Psychology and Stress

According to Mental Health America: In 2019-2020, 20.78% of adults were experiencing a mental illness – equivalent to over 50 million Americans. The percentage of adults reporting serious thoughts of suicide is 4.84%, but 11% of adults who identified with two or more races reported serious thoughts of suicide in 2020. Over 10% of our youth experience a level of depression that impairs their ability to function at school, work, or with family and peers. To top it off, 28% of adults with a mental illness report that they are not able to receive the treatment they need.

What is going on in America that makes coping so tough? For one thing, American society is a confusing, unpredictable, and contradictory environment. Psychologists know that such an environment is not conducive to mental stability, especially for young folks struggling to find their goals, purpose, and values. Daily, Americans are faced with sensory overload from social media; ubiquitous electronic devices impede the search for personal values; students are frightened because of school shootings; we are in a tsunami of banning books, censoring school curricula, and insulting the ability of teachers to teach; we say climate change, vaccines, and science are real – unless they are fake; we degrade and humiliate those with diverse lifestyles. On top of all these trends, we are infested with a self-preoccupation – “me, me, me” – approach to life that has metastasized into destructive attitudes and actions directed at others. And we ask why mental health problems are increasing? Frankly, it is amazing that not all of us have lost our grip on stability.

Self-absorption melds perfectly with another troublesome trend in our society: censoring attitudes and policies that foster equality and inclusion across diverse elements of society. Is it not confusing that a fundamental cornerstone value of our democracy – all are equal – is rejected by a large portion of our populace? This denial adds to the confusion and unpredictability in America that contributes significantly to mental health problems. The incidence of mixed-race mental illness noted above shows the danger of censoring diversity: It destroys respect for others by increasing self-absorption to the exclusion of empathy for others. This empathy deficiency leads to apathy and ambivalence about life as meaningful and worthwhile, which eventually leads to risk-taking, aggression (antisemitism anyone?), negativity, and self-disrespect. Self-censorship of the value of others also leads to avoidance thinking, which decreases honest self-evaluation.

Mental stability is based on predictability, clarity about others’ actions, humility, and empathy. These are features of reality that help one cope with stress. When one’s world becomes confusing and unpredictable, humility is replaced with feelings of unworthiness, and empathy is replaced with withdrawal and anger. At that point, one is vulnerable to the anxiety and depression that preclude living a purposeful and satisfying life.

The Coping model developed in this blog involves four steps:

Acceptance of Reality. Conspiracy theories are fun, but they are a form of avoidance of reality. Think of acceptance as the opposite of avoidance of your problems. When you seek to avoid and escape your stressors, you get trapped by irrational thinking, denial, and passively believing what others tell you. Acceptance, on the other hand, means empowering yourself to face yourself and the reality around you. It does not mean submissively consenting to the dictates of others. It means accepting the fact that you need to coordinate your actions with your values, and to take appropriate action that may involve working through some pain and suffering if you are to grow.

Acceptance leads to…

Accountability. Take responsibility for your actions and their consequences. Accountability does not mean you always must admit that you were at fault for what happened. It means recognizing that you are responsible for evaluating your role in some event. In many cases, you must choose not to blame yourself, not to form a pity parade, and not to make it all about you as a sufferer. Accountability means empowering yourself to choose how best to evaluate an experience, and how best to resolve the subsequent emotions you feel.

Accountability leads to…

Humility. You are not the primary ingredient in the recipe. Humility allows you to go “beyond yourself,” to face your troubles directly, and to interact with others who are also hurting. Only with humility will you be able to see the importance of reaching out to others with problems like yours; only with humility can you understand the effect you are having on others; only with humility can you become “other-oriented” rather than “me-oriented.”

Humility leads to…

Empathy. When most people think of empathy, they think of sympathy: “If I understand how another person is feeling, I am more likely to feel sympathy toward them, and want to help them.” Maybe so, but in a coping context, empathy has a much broader meaning than feeling sorry for someone. When you use empathy to cope, you are acting with moral strength; you are empowered by an understanding of how others are feeling, and you reach out to them – not because you pity them, but because you see yourself in them. The beauty of empathy is that both you and the other reap psychological benefits. Walk in another’s shoes, and service to others will follow; and, there is no more effective coping therapy than empathetic understanding and assistance to others.  Giving of yourself to others will be the greatest gift you ever receive.

