Date Tags advice

Do you absolutely have to share crude and tasteless humor and jokes on your newsfeed? Do you absolutely have to rant, rave, complain, and vent to your social media "friends"? Do you absolutely have put others down because of their political affiliations? Do you absolutely have to share your negative feelings, perspective, and opinions on different topics? What are you getting out of it besides a temporary sense of approval from people who don't really like you or care about you? Are YOU posting, sharing, and "liking" on your social media or are your ego and emotions doing it for you? Pay attention to these things. Your posts, pictures, comments, and "likes" all tell a story about the type of person you really are and how much you have your act together. It tells a story of how your mind works. Employers, now more than ever, are looking up and reviewing social media accounts before calling potential employees because it gives them a more accurate picture of who that person really is and what kind of employee they'll be rather than listening to them put on an act during the interview process. They don't want to hire the person whose profile picture is of them doing drugs. They don't want to hire the person who is constantly posting how much they hate work. They don't want to hire anyone who's extremely negative, appears to have a horrible attitude, and doesn't uphold the same values as the company. Because of social irresponsibility, people are losing jobs, destroying careers, and severely limiting themselves. Celebrities, athletes, CEO's, and others are losing opportunities, money, and customers. They're posting public apologies for something irresponsible they said, posted, tweeted, shared, or commented on. It's ALL completely avoidable if you take the time to think about what you say, do, post, tweet, etc. While history may deliver to our societies old and poisonous views, I believe that it is the behaviors of those we do not understand or cannot countenance that perpetuate our biases and harmful ideas. For example, when people with schizophrenia appear no different from others, when they do not talk aloud to themselves or wear three ski parkas or out of their own fear instill fear in others, they become part of the flock, not painted birds. What we cannot understand, what is alien to us, evokes disquiet and triggers critical judgment.

In people with substance use disorders, the behaviors many resort to to support their habit can be particularly disquieting, alienating, and even shameful. They may lie, cheat, manipulate, steal, and injure. They may prostitute themselves or sell others into the sex trade. They may lose all sight of others as they tend to the demands of their habit. They may repetitively promise to recover and start treatment only to renege and start using again. As noted before, man takes a drink, the drink takes a drink, then the drink takes the man. F. Scott Fitzgerald is credited with a variant of this saying, but it is probably a long-standing Irish proverb. This is what I think Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, means when she talks about drugs hijacking the brain. When the drink takes the man, it is the craving, the need to quiet withdrawal and psychic pain--not, in later stages of addiction, even the pursuit of pleasure--that drives the individual's offensive behaviors and makes him or her a pariah in his or her family and community. The terrible irony is that most of the time these people, diseased by drug addiction, know the price and are still ready to pay it. Stigma, and discrimination, come at those with substance-use problems by three vectors. The first is how others treat them, the second is how they treat themselves, and the last is how they are treated by social institutions and services. These forces, combined, can be deadly. Most habitual procrastinators only hear their negative self-dialogue, which convincingly warns them of the dangers lurking in the shadows, with statements like: "It's too complicated!" "This is boring!" "I'd really rather be doing something else." "I'm not up to dealing with this." Interestingly, while procrastinators tend to only listen to their negative self-statements, which concern the supposed consequences of taking action, they fail to consider the consequences of not acting--which leads to poor decision-making and even poorer outcomes. Why is it that procrastinators think this way? Part of the rationale of this thinking is that procrastinators do not generate positive outcomes with any great frequency, because all they're used to considering are the potential risks that might, or might not, come about as a result of taking action. So, with his mindset permanently switched to the "don't act" position, the habitual procrastinator deals with life by continually suffering through his decisions and responsibilities. Anyone who thinks they might be suffering from SAD should see their family doctor to investigate their symptoms and to discuss the different treatment options available.

