Psychology and Stress

Are you getting stressed out and anxious about the election? Depressed? Maybe just disgusted? It might be time to remember some important things about dealing with emotions.

Your emotions show that you care, that you are involved in our democratic process. Good for you! Also, remember that your emotions are natural states that can be a positive motivator for you. They need not be your enemy. Use emotions to motivate you to take actions that empower you. Go into “critical-thinking mode” by asking yourself some fundamental questions: Are you making a mountain out of a molehill? (“The future of humanity hinges on this election.”) Are you over-generalizing and being manipulated? (“Our entire electoral system is corrupt.”) Are you looking for logical inconsistencies between words and actions. (”FEMA is blocking disaster aid.”) from those whose pronouncements cause you worry? Do you ask yourself if you’re thinking irrationally or unrealistically (“The election will be rigged.”)? Granted, what has been said during this election can make it tough determining what may be an irrational fear (“Rapists, murderers, and drug dealers are coming by the thousands.”), but the fact remains, you must approach your emotions with some critical thinking. Think your fears through and seek out valid and reliable information.

If you have friends and acquaintances who support the candidate you do not, it helps to remember that they are entitled to their opinion, and you must respect that right. You do not, however, have to listen to them, and you have the right to tell them you do not want to talk about the election. If they persist, disengage from them. You may want to block, hide, or unfriend people from your social media accounts. But remember, those who talk loudest and longest about the wisdom and correctness of their opinion, are those who feel inadequate and insecure about the wisdom and correctness of their opinion. Psychologists call it “reaction formation.”

It might be helpful to shift your focus from the national level to your local elections. Many important issues exist at the local level, and candidates for city councils, clerkships, mayoralties, etc. are often somewhat more civil than seen on the national stage. Focusing on local contests can also help your confidence in the election process. As former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill said, “All politics is local.” You and your neighbors, “We, the People,” are the ultimate foundation of our government.

As always, let your emotions guide you into service to others in need. Recent hurricanes provide us all with additional opportunities to help those in trouble. As a general rule of coping, however, anything you can do to venture outside yourself and perform real actions that benefit others will have positive effects on your mood and your self-esteem, plus give you a sense of purpose and meaning in what can be a very frustrating world. Research shows that giving may even alleviate depression. A focus on self is not a good strategy against depression; giving, on the other hand focuses on the needs of others, and volunteers are less likely to be depressed. 

Finally, it never hurts to let a little humor into life. Adlai Stevenson was Democratic candidate for president two times, losing each time to Eisenhower (1952 and 1956). But he made a good offer when he said,”I offer my opponents a bargain: if they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them.”

Note: Normally I post new entries on Friday. The probability of having power this Friday, however, is low, thanks to Milton.

Martha, now in her 50s, came to counseling struggling with loneliness. She was also having difficulty with her homosexuality. For years, she had a stable and intimate relationship with her partner, Lois. However, Lois died suddenly and Martha was emotionally devastated. She was not one to announce or otherwise display her sexual preference. The fact that she lived and worked in a small town, far from larger metropolitan areas where there would be more support from a gay/lesbian population, just added to her adjustment difficulties. Also, her age made it difficult for her to meet available gays in her own small community.

Over time, she became more and more depressed over her personal loss, as well as extremely lonely and longing for affection. She also began to show symptoms of subtle suicide. That is, she developed an ambivalence about life, deciding that she didn’t care about living; this attitude made her vulnerable to risky, careless behaviors. For instance, a same-sex neighbor became interested in her. Well into her 50s and desperate for a love connection, Martha pursued an intimate relationship despite her better judgment (the neighbor was married).

A few years later, Martha moved to a larger city and entered counseling because her married partner rejected her after more than three years of involvement. Although angry and upset over the way the relationship ended, she decided to face many of her fears, and entered counseling for help. After her initial diagnostic workup, the counselor realized that she had many strengths and positive attributes to work with, and the prognosis for achieving her goals was excellent. Counseling helped guide her into constructive ways of coping with her loneliness and depression. She realized she had to avoid self-defeating actions that could make her even more depressed and produce other negative emotional states like anxiety, frustration, and anger.