            It’s been about 5 years since the Boy Scouts of America announced they would drop the word “Boy” from its name, and welcome girls as Scouts. The reaction from extreme conservatives was predictable: Boy Scouts is run by liberals who want to convert men into feckless weaklings; women are doing better than men with more attending college and becoming doctors because liberals are stripping men of their masculinity. The reality is, the future scares these extremists and takes them out of their comfort zone. The future threatens them with increasing numbers of competent women, non-Whites, non-Christians, and non-native-born Americans. They are terrified by what Kristina Hernandez, a media consultant and freelance writer, had to say about her 7-year old daughter who joined a Cub Scout pack that previously was open only to boys: “I have watched my daughter’s confidence bloom in the short amount of time she has been a Cub Scout. She has been able to do everything the boys do, from learning how to shoot a bow and arrow, to starting a fire, to racing her own derby car, and shooting a BB gun.” Hernandez is grateful to BSA for opening their ranks. “I want my daughter to have every opportunity that boys have, to be empowered as a woman and know that she is capable of doing what boys do, but in her own, female way. Femininity or masculinity need not be lost because the Boy Scouts allows girls and changed their name.”

            Hernandez’s rational, and thoughtful comments are a breath of fresh air, and based on sound psychological principles. Psychologists have long known that the key to effective coping is flexibility, which means having a wide range of options when faced with challenges. The modern woman has the traditional feminine traits, and has no problem raising children, cleaning house, or cooking; but if the situation requires her to be assertive, competitive, and forceful, she can do so without feeling less of a woman. By the same token, most men today can stand their ground firmly and decisively, and initiate forceful action; but many are also comfortable showing emotion and sensitivity, changing a diaper, and supporting their spouse’s career without any threat to their manhood. The breadth of traits shown by today’s women and men makes them far better able to cope with life compared to those who are secure only in traditional roles.

            The desire to bring back mid-20^th century attitudes about how men and women should behave will render many young folks psychologically weakened and unable to cope with future stressors. The result will be psychological sabotaging of both themselves and of larger society. Effectively coping with stress requires rejection of rigid extremes, and acceptance of flexibility in your thinking and attitudes. You can cope best when you are comfortable confronting a wide range of situational demands, and being strengthened by values, morality, and honor. Fortunately, we see almost daily – whether it be the crusades of students tired of being shot at, athletes tired of being sexually abused, or women tired of being subjugated to the whims of powerful men – positive movements based on constructive – not destructive – coping with the demands of reality. Constructive coping means choosing not to avoid, distort, or deny the realities of challenges, but choosing instead to confront, manage, and survive those realities. In your own life, choose well and you will live a more satisfying life.

If you want to cope with stress more effectively, you must be vigilant and willing to face the fears that can lead you to reality distortion and irrational thinking. You simply cannot cope effectively if your mind is engaged in distorting reality to maintain misguided beliefs. That house of cards will eventually fall because it is based on avoidance and fear.

Coping with stress requires a willingness to change your beliefs when appropriate. The first step in the process is looking squarely at your beliefs and asking yourself, “Am I avoiding something? Am I afraid of something that makes me hold onto these beliefs?” Rodney was an 18-year-old who believed that all Mormon men had multiple wives, only one of whom they made public. The rest were hidden away. Rodney’s father taught him this “fact,” and Rodney’s self-esteem was based on praise and acceptance from his father. He had a mostly unconscious fear of offending his father and suffering rejection, which would plunge him into anxiety about being abandoned. He could not challenge this father’s beliefs. Rachel, a 35-year-old single woman, avoided romantic commitment like the plague. At a deep mental level, Rachel feared she would be sexually promiscuous like her mother, who was a prostitute throughout Rachel’s childhood. Rachel feared that romantic involvement would lead to promiscuity, and expose to herself and others that she had no moral values. Only complete avoidance of emotional commitment could keep her fears hidden. Carol, a 19-year-old college student suffered intense test anxiety. Rather than face this truth realistically, she was able to convince her school’s Learning Skills Center that she needed special arrangements in her courses for taking tests. She was a solid B student, but she was tormented with the idea that she was a “dumb, incompetent, loser who couldn’t face a challenge without special help.”

