What Makes Behavior Change Stick? The Psychology Behind Getting Unstuck

Most people who want to change something about their behavior already know what they should do.

They know they should exercise more. Sleep earlier. Drink less. Stop checking their phone at midnight. Have the difficult conversation they have been putting off. Set the boundary they keep meaning to set.

The information is not the problem. And yet the behavior does not change — or it changes briefly and then returns to its previous state. This experience is so common that it is often treated as evidence of a personal failing: a lack of discipline, a weakness of will, a fundamental inability to do what needs to be done.

The psychology of behavior change suggests a different explanation — and a different set of questions to ask.

Why Knowing What to Do Is Not Enough

The gap between knowing what to do and actually doing it is one of the most studied phenomena in behavioral psychology, and the research is clear: providing people with accurate information about what would benefit them rarely, on its own, produces lasting behavioral change.

This is not a new discovery. Public health campaigns have known for decades that knowledge does not reliably translate to behavior. Smokers know smoking causes cancer. People with poor sleep habits know they need more sleep. The knowledge is present. The behavior persists anyway.

Why? Because behavior is not primarily driven by information. It is driven by motivation, habit, identity, the weight of competing priorities, and — perhaps most importantly — the psychological meaning the behavior holds for the person engaging in it.

Telling someone what they should do treats behavior change as an information problem. The clinical frameworks that actually work treat it as a motivational and psychological one.

The Ambivalence at the Center of Most Stuck Behavior

One of the most important concepts in the psychology of behavior change is ambivalence — the simultaneous presence of motivation to change and motivation to stay the same.

Ambivalence is not confusion or indecision. It is a coherent psychological state in which both sides of a tension have real weight. The person who wants to exercise more and keeps not doing it is not simply lazy. They also, at some level, do not want to exercise — or want the things that conflict with exercise more than they want exercise itself: the rest, the time, the relief of not adding another demand to an already demanding day.

Both sides are real. And this is where most behavior change efforts go wrong: they treat the desire to change as the only relevant motivation and the resistance as an obstacle to be overcome rather than as meaningful information about what the person actually wants and values.

Motivational Interviewing — a clinical approach developed by psychologists William Miller and Stephen Rollnick — is built on the observation that ambivalence is the normal state for most people trying to change, and that trying to argue someone out of their ambivalence tends to produce the opposite of the intended effect. When a clinician pushes for change, the client tends to push back — articulating the reasons not to change more forcefully than they would have otherwise. The resistance is not stubbornness. It is a natural response to feeling pressured.

What works better is helping the person articulate their own reasons for change — their own values, their own concerns, their own vision of what they want their life to look like — and then exploring, without pressure, the gap between where they are and where they want to be. Change talk that comes from the person rather than being imported by the clinician is far more likely to translate into actual behavior.

The Questions That Actually Help

This is where small questions become clinically powerful. Not leading questions, not questions that assume the person should change, but genuinely curious questions that help the person examine their own experience and motivation.

A few that are particularly useful in clinical work:

"What would be different if this changed?" This question invites the person to articulate their own vision of what change would actually produce — not an abstract sense that things would be better, but a specific, grounded picture of difference. The specificity matters. "I'd feel better" is less motivationally potent than "I'd have the energy to be present with my kids after work instead of just collapsing on the couch."

"What's keeping things the way they are?" This question takes the resistance seriously rather than treating it as an obstacle. The answer is always informative. Sometimes it surfaces practical barriers that can be addressed directly. More often it surfaces the competing motivations, the fears, the beliefs about what change would require that are actually driving the stuckness.

"On a scale of one to ten, how important is this to you right now — and what would have to be different for it to be higher?" This is a classic Motivational Interviewing technique, and it works because it quantifies the ambivalence without judging it and then, in the second part, invites the person to identify what would actually move the needle. The answer to "what would have to be different" is often the most clinically useful thing said in the conversation.

"What have you already tried?" This question respects the person's prior effort and often surfaces important information about what has and has not worked, and why. It also positions the clinician as a collaborator rather than an expert dispensing solutions the person has never considered.

"What's one small thing that would feel manageable?" This question reflects something important that the research on behavior change consistently supports: that small, specific, achievable steps are more likely to produce lasting change than large, ambitious overhauls. Not because big changes are impossible, but because small changes build the behavioral momentum, the confidence, and the identity shifts that make larger changes possible over time.