Martha learned that she had to accept her sadness and loneliness, and get better control over both her thinking and her actions. She took responsibility for those things she could control, but also accepted the fact that she was not to blame for the failed relationships. She stopped obsessing (something she could control) over the behavior of others (something she could not control), stopped feeling sorry for herself, and began to reach out and meet new people. Her social outreach helped her develop empathy for others as she became more and more engaged in gay pride initiatives. Her loneliness faded as she discovered new strengths in herself that emerged from seeing that she could be a positive influence in the lives of others. When she ended her counseling, she was not in a committed relationship, but she was developing a wide social network, and was viewed by many in the gay as someone they could turn to for support and understanding. Martha’s sense of self, and her psychological stability, grew strong and gave her a sense of purpose in life.

“We’re both givers so we’ll get along just fine and have a great relationship.” Maybe not. Dr. Michael Church says there are four types of givers: Self-sacrificing—passive and eager to please, they put their needs on hold to let others feel stronger and more dominant; Hypersensitive—anxious, fearful, and easy to hurt, they avoid basic responsibilities in life; Indecisive—afraid to make decisions, they rely on others and need constant reassurance they are loved; Benevolent Dictator—seeks control, but in a conventional and non-malicious manner. Church says that in some relationships with two givers, sparks can fly depending on the combination; the personalities may be too much alike to get along unless the partners make fundamental changes in their actions and expectations. The case of Andy and Gloria is an example.

            Andy and Gloria met in their late twenties and married 18 months later. Prior to meeting, neither had experienced a serious emotional relationship. Both also came from highly dysfunctional families. They described their fathers as verbally abusive and demanding, and their mothers in less than flattering terms. As each moved through their teen years, they both were eager to reach an age when they could leave home and begin independent lives.

            Andy and Gloria entered counseling complaining of a lack of intimacy in the relationship. Andy immediately stood out as a hypersensitive, dependent individual who also had narcissistic qualities. He lacked empathy, was very possessive, and could not take criticism. Gloria, on the other hand, came across as self-sacrificing, while also showing histrionic traits; she could be very dramatic and attention-seeking. She wanted to start a family and—waving her arms in the air vigorously—she complained, “It’s hard enough to get pregnant for God’s sake, and it just doesn’t help things if we only have sex once a month or even less.” Andy just shrugged his shoulders and said, “Hey, I can’t help it if I’m tired a lot and just don’t feel like it. I’m not a machine.”  

As counseling progressed, Gloria developed a variety of vague physical complaints. Despite seeing many medical specialists, there was never any diagnosis that seemed to explain her symptoms. Her therapist began to suspect that her symptoms were the result of frustration with her lifestyle and marriage. She was unhappy with the lack of marital intimacy and potential to have a child, and felt her life dreams were slowly vanishing before her eyes. When asked if she thought she would be better off out of the marriage, she said that when she suggested to Andy that they consider a separation to help them see things in a better perspective, he became very manipulative, almost childlike. Then he begged for forgiveness and quickly shifted to trying make her feel guilty for even bringing up the subject.

The more serious their marital difficulties became, the more dependent Andy became on her. He talked about finishing college and getting a better job, but made no real effort to do so. “I’m just going through a tough time, Glo. I promise you I’m going to look harder for a better job, and then we’ll have more money. I just know I can find something.”

            “I’ve heard that song and dance, Andy. When are you going to look for this great job? You keep saying you’ll do it but you don’t. Why can’t I get you to be stronger? Your empty promises are wearing me down, you know. I don’t know what to do.” Gloria was too focused on her husband’s needs and not enough on her own. She could not assert herself consistently and strongly enough with him. Consequently, she did not see too many ways to change her life. It was simply too frustrating for her to care about her wants and needs because she did not believe Andy could satisfy them.