Rodney and Rachel required professional counseling to be able to accept the reality of their core fears. Over time they were able to consider alternative beliefs and actions that enabled them to cope with their anxiety in more realistic fashion. Carol was more aware of her core fear, and she was able to work with a college counselor for alternative ways – notably better study practices – to confront the anxiety.

When it comes to dealing with stress, no matter what beliefs we’re talking about, when they are unrealistic, illogical, inconsistent, and contradictory, you should attack them critically and work at discarding them in favor of alternatives. Discuss your choices with a trusted friend, advisor, or professional counselor. Finally, when you choose new actions consistent with more realistic beliefs, make sure you have a reliable social support network. Coping with stress is seldom accomplished alone.

A recurrent theme of this blog is: Extreme attitudes make coping with stress difficult. “Men have better judgment and executive ability than women”; “Conservatives are liars”; “Blacks are less intelligent than Whites”; “Winning is the only thing”; “Homosexuality is a choice based on being mentally ill.” These extreme attitudes will make it hard for a person to adapt to situations that require some flexibility. For instance, taking each of the opinions listed above, what if your boss is a woman, or a Black? (You will look for another job.) What if you’re on a project team at work and the other team members seem to be liberal in their views? (You will be seen as uncooperative and selfish, and jeopardize your standing at work.) What if your 8-year-old son is distraught because his baseball team finished last? (You will encourage him to quit, and undermine his self-esteem.) What if your 12-year-old son comes to you and says he thinks he’s gay? (You will show him a road of denial and his self-concept will slowly disintegrate.) In each case, holding an extreme attitude will make it nearly impossible for holders to adopt a problem-solving approach to the stressful situation. Rather, they are more likely to take an emotion-based approach, and the result will be conflict, misinterpretation, frustration, anger, and isolation – all conducive to poor coping.

There are several concepts from the discipline of psychology – confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, cognitive bias – that capture the essence of extremism: distortion of reality. Those who hold rigid extreme attitudes twist and garble information from the outside to keep it consistent with their inflexible world view. Their rationality and accuracy are compromised as they struggle to alter facts to conform to their predetermined beliefs. They harbor anxious self-doubts, low self-esteem, and little confidence. They attack others – “It’s good-me against the evil-them. What my group believes is righteous.” They construct a world of lies, alternative facts, conspiracies, and false narratives to justify their extremism. They turn to domination and violence to eliminate the enemy. Eventually they turn against their own group, and aggression implodes bringing both them and others down. Thus it is that a dysfunctional member of a family can wreak destruction on the whole family; a small-group leader can destroy the cohesion of the group; a national leader can lead millions to their deaths and destroy a country.

Gene, 38, has a high-stress job with a stock market group. The workers exist solely to make money for their clients by choosing how to invest their clients’ money in the market. Gene has a so-so record with the company – a few successes, more failures – but you would never know it. Whether at work or in public, Gene prances and struts around like the head rooster in the farmyard. He boasts to anyone who will listen about his prowess, and he’s always eager to criticize his colleagues. He wears the best clothes, drives a super expensive car, and generally lives beyond his means, which puts a lot of pressure on his wife of 12 years. He also is very opinionated, holding extreme views about virtually everything (religion, politics, and childrearing, just to name a few), and seems to enjoy arguing with others – especially his and his wife’s family members – about the error of their ways when they disagree with him. He became so argumentative at family gatherings that both his parents and his in-laws warned him that if he could not restrain himself, he would not be welcome. The warnings did not work, and Gene, his wife, and kids were essentially ostracized from the rest of the family. His wife managed to keep in contact with the family when Gene was not around, but she, Gene, and the kids no longer attended gatherings like Thanksgiving and Christmas. The family was torn asunder.