The Role of Identity in Behavior Change

One of the most important — and most underappreciated — findings in the psychology of behavior change is the role of identity. People do not just change behavior in the abstract. They change behavior in a way that is consistent with their self-concept, and they maintain behavior change to the extent that the new behavior becomes part of how they understand themselves.

James Clear, drawing on a substantial body of research, describes this as the difference between outcome-based change and identity-based change. Outcome-based change says: I want to run a half-marathon, so I will follow a training plan. Identity-based change says: I am becoming someone who runs. The first is fragile. The second is self-sustaining.

In clinical practice, this distinction matters because it changes the focus of the conversation. Rather than asking only "what will you do differently?" it becomes worth asking "who are you becoming?" — and helping the person connect behavioral change to a self-concept that is genuinely motivating rather than externally imposed.

This is also why behavior change that is driven by values tends to be more durable than behavior change driven by fear or external pressure. When the behavior is connected to something the person genuinely cares about — being present for the people they love, living consistently with their own sense of who they are, moving toward a life that feels meaningful — it has an internal engine. When the behavior is driven only by what someone else thinks they should do, or by fear of consequences, it tends to depend on the continued presence of that external pressure to sustain itself.

The CBT Perspective: What Thoughts Get in the Way

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy offers a complementary lens on the behavior change problem. Where Motivational Interviewing focuses on motivation and ambivalence, CBT focuses on the cognitions that interfere with behavior change — the thoughts and beliefs that maintain stuck patterns even when the person genuinely wants to change.

These often take recognizable forms.

All-or-nothing thinking. "If I can't do this perfectly, there's no point in doing it at all." This belief sets a standard that is impossible to maintain and then uses any deviation from it as evidence that the effort should be abandoned. The person who exercises three times a week but misses one week decides they have "failed" and stops entirely. The person who eats well for a month has one difficult week and concludes the effort was worthless. All-or-nothing thinking collapses the distance between imperfection and failure — and it is one of the most common obstacles to lasting behavior change.

Fortune-telling. "I've tried this before and it hasn't worked, so it won't work now." Prior unsuccessful attempts at change become evidence not that the approach needs adjustment but that change itself is not possible. This belief forecloses the possibility of trying differently, which is the actual prerequisite for a different outcome.

Emotional reasoning. "I don't feel like doing it, so I shouldn't have to." Motivation tends to follow action rather than precede it — which is to say that waiting to feel ready or motivated before beginning is often a reliable way to never begin. The behavioral activation approach in CBT operates on exactly this principle: behavior first, mood shift second.

Catastrophizing the difficulty. "This is going to be so hard." Overestimating the difficulty of a change, and underestimating one's capacity to manage it, produces avoidance that prevents the person from discovering that the actual experience is often more manageable than anticipated. Exposure to the feared difficulty — beginning — is itself the intervention.

Working with these cognitions in therapy does not mean arguing the person out of them. It means helping them examine the evidence for and against them, consider alternative interpretations, and experiment with behavior that tests the belief rather than confirms it.

Why Small Steps Are Not a Compromise

There is a cultural narrative about behavior change that prizes dramatic transformation — the total overhaul, the complete reinvention, the fresh start that leaves the old self behind. This narrative is compelling, and it is largely inconsistent with how behavior change actually works.

Research on habit formation, self-efficacy, and behavioral momentum consistently finds that small, sustainable changes build the psychological infrastructure for larger ones. Each small success produces evidence that change is possible, which increases confidence and willingness to attempt the next step. Each small success also contributes to the identity shift — the emerging self-concept as someone who does the new thing — that eventually makes the behavior feel natural rather than effortful.

Starting small is not a concession to limitation. It is a strategy that reflects an accurate understanding of how lasting change is actually built.

This has direct implications for how goals are set in clinical work. A goal that is too large — too vague, too ambitious, too dependent on sustaining a level of motivation that cannot be maintained indefinitely — is not an inspiring goal. It is a setup for the failure experience that confirms the belief that change is not possible. A goal that is specific, small, and achievable in the near term is not an unambitious goal. It is the beginning of a chain that builds toward something larger.

When Behavior Change Requires More Than a Plan

Not all stuck behavior is simply a matter of finding the right strategy or asking the right questions. Sometimes what maintains a pattern of behavior is something that a plan cannot reach: unprocessed grief, unexamined anxiety, a relationship dynamic that is keeping the person in a role they have outgrown, a belief about themselves that predates any conscious awareness of it.