            Andy and Gloria stopped going to counseling after several months, even though they never met their goals. They had a friendship that worked to a degree, and they were willing to stay in their no-growth relationship. The alternative would require them to make dramatic changes in their lives that would take them out of their comfort zones and produce a lot of stress, uncertainty, and more independent decisions and lifestyles. The opportunities—which they probably saw more as new stressors—for a better life associated with these challenges were not enough to motivate them towards significant change, either together or apart. Unfortunately, neither Andy nor Gloria brought out the best in the other. They each lacked both the physical and emotional chemistry needed, and were unwilling to change their relationship. They stayed together for the wrong reasons. He was extremely dependent and attached to her no matter what. She was willing to sacrifice her needs for his, even if that meant she would not be happy. We lost touch with them after they left counseling.

Here are some questions to ask yourself, and use to conduct what can be a penetrating self-analysis:

1. What am I avoiding? [Sam avoids commitment because he fears rejection.]
2. What is real in my life? [Tammy has low self-esteem, persistent feelings of worthlessness, and believes others think she’s a loser.]
3. What is imaginary in my life? [Ralph blames his problems on his parents.]
4. Do I fear knowledge? [Ginger believes in banning certain books in the schools and the public library.]
5. Do I reject opinions that differ from mine? [Alex was raised to distrust others.]
6. What are my values? [Louise believes she is entitled to have what she wants.]
7. Are my actions consistent with my values? [Louise uses others for personal gain. She has no close friends.]
8. Am I accountable for what’s bothering me? [Ben lives by rationalization and defensiveness.]
9. Do I fear loneliness? [Alex has intense abandonment anxiety, yet #5 sabotages his life.]
10. Do I talk mostly about me? [Everyone mentioned in brackets does, but they do so defensively, never humbly. What does that tell you?]
11. Do I serve others? [No one mentioned in brackets does. What does that tell you?]

           

Trouble stirring in your relationship? Ask yourself: “Am I giving up too much of myself?” “Is my self-identity suffering in this relationship?” “Do I need to be more assertive?” These questions are not relevant in every relationship, but they are with Jen and Bob, a couple who sought marital counseling when Jen learned of Bob’s affair. They had been married for 13 years and had three young children. Everyone in the family was physically healthy, and Jen and Bob worked as professionals; money was not a problem. They had a history of good times together. Sure, there were strains and stressors: kids, house, and their jobs, but nothing extreme or unmanageable. What happened?

Initially, counseling involved looking into the dynamics of their lives before marriage. Bob described his father—the only deceased parent of the four—as abusive and strict. Bob was an only child, so he got the brunt of punishment and demands doled out regularly by his father. Bob described his mother as nurturing, supportive, and protective. She was, however, absent a lot because of her professional employment. Bob developed into a hypersensitive individual with some rebellious traits. The latter was due to some suppressed anger toward authority (Dad), and uncertainty about how to express the anger because of fear of retaliation. “Dad really intimated me,” said Bob. “I was angry at him and resented him a lot, but I was really scared of him. He could really dish out the punishment.”

            Jen dad was the nurturing and sensitive one in her family, whereas her mom was supportive but “tough.” Jen’s family life encouraged her to develop into a hard-working, self-sacrificing person who was open and forgiving, traits that were not dominant in Bob. Jen also became far less oppositional than her husband; Bob would be more likely to challenge and disagree with Jen’s decisions than Jen would be with Bob’s. Jen leaned more toward conciliation and compromise.

            For the first decade of marriage, their relationship was solid, although Bob sometimes was too uncompromising and self-centered. Jen brushed it aside as not worth worrying about. (denial and avoidance.) Jen says, “I remember thinking that he should be a little more considerate and see how I felt about things. But he would just charge ahead and do whatever he wanted to do without discussing it with me. I remember being a little disappointed and frustrated, but I just chalked it up to a quirk of his. No big deal, I figured.”