Gene’s arrogant behavior is extreme, well beyond what he could logically justify. A psychologist would look at his excessive bragging and conflicts as designed to hide and avoid facing some internal fears. A knowledge of Gene’s childhood would uncover his core insecurity: Gene was raised by an authoritarian, demanding father who could never be pleased. No matter what Gene did, Dad found a way to criticize it. He hit a homerun in Little League, but Dad reminded him he struck out twice; he got a B+ in chemistry, but Dad wondered why not an A. Dad always managed to belittle Gene’s successes, which kept his son’s self-esteem in the toilet. Gene’s adult behavior shows the ego defense of reaction formation: Inside, he is insecure and afraid of failure; his extreme overt displays of confidence are smoke screens—ego defenses—designed to hide those internal fears. His displays of competence and independence are intense and chronic, and they betray in him a desperate attempt to hide his anxieties and weaknesses from others, especially from himself and from Dad. The tragedy was that his desperation brought considerable collateral damage to his family and his wife’s family.

Extremists base their lives on emotion – “I am right! You are wrong and you are evil!” Enchained like a slave, they live in an unchanging, static world of blame, anger, and revenge. Their emotions may eventually turn inward, producing a mind divided against itself, causing more stress. It pays to remember that if you are to cope realistically and successfully with your stressors, you must be guided by facts and results, not by a gut feeling. Only then can you be accountable for your actions, less self-preoccupied, and more socially responsible.

Guidance from the discipline of Psychology about how to raise a child seems to swing back and forth like a pendulum. For instance, 100 years ago, the prominent behaviorist John Watson recommended to parents that they eliminate nighttime thumb sucking in their infants and toddlers by pinning the arms of their bedclothes to the mattress; babies should be raised on a strict feeding schedule; physical punishment of children was appropriate and necessary; and affection between parent and child should be used sparingly. In short, from infancy on, children should be treated as adults. Twenty-five years later, the age of pediatrician Benjamin Spock began, and Watson’s advice was seen as bordering on cruel and barbaric. Spock’s book, “Baby and Child Care,” preached a more permissive childrearing model, and guided the behavior of millions of baby-boom parents following WWII. During the last half of the 20^th century, Spock’s book sold nearly 50 million copies worldwide. His permissive, nurturing approach to childrearing advised parents to recognize and be sensitive to their child’s changing motives, interests, and abilities at different stages of development. He promoted “moderate strictness,” where children must be taught manners, courtesy, cleanliness, and obedience, but always in a context of supportive guidance. He was passionately opposed to using physical punishment with children.

Most adults of the baby-boomer generation (born 1946-1964) can remember being physically punished when they were young. Often, I have heard someone comment on some action by a young person today, and say, “If I ever did that when I was a kid my old man would take a belt to me!” I have also heard baby boomers reflect on their school, and refer to “Miss So-and-so” as someone who wouldn’t hesitate to “wrap me on the knuckles with a block or a ruler if I acted out in class.” Over the Dr. Spock years, however, many of his messages took hold and parental actions like physical punishment slowly were seen as inappropriate for childrearing and schooling. As one young father put it: “I have my own kids now and I don’t use any physical punishment, nor does my wife. These days it’s just too easy to be accused of simple spanking crossing a very blurry line, and becoming something that say a teacher under strict mandated reporting has the duty to report further. I don’t need that! I also believe that violent acts breed violent acts; if I spank, I teach the kid violence is the way to handle things. Not worth it.”

Corporal punishment in the schools also began to fade away during the Spock years. As one teacher put it: “Physical punishment only sends the message to fear the instrument, or provider, and not actually curb the behavior. In schools, we clearly can’t resort to physical punishment, but we do have the option of response-cost, which is taking away something preferred, or positive reinforcement, which is giving something preferred. I tend to use reinforcement much more often because it seems to be more effective. I’d rather do something to earn something, than have to act simply to avoid punishment.”