This is where the distinction between coaching and therapy becomes clinically relevant. Goal-setting and accountability structures can produce meaningful change when the primary obstacle is motivational or practical. When the primary obstacle is psychological — when the stuckness is connected to something deeper that a plan is not going to touch — the work requires a different kind of engagement.

Therapy provides the space to examine not only what someone wants to change but what the stuck behavior is doing — what it is protecting against, what it would mean to give it up, what beliefs about the self and the world it is maintaining. This kind of examination is often what makes the difference between change that is sustained and change that is temporarily achieved and then quietly abandoned.

CITATIONS

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Clear, J. (2018). Atomic habits: An easy and proven way to build good habits and break bad ones. Avery.

Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.51.3.390

Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2007). A new look at habits and the habit-goal interface. Psychological Review, 114(4), 843–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.843

Summer Anxiety: Why the "Best Season" Can Feel Like the Hardest

Summer arrives with a particular set of cultural expectations. It is supposed to be the easy season — the reward after a long year, the time for rest, travel, connection, and something loosely approximating joy. The imagery of summer is all brightness and ease: long evenings, open water, people who appear to be thriving effortlessly.

For a significant number of people, the reality of summer does not match this image. Instead of ease, there is a low-grade restlessness. Instead of rest, there is a strange pressure that is difficult to name. Instead of the joy that the season seems to require, there is anxiety — sometimes sharper than anything felt during the rest of the year.

If this is familiar, you are not alone, and you are not irrational. Summer has a specific psychological profile, and understanding it can make the gap between expectation and experience considerably less disorienting.

The Structure Problem

One of the most underappreciated drivers of summer anxiety is the collapse of structure.

For most adults, the workweek provides an architecture that organizes time, directs attention, provides small daily accomplishments, and creates a reliable rhythm of social contact. This structure is not always experienced as pleasant — commutes, meetings, deadlines — but it provides something psychologically important: predictability. The nervous system knows what to expect. Each day has a shape.

Summer, particularly for people with children, flexible work, or significant vacation time, disrupts this architecture. Days become less predictable. The structure that was organizing time and attention is suddenly absent or significantly altered. And while this might sound like freedom, for many people it produces the opposite of relaxation.

Research on the psychology of unstructured time is consistent: people are significantly less happy during unstructured leisure than during activities with a clear purpose or goal, even when they anticipated that the unstructured time would feel good. The mind, freed from external direction, tends to default toward rumination and self-evaluation — exactly the cognitive territory where anxiety lives.

This is compounded by what psychologists call ego depletion in planning: the cognitive load of deciding how to spend unstructured time, day after day, is itself fatiguing. Decision fatigue accumulates. The summer that was supposed to feel restful becomes an ongoing series of choices — where to go, what to do, how to make the most of it — that quietly depletes rather than restores.

The Comparison Engine

Summer is also one of the most socially comparative seasons, and social comparison is one of the most reliable drivers of anxiety.

Social media in summer becomes a continuous broadcast of other people's vacations, bodies, families, and apparent ease. The photographs are curated. The captions suggest effortless enjoyment. The visible experiences are the highlight reel of other people's summers, compressed and filtered, and presented against the unedited reality of your own.

This gap — between what other people's summers appear to be and what your own summer feels like from the inside — is a reliable generator of what psychologists call upward social comparison: measuring yourself against people who appear to be doing better. Upward social comparison consistently predicts decreased self-esteem, increased anxiety, and decreased life satisfaction.

The body dimension of summer adds a particular layer of this. Summer is, culturally, a high-exposure season in the literal sense — more of the body is visible, in more contexts, than at any other time of year. For people who carry body image concerns, this seasonal shift can produce a significant increase in self-consciousness and avoidance. For people who do not identify as having body image difficulties, the ambient cultural pressure of summer body culture can still produce a background hum of evaluation and comparison that adds to the season's psychological weight.

Heat, Disrupted Sleep, and Their Psychological Effects

There are also biological dimensions to summer anxiety that are worth naming, because they are often overlooked.

Heat has a direct effect on mood, cognition, and emotional regulation. Research has consistently found associations between high temperatures and increased irritability, aggression, and emotional reactivity. The mechanisms are not fully established, but they involve disruption to sleep, increased physiological arousal, and the cognitive load of managing thermal discomfort. A summer that is hotter than usual — which, in many cities, describes most recent summers — is a summer in which the physiological conditions for emotional regulation are somewhat degraded.