            On the surface Bob was a great guy who would do almost anything for anyone. Inside, however, there was a rebel lurking to express itself, and here we come to the crucial elements in the dynamics of this marriage: Jen was excessively sacrificing for the sake of the family; Bob, however, was tough in dealings with his family—just as his father had been—and he saved his nurturing, supportive side for those outside his family. He could not say “no” to friends, co-workers, relatives, and even the woman with whom he had the affair. The woman was aggressive in pursuing him, and he finally gave in. Bob was a patsy outside the home.  

            During counseling Bob admitted to his anger over the emotional deprivation he suffered at the hands of his father. He confessed he never really felt he was good enough for anyone, feelings that began with interactions with his dad. He felt he needed to keep trying to prove to everyone he was lovable. At an intellectual level, he knew such a goal was irrational but emotionally he was driven in this direction. Jen, meanwhile, was paying most of her attention to the kids. She had let the marriage slip a bit by giving insufficient attention to Bob, thereby awakening some of the emotional deprivation issues he had from his childhood. Jen’s lack of attention also meant that Bob was doing pretty much whatever he wanted without ever being questioned about it.

            Eventually, Bob achieved some insight into the origin of his problems, and realized that his marriage showed he was indeed quite lovable. He also got a better handle on his underlying resentment for rules and conventions that his father had beat into him. “These insights allowed me to start concentrating on my marriage more, and the affair less,” Bob observed later. The other woman concocted a story that she was pregnant with Bob’s child but miscarried. Bob said, “It took me a long time to understand how pathological this woman was, and to finally accept her crazy story as a lie. It wasn’t easy to reach that point, though.”

            Jen stood firm and supported Bob’s counseling and his efforts to produce changes in himself. “OK, sure, a lot of women would have told Bob to go to hell,” Jen says. “To me, though, holding the family together came first. Sure, I was upset and mad, but I couldn’t let those feelings get in the way of saving the family. I saw the affair as more Bob’s lust, not love of that woman, and that gave me something to work with.” After many sessions, Bob learned how to genuinely receive love from his wife. More importantly, he learned that he did not have to continuously prove his worth, and fill himself with approval, status, and recognition from others, especially those outside his family and work life. He came to realize that the extramarital affair was not simply a mid-life crisis, but was a failed attempt to prove he was lovable and needed. Both Bob and Jen pledged more quality time to one another. Bob was finally growing beyond his childhood demons, which allowed Jen to do the same, although her demons were much milder in degree.

Psychologists and other mental professionals have expressed concern over what they see as a mental health crisis in teens and young adults. Some psychologists recommend regular anxiety screenings for youth ages 8 to 18, and regular depression screenings for ages 12 to 18. Recent clinical studies with teens have focused on anxiety, bipolar disorder, depression, eating disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, addiction, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and suicide. Mental health workers note pandemic social isolation and the academic disruption children and teens faced: caregivers died or lost their job from Covid, and kids were victims of physical or emotional abuse at home; there are ongoing social media tensions, school violence, and climate worries, plus the usual adolescent hormonal chaos. Is it all too much for many youngsters?

I was a teenager from 1957 (age 13) to 1964 (age 20). As I recall, I had two main worries: keeping up with schoolwork, and girls. The former was manageable as long as I was willing to put in the time and effort; the latter was a losing battle. Girls remained a constant source of frustration, bewilderment, and rejection. In college my stressors were classes, grades, and girls, who remained a source of frustration, bewilderment, and rejection. I was in college when the Cuban missile crisis happened, but no one really believed the world was going to end. The calculus test was still on tap for tomorrow. Kennedy was assassinated but no one feared for the Republic; Johnson was sworn in within hours and life went on. There were rumblings in Southern cities and I believed in Dr. King’s message, but at the end of the day, I was White. No problem. There were no smart phones, no internet, no school shootings, no attacks on the Capitol.