The teacher’s comment notwithstanding – in our present atmosphere of online threats, gun violence, and extreme verbal aggression by some political leaders – reputable media sources are reporting an increasing trend of allowing corporal punishment in schools. Some school districts have been designing policies that – with written parental permission – allow teachers to use physical punishment in the form of “paddling.” Some of these policies are in effect state-wide. This trend is disturbing because psychologists can call on a mountain of evidence showing that punishment is ineffective in changing behavior, potentially contributes to childhood trauma, and can have adverse consequences that extend into adulthood. Furthermore, think about it – what kind of parents would permit a teacher to inflict pain on their child? Fortunately, in spite of these policies to insert physical punishment into schools, nationwide support for school paddling continues to be low. Most people do not want to see a return to early 20^th century childrearing practices that deny decades of sound psychological research into the cognitive, emotional, and social development of children. From a mental-health perspective, let’s hope corporal punishment stays out of schools.

Ray is a high-school senior enrolled in an AP Literature class. Like 80% of the students in his school Ray is White. His AP teacher is also White. She has been teaching the popular AP course for over 10 years. She includes Black authors in one section of the course, and encourages class discussion on race in America in that section. Most students also say she is known for challenging her students with controversial topics, but does not advocate any particular position because she wants students to be aware of all sides of an issue. Ray wants AP credit, but he is upset about the section of the course that requires him to read “all this Black stuff.” He complains to his parents that she is making him learn “garbage that I don’t want to learn.” His parents complain to the school Principal, who reminds the teacher that the state legislature has just banned teaching of critical race theory. He warns the teacher, “Get rid of that section or I will have to remove you.” She refuses and is replaced by another teacher who is given a revised course outline. Several students and parents complain about the changes, but the Principal says she must obey the law.

The human mind strives for consistency and harmony. Your mind doesn’t like disharmony resulting from contradictory beliefs and actions because such contradictions can produce discomfort and even fear that motivate you to hold onto your beliefs. In Ray’s case, inconsistency is resolved when the teacher is removed – although at the expense of having an educated mind! The threat of facing opposing beliefs stokes fear in the minds of indoctrinated extremists. Psychological insecurities render them vulnerable to facing nuance and diversity in a world they have been taught to believe is filled with absolutes, and they are ill-prepared to accept the reality of variety in the world around them. So it is that they must self-censor their mind by destroying the threat that triggers fear within them. That’s a poor way to cope with reality.

Young people are showing increases in mental and behavioral health problems: loneliness, mood swings, sleep disturbances, anxiety, poor school performance, low confidence and self-esteem, vulnerability to stress, peer-interpersonal disturbances, and family disruptions often lead the list. That last item is of particular importance because psychologists know that a solid, stable relationship with parents is the first line of defense for teens in navigating the confusing biological, cognitive, and emotional swings that go along with adolescence. Unfortunately, for many teens, their parents or friends might also be victims of disturbances to mental well-being. Our early 21^st century world presents a huge and varied frontal attack of stress on the minds and bodies of adults; teens are not the only ones presented with coping challenges from multiple directions.

So how do we help teens – and adults – with their mental well-being? One thing for sure, the answer is not found in the myriad of “wellness” exercises that are plentiful on various media formats. While things like deep breathing, muscle relaxation, and visualization techniques are helpful in the moment, they do not get to the root – the systemic formation – of the mental health issues facing victims of all ages. Also problematic is the fact that media sources entrap teens to focus on self-centered, egotistical traits like physical beauty and perfection as providing the pathway to well-being and happiness. What is needed are more fundamental problem-solving approaches like the following: (1) Communication with others. Victims need to hear and understand that what seems to be criticism and rejection directed at them does not put the blame for their issues on them; the critics also have issues, and they often project their issues onto the victim. (2) What follows from communication is Empathy. There is nothing more uplifting for one suffering from mental health issues than realizing that others have the same problems and need understanding, too. The development of empathy is essential to healthy coping with stress. (3) What follows from empathy is Service to Others, which has enormous healing properties for the helper. Few scenes are more tragic than a lonely, confused, dejected person of any age locked onto their computer screen desperately seeking happiness and validity for being, but finding instead “advice” that leads them farther into a black hole of despondency, misery, and hopelessness. Service to others allows them to break from this technological spell of deprivation, get “outside” of themselves, and act to help others in need. Such actions encourage the helper to discover value in self-sacrifice, selflessness, and philanthropy. (4) What follows from service to others is a discovery of one’s values. Effective coping cannot continue without a set of values to guide one’s actions; values give purpose and meaning to those actions. (5) What follows from values is the emergence of contentment, satisfaction, self-discovery, and happiness at one’s place in life. Happiness cannot be sought; it materializes from values-laden actions.