Sleep in summer is also frequently disrupted. Longer daylight hours delay the onset of melatonin production. Heat interferes with the drop in core body temperature that supports deep sleep. Later sunsets encourage later bedtimes. The result, for many people, is a gradual accumulation of sleep deficit across the summer months — which, as I have written about elsewhere on this blog, has direct downstream effects on mood, anxiety, and cognitive function. The summer flatness or edginess that many people experience is often, in significant part, the psychological expression of two months of compromised sleep.

The "Making the Most of It" Pressure

Summer carries a specific and somewhat underrecognized anxiety of its own: the pressure to use it well.

Summer is finite and culturally loaded with significance. It is the season most associated with freedom and pleasure. It is the season people reference when they talk about what they want their lives to be. This gives summer a quality that other seasons do not have: the sense that time spent badly is time that particularly matters.

This produces what might be called the tyranny of the optimal summer — a persistent, low-grade anxiety about whether the summer is being used well enough, whether enough is being done, whether the experiences being had are sufficiently memorable or meaningful. Vacations become subjects of advance research and ongoing evaluation. Weekend plans carry a weight of expectation that weekday plans do not. The pressure to feel the season, to extract its value, can paradoxically make the season feel more pressured than enjoyable.

This dynamic is closely related to what we have discussed on this blog in the context of maximizing: the tendency to evaluate experiences against an imagined optimal alternative, rather than simply inhabiting them. Summer is the season where this tendency is most activated — and where it most reliably undermines the enjoyment it is ostensibly trying to protect.

For People With Anxiety Disorders

Everything described above applies broadly. For people with pre-existing anxiety disorders, summer has additional specific risks worth naming.

The disruption of routine can destabilize the behavioral structures that support symptom management. Many people with anxiety rely on consistent sleep schedules, regular exercise, and predictable routines as a foundation for their wellbeing. Summer disrupts all three. What feels like an enjoyable break from routine to some people feels like the removal of a stabilizing scaffold to others.

Social demands increase in summer in ways that can be particularly taxing for people with social anxiety. More events, more gatherings, more situations where bodies and conversations are on display. The summer social calendar can feel less like opportunity and more like an extended exposure to the situations that already feel threatening.

For people who are in therapy or using CBT skills to manage anxiety, the disruption of routine can also disrupt the practice of those skills. This is worth naming in session: the summer is not a break from mental health maintenance. It is often a time when that maintenance requires more deliberate effort, not less.

What Helps

Create structure deliberately. The summer anxiety that comes from unstructured time responds directly to structure. This does not mean filling every day with scheduled activities — it means identifying a few anchoring points in each week that provide rhythm and purpose. A consistent wake time, a regular exercise slot, one or two scheduled social commitments. These anchors do not have to be elaborate. They have to be consistent.

Reduce social comparison inputs. This is easier said than done, but the mechanism is direct: the more time spent consuming curated images of other people's summers, the more the upward comparison effect operates. This is a concrete, modifiable variable. Spending less time on platforms that broadcast highlight reels during a season already prone to comparison is not deprivation — it is protective.

Protect sleep. Blackout curtains, consistent sleep and wake times, a cooler sleeping environment, and limiting blue light in the evening matter more in summer than in any other season. The emotional and cognitive benefits of adequate sleep are available regardless of the heat outside.

Lower the expectation load. Much of summer anxiety is generated by the gap between what summer is supposed to feel like and what it actually feels like. Reducing the size of that expectation — giving yourself permission to have an ordinary summer rather than an optimal one — removes a significant source of the pressure. A summer that is simply lived, without constant evaluation of whether it is being lived well enough, is often more enjoyable than one held to an imagined standard.

Name it. The relief that comes from recognizing that what you are experiencing has a name — that summer anxiety is real, that other people experience it, that there are understandable reasons why a season with high expectations might produce anxiety rather than ease — is itself clinically useful. Recognition interrupts the secondary layer of anxiety about the anxiety. It allows the experience to be held with more curiosity and less alarm.

If summer is reliably a difficult season for you — if the pattern of disrupted sleep, increased anxiety, and a sense of pressure or flatness recurs year after year — that is worth examining rather than waiting out.

Seasonal patterns in anxiety and mood are very treatable, and understanding the specific mechanisms driving the pattern makes the treatment more targeted and more effective.