I have no doubt that the stressors for teens today are more intense than in my day. Being bullied on the playground is one thing; bullied on social media is tougher on the victim. Going to class to take a test is one thing, but wondering if someone will show up with an assault rifle is quite another; taking No-Doz to help with studying all night is one thing, but scoring MDMA, ecstasy, cloud nine, or shrooms goes to another level. But there’s another difference between yesterday and today, a difference that’s overlooked but that I think makes today more stressful: Teens today live in a “psychologized” society; I did not.

What’s a psychologized society? It’s a society where we are sensitized to—alert to, vigilant about— psychological disorders; it’s a society where people believe every unexpected event, every challenge to one’s plans, every conflict, every “OMG” intrusion into one’s world is going to be psychologically debilitating; it’s a society where words like, “You need counseling,” “You’re probably bipolar,” and, “You have anxiety issues from PTSD,” are commonplace; it’s a society where we convince teens that because they have “mental issues,” that they are abnormal and afflicted with a psychological disorder.

More than once, I recall my parents saying, “You’re getting a little big for your britches, young man. It’s time for you to show some respect for your elders.” I never heard them say, “You have oppositional defiant disorder; we’ll have you checked by a counselor.” Today, however, when teens hear the “counselor” word—and they hear it often—they immediately think, “Counselor? OMG, I’m mentally ill!” And downward they spiral from there. That’s what happens to teens who live in a psychologized society in 2024. I saw a recent newspaper article about the importance of choosing a college major as soon as possible because, “Imagine the emotional stress of having to find a new major and career path one or two years shy of getting your college degree.” I taught college for 41 years (1970-2011) and I believe that the statement’s overemphasis on “emotional stress” is misguided. I advised scores of students who wanted to change their major and their career path. In 1961 I had a college friend who had a first-year gpa of 1.7. [You need a cumulative 2.0 to graduate.] He decided to change his major. His second-year gpa was 2.3 and things turned around by his junior year. He was behind but he caught up with a couple of summer courses. But you know what? Never did anyone—no friend, no parent, no teacher, no advisor—say to him, “You’re going to be under a lot of emotional stress with this change of major and you should go to the Counseling Center for help in dealing with the anxiety.” That just wasn’t our culture in the 1960s.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5^th edition, published in 2013) contains nearly 300 disorders. The first edition of this manual (published in 1952) contained 102 disorders. There can be little doubt that the manner of classifying mental disorders has changed and been significantly refined in the last 70 years. The problem is, these refinements have led to a greater number of “disorders,” and terms like bipolar, PTSD, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive, eating disorders, and addiction have become commonplace. The result is that impressionable teens integrate disorders into their developing self-concept, and fall victim to believing that they are abnormal. This self-preoccupation and self-sabotaging process is helped along by indulgent, guilt-ridden parents, and their kids develop a sense of entitlement—“treat me gently; I’m bipolar”—that they wear for all to see. We are seeing in real time the consequences of this psychologizing process in our society as support services struggle to keep up with increasing numbers of youngsters who believe they are “mentally ill.”  Of course, the internet, school violence, and climate worries are partly to blame. But so is the psychologized society we have created. Maybe, just maybe, instead of playing the mental disorder card every time a young person strays, adults should convey a message like this to them: “The world is a tough place and has some harsh standards. But, that’s reality, and I know that you can meet those standards; I have faith in your ability to do that, and I’m here to help out when you need it.”

Shakespeare said it succinctly in Hamlet, when he had Queen Gertrude comment on the insincerity of a character in a play: “The lady doth protest too much.” The Queen is saying that the assertions of faithfulness and love from a character are so extreme and persistent that the Queen does not believe they are true; the protesting character probably believes the opposite of what she is saying. In modern psychology, that’s exactly what the ego defense mechanism “reaction formation” means: Behaving outwardly and excessively—Shakespeare’s “too much” protesting—the opposite of how you feel inside, in order to hide from others and, more importantly, from yourself, those inner feelings. The guilty one yells, “I am innocent” the loudest; the sinner yells, “I am pure and without sin” the loudest.