While there are any number of websites offering treatments and promising quick relief, much like other kinds of depression, nobody should try diagnosing and treating themselves by relying on Dr. Google. No matter how distressing symptoms can be, it is essential to make the right choices when looking for help. While we are still learning about all the complex processes that allow our brains to function the way they do, numerous research studies have already linked different forms of depression to biochemical and anatomical changes in the brain. For example, key neurotransmitters such as serotonin, noradrenaline, and dopamine help the brain regulate biological processes through the body as well as in those regions of the brain controlling different emotions such as fear and anger. Serotonin, in particular, helps control mood, appetite, and sleep, and researchers have long known that reduced serotonin levels in key brain regions result in clinical symptoms of depression. This has led to what researchers refer to as the serotonin model of depression and has inspired the development of numerous antidepressant drugs that work by reinforcing serotonin activity in different ways. While the role that dopamine and noradrenaline play in depression are not as well understood, new research suggests that all three neurotransmitters can contribute to different symptoms of depression. It also suggests that new medications can be developed that can treat cases of depression that don't respond to medications that work on serotonin levels alone. Usually, happiness studies find that parents are less happy than their oh-I-really-don't-know-what-I-will-spend-all-my-weekend-doing-besides-going-to-Starbucks-binge-watching-Westworld-going-for-drinks-working-on-my-novel-relaxing-and-maybe-going-to-the-gym non-parent peers. This is known as the parental happiness gap, or the parental happiness penalty, and it has prompted headlines like HOW HAVING CHILDREN ROBS PARENTS OF THEIR HAPPINESS' andYOU ARE LESS HAPPY WHEN YOU HAVE A CHILD, STUDY SAYS'. However, I think that some of the nuances are often lost when such stories make the news. First of all, while children may have a negative impact on one dimension of happiness (such as overall life satisfaction), having them is found to have a positive effect on another dimension of happiness - the eudemonic dimension, which focuses on the sense of purpose or meaning in life. Second, children have a different impact on the happiness of women and that of men, as women, traditionally, have taken on a greater share of the responsibility and burden of raising kids. According to Luca Stanca, professor and author of The Geography of Parenthood and Well-being', the parenting penalty is 65 per cent higher for women. <a href=''>It's</a> important to have social boundaries and be 100% clear on them or anyone and everyone with a tyrannical, abusive, or bully nature will see the opening, treat you however they feel, and be pretty sure you won't say or do anything about it. <a href=''>Humans</a> are extremely observant, both on a conscious and unconscious level, and it's blatantly obvious when you don't tolerate any sort of disrespectful words or behavior and your boundaries on how everyone should conduct themselves in your presence are easy to detect. <a href=''>You're</a> not hanging a sign around your neck or verbally communicating, "My boundaries are this, this, and this." Your boundaries are communicated, nonverbally, by the way you conduct yourself at all times and in all situations. <a href=''>When</a> you're physically, mentally, emotionally, and socially sharp and you have it together in all areas, others are likely to come to the natural conclusion, "This person probably doesn't tolerate any bullshit from anyone so I'm going to watch myself around them." This is what you want. <a href=''>This</a> keeps the peace. <br /><br /><a href=''>This</a> protects you from abusive people. <a href=''>This</a> keeps the respect. <a href=''>This</a> helps you keep your power. <a href=''>You</a> don't want anyone coming to the conclusion, "This person looks like a doormat and I'm going to be a complete asshole to them and dominate them to stroke my ego and feel better about myself." Socially, what are you not willing to accept from others? <a href=''>What</a> type of attitude, tone, words, and language is unacceptable and unreasonable to you? <a href=''>What</a> are you not willing to accept from yourself in social situations? <a href=''>Think</a> about it, make a list, and enforce it when one of those things comes up. <a href=''>You</a> don't have to be a dick about it. <a href=''>Just</a> be calm, cool, and collect and let the person, or yourself, know you're not cool with it. <a href=''>There</a> is little evidence that negative treatment of people changes them in any lasting, positive way. <a href=''>Yet</a> judgment and aversion are a natural response to that which we don't like, such as lying, drunkenness, and theft. <a href=''>We</a> seek to protect ourselves. <a href=''>We</a> write these people off, believing they cannot be different. <a href=''>But</a> the paradox is that what can help a person with a substance use disorder is just the opposite: namely, being nonjudgmental, accepting, and maintaining hope for a different future. <a href=''>I</a> do not mean to suggest that anyone should put themselves in a position to be hurt or exploited; we must always put our own safety and that of loved ones first. <a href=''>Yet</a> we can usually still permit an open door, a spirit of support for what is right, and a shared view of a better, more contributing future life. <a href=''>When</a> we direct negative energies and feelings toward people with addictions, we drive them further into their addictive behaviors and further away from the prospect of recovery. <a href=''>Only</a> one in ten people with substance use disorders gets needed and effective treatment. <a href=''>We</a> help make this unholy situation happen when we stigmatize and discriminate against people with addictions. <a href=''>That's</a> the first vector. <br /><br /><a href=''>The</a> second vector is what happens in those affected, often early, surely later, and with little chance of escape. <a href=''>The</a> great actor Samuel L. <a href=''>Jackson</a> once remarked, "I guess the worst day I have had was when I had to stand up in rehab in front of my wife and daughter and say,Hi, my name is Sam and I am an addict.' " Shame is more powerful than guilt in its psychological injury. Guilt is usually circumscribed and derived from violating a rule or breaking a taboo; it can be remedied by contrition or penance. Guilt can be undone, as a rule. But shame is different: it is about the self, how we regard ourselves in the deepest and most racking of ways. Shame is notoriously hard to undo, with few specific or effective remedies. It tends to live on and do increasing and cumulative damage as it erodes a person's self-regard. The degradation that people with addictions feel when stigmatized fuels further shame--which is a massive trigger for drug use, for blotting out what is most unbearable, self-loathing. There's an old adage concerning optimism and pessimism that asks: "Would you view a drinking glass as half-full, or half-empty?" However, a habitual procrastinator's response is more likely to be: "I never get a full glass of water." What does that tell you about how a habitual procrastinator thinks? What this response shows us is that many procrastinators also suffer from an exaggerated form of anticipatory distress, or, what we might call, "fear of the future." It's a concern, as well as a prediction, that they'll incur horrible results just for getting involved in a task or a project. As a result of this thinking, they prefer to sit things out. Here are just some of the ways in which habitual procrastinators can magnify their concerns: The procrastinator is greatly concerned over negative results that haven't yet come about, as the result of actions that have yet to be taken. He imagines calamities and worries more about the images that he sees in his head, rather than concerning himself with the all too real consequences that could arise from not taking action. The procrastinator worries that he will suffer shame and embarrassment from the opinions, comments, criticism, or invalidation of others. "Why try? I'm only going to get shot down for it, anyway!" The procrastinator fears that accomplishments will lead to new choices, new decisions, new expectations, and more obligations. But researchers have also identified other biological markers linked to depression, though it is still unclear what role they are playing in mood disorders. For example, cortisol, produced in the adrenal glands, is a critical part of the body's resistance to stress and trauma. People experiencing the usual "fight or flight" reaction to stress are more prone to exhaustion afterward and may also be vulnerable to depression as their cortisol levels, and often their serotonin levels, drop below normal.