A basic tenet of psychology is that when you see yourself engaging in an activity, you incorporate that activity, and its accompanying values, into your self-concept. When you serve others with purpose, meaning, and contentment, you will endow your self-concept with purpose, meaning, and contentment, and arm yourself to cope successfully with the stressors and challenges that face you. Keep that fundamental principle in mind next time you struggle with yourself.

Has anyone ever said to you, “What are you doing? You seem totally depressed. Can’t you see you’re just hurting yourself?” Maybe you’re in an abusive relationship; maybe you’re having indiscriminate sex; maybe you’re ravaging your body with drugs and alcohol; maybe you’re gambling away most of your paycheck and your spouse is ready to take a hike. One way or the other, you’re engaging in risky behavior. You are not overtly or genuinely trying to kill yourself, but you’re certainly leading a self-destructive life, and acting like you don’t care if you live or die. People with this ambivalent attitude often live a lifestyle that escalates into exposing themselves to more and more risky behaviors. Like an untreated sore that can become infected, what begins as moderate apathy – “If I die today what’s the big deal?” –  becomes like a whirlpool that gradually sucks the victim into despair. Do you live “on the edge” of life, regularly engaging in risky actions? Do you show self-neglect and carelessness? Are your moods characterized by negativity, pessimism, and depressive thoughts? If so, you may be afflicted with what therapist Michael Church calls Subtle Suicide.

Dr. Church has found that clients who fit the Subtle Suicide profile are generally not helped by anti-depressant medications. Their problem appears to be rooted in avoidance actions they have learned over a long period of time. They work to avoid stress and confrontation and tend to “bottle up” emotions and not deal with them; they often show addictive behaviors like gambling, alcoholism, excessive drug use, and overeating; and, they develop symptoms of depression and anxiety. These actions and symptoms are often mistaken as their root problems, and both counseling and medication are geared to them, not to the subtle-suicidal ambivalence that underlies the symptoms.

Jack, the older of two children, was always a physically large, overweight boy, and the other kids typically made fun of him. Consequently, he never developed much self-confidence and had low self-esteem. His home life was lacking in warmth and love. In fact, the primary source of acceptance in Jack’s family seemed to be food. Whenever the kids came home from school, Mom was in the kitchen cooking, ready to welcome them with all sorts of treats. Jack’s father was domineering, cold, and harsh. We do not know if Jack’s father physically abused him. When asked, Jack was evasive.

In high school and college, Jack got acceptable grades and stayed out of trouble. He plugged along, avoiding challenge and confrontation. After graduation from college, he got a job, met a girl, got married, and began a family. Unfortunately, he continued to avoid facing the challenges of life. His wife, Brenda, ran the household and made most of the decisions, both domestic and financial. When children came along, Brenda became the disciplinarian and primary caretaker. Jack had no clear father model from his childhood, and he stayed in the background when it came to raising the kids.  

After a couple of unsatisfactory jobs and a failed business venture, Jack eventually found a job that gave him some success and financial security. Over the years, however, his drinking increased significantly. He spent long hours away from home socializing and drinking while Brenda was home managing the kids and the home. When she confronted him about his need to take on more responsibility and be more involved, he got angry and refused to discuss the situation. Jack developed some health problems in his early forties, but he kept his symptoms to himself. He chose not to tell Brenda about his pains and not to get checked out by his physician. Eventually he developed open, bleeding sores on his skin, and he needed Brenda’s help in caring for them. Brenda pleaded with him to go to the doctor but he still stubbornly refused, even as his condition worsened. His denial and avoidance tendencies had now reached irrational levels. Brenda took extreme action and had him involuntarily committed to a medical facility for diagnosis and treatment. Her actions, unfortunately, came too late. The physicians said his cancer was too advanced and he died within a couple of months.