Marlee and Terri work in the same division of a company, and they have both been assigned to a project team to investigate ways to improve worker morale and productivity. Marlee came up with a plan and presented it to the team by email. Terri has always been jealous of Marlee because her competence and popularity taps into Terri’s inner insecurities based on low self-esteem, self-doubts, and low confidence. Terri writes an extreme reply to the team that lashes into Marlee’s proposal, going so far as to say that the proposal violated company protocol and threatened the cohesiveness of the team. Shocked, Marlee asks Terri if she would state specific reasons for her accusations. Terri replies only to Marlee, continuing the “protest too much” reaction that characterizes reaction formation: “Since you’ve continued to behave poorly, I’ve removed you from the email thread so that the rest of us can have a productive conversation. I’m disappointed in your behavior and it’s shameful that a colleague would conduct herself in this manner. Your deliberate misreading of company policies is intellectually dishonest, and you know it. And I certainly think using the company email to treat me so rudely and disrespectfully shows your arrogance and selfishness. The company should remove your email privileges. I can only hope that you do not demean me and our other team members in public, although I expect no less given your hostile and hurtful nature toward me.” Marlee shared the email with the rest of the project team, and they asked their company supervisor to remove Terri from the project. He did so. Terri’s emails, excessively loud in their protest, are model examples of reaction formation.

George is 38 and shorter than average, which may have been one reason he was often bullied in high school. College went OK, and after graduation he landed a job in a brokerage firm. Even though his performance was decent, he was insecure and lacked self-esteem and confidence. At work he kept a low profile so he wouldn’t stick out. He stayed in his safe zone to avoid facing his insecurities. One day a colleague said, “Come on, George, get out of that shell. You know the market but you never put that knowledge into action. Go for it! Take some risks!”

George did just that and luck was on his side. His investment gamble brought millions into the firm almost overnight, and he went from a drone to a shining star. His whole demeaner changed. He pranced around work like the head rooster in the farm yard. He boasted about his prowess and criticized his colleagues often. He wore the best clothes, bought a super expensive car, and moved to an apartment well beyond his means. He became an arrogant snob who constantly acted like he was better than everyone. Is George acting so important a little extreme? Is he hiding his true feelings about himself? Shakespeare’s Queen Gertrude might have said, “He struts around too much!”

George’s behavior became extreme, and the fact that he continued to broadcast his successes so loudly showed that he was trying to avoid facing something from others and from himself: inside, he remained insecure and afraid of failure. His extreme overt displays of confidence were reaction formation smoke screens—ego defenses—designed to hide those fears. George’s actions became extreme, beyond showing moderate self-confidence. His displays of competence and independence became so extreme, so intense, and so chronic, they betrayed in him a desperate attempt to hide his anxieties and weaknesses from others, and especially from himself.

When used as a defense mechanism, reaction formation—habitually, and with great exaggeration, overtly acting the opposite of how you feel on the inside—is, like all ego defenses, a form of denial. George goes by a mirror and sees an immaculately-dressed man smoking a king-sized cigar. Like Terri, that vision allows George to deny what is truly inside: a frightened, insecure wimp who finds the slightest hint of failure a dire threat to psychological stability.

Back in the day when going online and surfing the net was a novelty, I remember reading research in a psychology journal that showed a positive relationship in teenagers between going online and depression. Kids who spent a lot of time online showed higher depression scores. The interpretation, of course, was that whether time on the internet was causing depression problems, or vice-versa, it was clear that going online sacrificed valuable social interaction with others. So, 40 years ago, right out of the psychology gate, going online excessively was seen as harmful.

