confinement with just one movie to watch, you might watch it over and over. That would not prove that the movie itself was addictive!  In people, when they have appealing alternatives, they often do not choose to take drugs in a self-destructive manner.

Add to the mix of misinformation about drug abuse is the unheralded but monumental effect of racism on both drug use and the prevailing ideas about it.  Legal bans on certain drugs (and not others) were legislated after widespread reporting of highly exaggerated horror stories about drug use by a despised minority:  crack cocaine by Blacks, marijuana by Blacks and Mexicans, methamphetamines by toothless "poor white trash" in Appalachia, and opium by Chinese railway workers. No one was immune from these cultural influences and myths, including the minorities themselves. The Black Caucus in the United States Congress was, originally, solidly behind the huge and unfair differences in the length of jail sentences for people convicted of using crack vs. powdered cocaine, the effects of which drugs are physiologically identical.

Some facts:  The problems in the black urban community attributed to crack were already prevalent well before crack was even introduced. The vast majority of illegal drug users do not become addicted or even psychologically dependent on the drug. Among addicts, half are employed full time. Violent convicts in jails are less likely to abuse drugs than other prisoners. The vast majority of homicides do not involved drug use, and alcohol is probably the worst offender among those that do. Dealing crack is only about as profitable as working at McDonalds for low level dealers. Few people who abuse drugs take only one drug, yet there are very few studies of the effects of combinations of drugs. Self reports from addicts who are asked about their cravings for the drugs do not predict whether or not an addict in recovery will relapse.

Adderall and Methamphetamine are nearly identical molecules with identical effects, yet drug manufacturers go out of their way to say that those children treated with stimulants for “ADHD” are no more likely to go on to abuse drugs than anyone else.  Of course, since their drugs are already being legally provided to them by physicians, they have no need to obtain them from illegal sources, which is one of the measures the experts use to measure drug abuse!

This kind of circular reasoning in the literature abounds. In a series of experiments with rhesus monkeys, Dr. Hart reports, “…researchers found that the animals’ choice to use cocaine is reduced to the size of the food reward they are offered as an alternative.” People are now using this data to claim that junk food is as addictive as cocaine, when initially cocaine was claimed to be “…especially addictive because animals preferred  it to food when hungry.” (p.93).

The book by Dr. Hart is especially eye opening because it combines discussions of this sort of pseudoscience with the author’s explorations about his own personal story. As an African-American having grown up in an inner city in which many of his friends and relatives did poorly and got into drugs and crime, he asks himself why he not only escaped this but became an Ivy League professor and an expert. The experiences of this black man in America shines a bright light on the real causes of self destructive behavior. It is not drugs.

The following graphic is not discussed in the book, but, with what we know about the havoc that a felony conviction and hanging out with convicts for months or years can create in the lives of young men, it is clear that far more harm is inflicted on drug users by the laws against drug use than by the drugs themselves.

By the way, do you know how to abuse drugs? You hold them in your hand and scream at them, “You worthless pile of sh*t!  You call that a buzz?? You suck!” You then throw them to the ground and stomp on them. 

Yeah, it’s the self that’s being abused by addicts, not the drugs. 

You owe it yourself to read this highly engrossing and informative book.

Anxiety panic attacks is ruining my life

Anxiety panic attacks is ruining my life will be the development involving modern day common written content, problems in later life out of your test of this browser's search engine so that you can give you reputable suggestions all of us attempt to find pictures connected to all the Anxiety panic attacks is ruining my life . and also the outcomes you can observe beneath handled several of the snap shots is only some sort of illustration.

Sample images Anxiety panic attacks is ruining my life

Anxiety panic attacks is ruining my life - it has in fact been shared using the expectancy that it is simple to promote useful to an individual. This short article may function like a research if you find yourself bewildered to find the perfect direct This Anxiety panic attacks is ruining my life reports could very well be your opportunity that should be ascribed to art arrange, mainly because it features a prepare will certainly experience additional fulfilled Anxiety panic attacks is ruining my life - Extremely helpful for yourself for this reason people are attempting get a dependable resource which usually can assist you obtain idea without the need of misunderstanding. remember in order to save this site, considering that it could be a day you require it again spine while your current inspirational concepts.

COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY FOR DAILY LIFE Metacognition for better learning

COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY FOR DAILY LIFE: Metacognition for better learning: Thinking about thinking Metacognition is cognition about cognition or thinking about thinking. It is a kind of self-auditing or self-...