Beginning in childhood, Jack’s life was devoted to avoidance of conflict. His domineering father scared him so much he withdrew into a shell; his mother showed little warmth toward him except by cooking. Jack’s view of life became negative, based on a belief that people were untrustworthy and threatening. By adulthood he showed little compassion for himself or his family. He was self-absorbed, disconnected from others, and had no sense of purpose or life goals. He did not care about his own life and took no steps to help himself. Nothing seemed to matter to him except avoiding confrontation with others. His lifetime of avoidance and apathy showed an ambivalence toward living that is typical of the subtle suicide individual. His withdrawal strategy was doomed to fail because confronting and dealing with negative emotions and psychological pain are necessary if we are to become psychologically strong and healthy. Jack, however, refused to do so. His avoidance actions grew stronger and took him in a downward spiral from which he could not escape.

            Mark is a friend of mine who is a teacher. He recently wrote about changes in his teaching duties, and reading his words struck me as describing precisely what it is that teachers do. There is so much negativity about teachers these days – much of it focusing on what they are allowed to say and not allowed to say in the classroom. The negativity is brought about by state legislators who seem to think they know what teaching is all about. No wonder that teachers are leaving the profession in large numbers. These legislators vote for politically-tinged guidelines dictating teacher behavior, not recognizing that their new laws ignore what teachers actually do, and how they impact a developing young person’s mind in positive ways. Listen to what Mark has to say:

            “I just closed another chapter of my life, as I will no longer be teaching history.  I will no longer be teaching in the junior high either.  I will now be teaching in the ESL Dept (English as a Second Language) in the new W-B Area high school.  As I proceed through my career, I look at my role as a teacher as a tapestry of existence into the lives of my students. Every teacher (not just me) becomes a fleeting thread, woven into their grand design of time, and leaving my mark upon this world is not simply measured by the footprints I leave behind, but by the echoes of my intentions, the ripples of my actions and the lives I touch. As I navigate through this journey, I am tasked with dealing with students with a sense of empathy, kindness, and meaningful connections in a delicate balance between moments of joy and sorrow, purpose and uncertainty. The legacy we forge is not simply etched into stone, but it’s etched into the hearts and minds of those we encounter along our journey. It is a testament to our ability to inspire, uplift, and ignite the sparks within others. So let us strive not for the fleeting glory of fame or recognition, but for the enduring resonance of our influence. Let us sow seeds of compassion, tend the garden of knowledge, and let our actions be the brushstrokes of a masterpiece that continues to evolve, long after we have whispered our final farewells.”

            Mark’s insightful words remind me of an experience years ago. It was Parents’ Weekend at the college where I was teaching, and I had agreed to serve on a panel to discuss with parents the academic experience from our faculty perspectives. We introduced ourselves – name and department, until the professor after me said, “Hi, I’m Gregory Henson of the history department. But I don’t teach history; I teach your sons and daughters.” I was a young faculty member, 7 years into what would turn out to be a 41-year career, and I remember thinking to myself, “What’s he talking about? He teaches history!”

            I believe that Mark’s comments above describe well what Dr. Henson meant by his comment. Teaching is much more than just emptying content into students’ brains. I also believe that Mark’s comments show us how teaching has relevance to what we talk about in this blog – coping with stress. Note the similar positive coping themes of development that Mark touches on: “meaningful connections”; understanding the “balance between moments of joy and sorrow, purpose and uncertainty”; “kindness”; “compassion”; “empathy”; “the ripples of my actions.” Such things are the cornerstones of learning to cope well with stress and challenges. Mark’s words make it very clear that he is not a historian, or someone proficient in English, who happens to be a teacher. No. Mark is first and foremost a teacher who just happens to be competent in history and English. Next time you hear about some nonsensical new law passed in a state legislature telling teachers how to do their job, ponder those thoughts.