            Fast forward to the present. Current research shows that online use is still associated with mental issues; research also shows, however, that reaching out to others through social media can be a source of emotional support to troubled people. Years ago, troubled folks ruminating at 2am on their misery could only reach for the phone and hope they could rouse a friend to chat. Today, of course, they can post a message online, “Anyone out there who can talk to me? I’m really feeling down and could use some support.”

            Sure, some nutcase could respond and add to the problem, plus cases of cyber-bullying are well-known. In spite of those risks, the potential of social media for providing emotional comfort is well-documented, and many mental-health professionals believe that the positive possibilities from using social media can outweigh the risk of making a problem worse. The key, of course, is how the platform is used, knowing how to be on guard, and being able to terminate a dangerous contact immediately.

            There’s a coping lesson in all this: One size seldom fits all. There’s nothing inherently good or bad about going online to seek some comfort; social media can be comforting and it can be damaging. Just because you know someone who was emotionally ravaged by some online exchanges does not mean that will happen to you. Your friend’s poison could be your salvation.

            The problem is, when people are troubled they want to believe that one size fits all, that what worked for Jennifer or Ken will work for them. And that is the danger you must guard against: When looking for help to develop effective coping strategies, you must not focus on the method; you must focus on whether the method brings out appropriate reactions from you. It’s no different than taking a prescription. A particular drug may work wonders for your friend, but produce terrible side-effects in you. Friend’s medicine, your poison.

            One final thought: Whether going online or seeking other methods to obtain coping help, there is no magical solution, no panacea for your issues. You must do the work. Too many people reach out to others for help, but with the expectation that others will wave some wand and all will be OK. Coping just doesn’t work that way. Do you want better results from your coping efforts? Then be prepared to work for them.

Another dark night? Eyes fixed on that glowing screen as you dig into the internet looking for something, anything, that will give your life meaning? You probably think you have found it, but you haven’t. That screen is entertaining and informative, but it’s also full of fake stuff, especially the stuff that talks about your mind. One thing that’s really bugging you tonight is whether to unfriend someone who lately has been a source of irritation and stress for you.

Dr. Carlea Dries has some advice when you’re faced with this dilemma. “Several years ago, I facilitated a group with a few ‘tween’ and teenage girls. Alyssa was describing an issue she was having with Sarah, from another town. Sarah was bullying Alyssa by consistently posting degrading, hurtful, and offensive comments on Alyssa’s wall. Alyssa felt trapped, helpless, and disheartened. A member of our group innocently said, ‘Why don’t you just block her?’ This simple suggestion changed Alyssa’s perspective on the situation as she suddenly realized she had an option that would allow her to regain power and control over the situation.  

            “The next time the group met, Alyssa proudly reported that she blocked Sarah and felt a lot better after doing so. Christina asked Alyssa if she had any guilt about blocking Sarah, who was once a friend. Alyssa said it never occurred to her that she should feel guilty. ‘Why should I feel guilty? Sarah was being nasty so I stopped it.’ Christina replied that she would have just hidden Sarah from her newsfeed, and added, ‘What if Sarah noticed and called you out on it? What would you do?’ As we discussed these issues it became apparent to the group that everyone has different thresholds for emotions. Whatever the threshold, however, the key is to search for options that will provide a sense of empowerment, and remember that there are often several solutions to issues. You always have a choice, and you should do what makes you comfortable. Alyssa chose to block Sarah; Christina would hide her.  

            “Bullying is not the only time blocking may be appropriate. For some people the barrage of special photos that are posted to social media (such as, new baby, first day of school, family outings, holidays) can be overwhelming, especially when grieving a loss. You may choose to avoid social media when those posted triggers are around. You may choose to block (or hide) the friends or family who routinely share pictures that you find upsetting. The thing to remember in all of this, of course, is that you have the power. 