Life in the bubble Boundaries and burnout in the online world

Last Wednesday, I talked a little bit about boundaries, and how a lack thereof can lead to burnout. I identified a few areas where writers' boundaries get tested:

• The pressure to SHARE personal stuff.
• The pressure to say YES (when you should probably say NO).
• The pressure to be ON.

I told you that today, I'd talk a bit about how I manage this.

First, I need to tell you: I'm still working this out. In my psychology life, I know how to do this. But when I became a writer? Whew! I had to work it out again.

 

This is Edward Hall's diagram demonstrating personal reaction bubbles. The radii are listed in feet, but they're meant to be subjective, heavily influenced by culture and personal preference.

 

In the largely online world of my writing career, personal distance is kind of an abstract thing. But I use this concept nevertheless. I think it's useful, because so often, it's just me and my computer. Pretty intimate kind of thing, my fingers on the keyboard. Easy to forget that it isn't just me, my eyes, my brain. Easy to allow my personal space bubble to become permeable--much easier than when I'm at a cocktail party, for example.

 

But I have to remember, because it helps me decide when to say NO, when to turn OFF, when to keep myself to MYSELF. Examples:

 

Goodreads: As an author, Goodreads is PUBLIC SPACE. Any place where readers congregate and review my book is considered the same. Like I don't walk up to strangers and butt into their conversations, I don't hang out on Goodreads and interact with people talking about my book. I have made the decision not to review or rate books on Goodreads; I find other ways to promote books I love, namely on Twitter or here on my blog. Not every author has made the same decision--that's because this stuff is subjective. For me, though, it helps set some boundaries around my role as an author and helps me stay out of trouble.

 

Blog: I consider this blog a SOCIAL SPACE, along with Twitter, which is one of my favorite online places to be. Whether fellow writer or reader or blogger, if you meet me there, you can interact with me. You won't get my most personal thoughts, but you will get content, both intellectual and emotional. I share my ideas and respond to others'. HOWEVER, if I'm super upset or have private stuff going on ... it's not going to show up here. One rule I have: venting is strictly forbidden in the SOCIAL SPACE. But also: I don't talk about my personal life much. My political and religious views, private relationships ... no. The SOCIAL SPACE is for friendly banter, not intimate conversation. Of course I'm tempted to cross this line sometimes, particularly when my emotions run high--but then I force myself to wait until I'm calm before I decide whether or not to share. I usually decide against it.

 

Email: Online, email is my PERSONAL SPACE, though obviously not always personal. But email is largely 1:1, and I have a few close writerly friends with whom I share triumphs and frustrations. I trust them to maintain confidentiality, and they trust me with the same. We do vent in this space, but it stays there.

 

My skull: INTIMATE SPACE. Yep, not all my thoughts find their way to another's ears, and I think that's necessary and good. I'm extremely introverted. Some people like to share themselves and draw energy from that, but I'm the opposite. That's part of avoiding burnout--knowing that I can keep things that are just for me, and cherishing that privacy.

 

When it comes to saying NO:

• If someone's in my PUBLIC SPACE, I owe them civility and respect, and that is the extent of it. I accomodate requests when possible and not draining, and, frankly, when I see a practical and concrete advantage in saying YES.
• If someone's in my SOCIAL SPACE, same. If we interact regularly and they ask me a favor, I will do it even if it involves some of my time and little-to-no benefit for myself. If I can't, though, given other demands, I'm going to say NO with kindness but not guilt. After all, I have my limits.
• If someone has been an established friend within my PERSONAL SPACE, I'm going to go out of my way to help, because I care about them deeply.

This means I do say NO, and it's not a rare thing. I don't think that's bad. Especially when the alternative is me feeling resentful, bitter, used, burned out, etc. Ew!

 

When it comes to turning OFF: I have to rely on what I know about myself--I need to reside in my INTIMATE SPACE sometimes, or else I won't be able to meet my responsibilities. If I don't recharge, I'm going to burn out. Or possibly lose my mind. I turn OFF by reading and writing and oh, actually interacting with the external, physical world. THIS, turning off instead of being plugged in 24/7, is the one I'm still working on--the one I haven't quite figured out. Ask me again in a year.

 

All of this is different for each person. I think the key to maintaining healthy boundaries is actually thinking about it and making some decisions (and, yes, rules) based on what's best for you. Better to be proactive now rather than impulsive and regretful later.

 

So how about it? Do you have online personal space bubbles? How do you maintain boundaries?