            “You might ask, ‘Isn’t blocking someone really just avoiding an issue?’ That’s a valid and fair question, but the answer is no! In Alyssa’s case, blocking is not avoidance because she is taking a proactive and empowering step, taking charge to control an issue. Exercising power and control when appropriate is the gold standard of coping when confronted with social media challenges. In fact, not trying to empower yourself will prevent you from coping effectively with the challenge. So, when it comes to social media and those who just bring you bad vibes, go ahead and hide or block them; you will ultimately feel a sense of control when you scroll through your newsfeed. Block, hide, or unfriend; do what brings you that sense of empowerment.” 

Natalia is the scourge of the neighborhood. She lives alone in a house owned by her mother in a quiet, middle-class neighborhood that Natalia does everything she can to disrupt. In Winter, she does not clear snow off her section of sidewalk; in Summer her front yard is full of weeds; in Fall she does not rake her leaves; she goes out of her way to annoy her neighbors, and gets especially belligerent when she has “had a few.” On several occasions neighbors have called the police, and once she pushed an officer in anger. That action resulted in her arrest and an appearance before a judge, who fined her—mom paid the fine—and ordered her to undergo counseling.

Natalia was raised by an indulgent, overprotective mother, and a cold, distant father. Thanks to mom she developed a strong sense of entitlement, and she constantly sought—unsuccessfully—attention from her father. Right before her high school graduation she became pregnant by her boyfriend, Jan. Both Natalia’s and Jan’s parents insisted they get married right away. Their first child was a boy, followed by another boy three years later.

When the older boy reached his first birthday, Natalia’s dad began to take an interest in him, and he began to spend more and time with “my grandson.” Natalia was thrilled because she had more contact with dad and got to know him at last. But suddenly and unexpectedly, her dad died. Natalia was crushed with grief, but at the same time, mad as hell at her dad for “deserting me again.” Her unresolved abandonment anxiety of childhood was resurrected and affected her entire life. She turned her inward anger toward dad onto Jan—and people in general—and slowly began to alienate him. Only mom escaped her wrath because she continued to indulge Natalia’s every whim.

The kids were 12 and 15 when Natalia and Jan divorced. Natalia moved in with mom—the house referred to earlier. After a couple of years mom remarried and moved to live with her new husband. Still the overindulgent mom, she let Natalia and the kids continue to live in the house, and she continued to pay the mortgage and house maintenance costs. Life was tough on the kids: Natalia had a parttime job that covered her grocery and gas expenses, but she had developed a drinking problem that strained the budget. There was also a steady stream of men who frequented her home at night. Living with her was extremely stressful, and each child left home upon turning 18. Natalia’s abandonment anxiety again consumed her, and as time went on, her unresolved family anger manifested itself more and more in public, much to the consternation of her neighbors.

After several months, Natalia’s court-ordered counseling ended and she went her way. She never really profited from her sessions because she wasn’t at all motivated to work on her problems, which were deep and excessive. She said, “I’m only here because the judge will put me in jail if I’m not.” She made no progress in resolving her anger issues, and during her drinking/drug-use binges her thinking became incoherent, irrational, and paranoid. She showed many borderline personality-disorder symptoms, and comorbidity with histrionic, narcissistic, and antisocial conditions. The prognosis for Natalia is not good, and she will likely continue to be the scourge of the neighborhood.

If you’re concerned you may have some repressed anger resulting from unresolved issues, especially from childhood and adolescence, here are some warning signs: chronic stress or anxiety; feeling sad or depressed a lot; sarcasm or cynicism when talking with others; feeling bitter, envious, or resentful of others; avoidance of difficult emotions; becoming defensive when accused of being angry; frequent shutting down and isolating yourself; complaining when things don’t go your way; holding grudges and ruminating on things that upset you. What can you do about this inner anger? Recognize it and accept the reality of its presence; go to counseling; recognize the triggers that bring it on and seek ways to manage those triggers; deep breathing; enlist your support network—not your enabling network.