APA CITATIONS

Hsiang, S. M., Burke, M., & Miguel, E. (2013). Quantifying the influence of climate on human conflict. Science, 341(6151), 1235367. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1235367

Mogilner, C., Chance, Z., & Norton, M. I. (2012). Giving time gives you time. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1233–1238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612442551

Quoidbach, J., Dunn, E. W., Petrides, K. V., & Mikolajczak, M. (2010). Money giveth, money taketh away: The dual effect of wealth on happiness. Psychological Science, 21(6), 759–763. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610371963

Suls, J., & Wheeler, L. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research. Springer.

Wilson, T. D., Reinhard, D. A., Westgate, E. C., Gilbert, D. T., Ellerbeck, N., Hahn, C., Brown, C. L., & Shaked, A. (2014). Just think: The challenges of the disengaged mind. Science, 345(6192), 75–77. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1250830

"Brain Rot" Is Real — Here's What's Actually Happening

If you have spent any time on social media recently, you have probably encountered the phrase — or experienced the feeling it describes. A kind of mental mushiness. Difficulty concentrating on anything that requires sustained effort. A strange flatness after hours of scrolling. The sense that your attention span has quietly shrunk and your capacity for boredom has disappeared, replaced by a low-grade restlessness that reaches immediately for a screen the moment anything feels dull.

"Brain rot" is the informal name a generation has given to this experience. Oxford University Press named it Word of the Year for 2024, defining it as the "supposed deterioration of a person's mental or intellectual state as a result of overconsumption of material considered to be trivial or unchallenging." It has since become one of the most searched mental health terms in 2026.

The phrase is casual, even self-deprecating. But the experience it points at is real, and the neuroscience behind it is worth understanding — both because it explains what is happening and because understanding it changes what to do about it.

What "Brain Rot" Actually Describes

Brain rot, as most people use the term, is not a clinical diagnosis. It is a description of a functional state: the cognitive and emotional aftermath of sustained exposure to high-stimulation, low-demand content. The experience typically includes some combination of the following: difficulty focusing on tasks that require sustained attention, a reduced threshold for boredom, a compulsive pull toward screens even when the person is not enjoying what they are consuming, difficulty with reading or other cognitively demanding activities, a general sense of mental fog, and emotional flatness or low-grade irritability.

What is notable about this list is how closely it maps onto the symptom profiles of conditions that psychologists already know well: attention difficulties, anhedonia, dysthymia, and what researchers call "attentional fatigue." Brain rot may be a new phrase, but the underlying experience is not new. What is new is the scale at which it is being produced and the age at which it is beginning.

What Excessive Screen Time Actually Does to the Brain

The neuroscience here is not speculative. Several well-established mechanisms explain why sustained exposure to algorithmically optimized, high-stimulation content produces the experience people are describing as brain rot.

The dopamine system gets recalibrated. Dopamine is the neurotransmitter most associated with motivation, reward anticipation, and the drive to pursue goals. Social media platforms, as I have written previously on this blog, are specifically engineered to generate frequent, small dopamine releases through likes, novel content, and the near-satisfaction of the scroll. Over time, repeated exposure to this kind of rapid, low-effort reward recalibrates the dopamine system's baseline. Activities that produce slower, more effortful rewards — reading a book, working on a project, having a sustained conversation — begin to feel less compelling by comparison. Not because they are less valuable, but because the brain's reward threshold has shifted.

Attentional networks are weakened by disuse. The capacity for sustained, focused attention is not fixed — it is a cognitive skill that is strengthened through practice and weakened through disuse. When the majority of a person's attentional experience involves rapid switching between short pieces of content, the neural networks that support sustained focus are not being exercised. Research on neuroplasticity suggests that cognitive capacities that go unpracticed become less available over time. The difficulty concentrating that many people describe is not a character flaw — it is the predictable result of spending significant cognitive time in a mode that does not require concentration.

The default mode network is disrupted. The default mode network activates during rest, mind-wandering, and self-reflection. It is associated with creativity, future planning, emotional processing, and the consolidation of identity and meaning. Healthy DMN activity requires periods of genuine cognitive rest — time when the mind is not being fed external stimulation. Continuous screen use, by filling every available moment of potential rest with content, suppresses DMN activity. The result is a mind that is perpetually occupied but rarely genuinely reflective — which is one reason people who spend significant time on screens often describe feeling simultaneously overstimulated and somehow empty.

Sleep architecture is disrupted. Blue light exposure suppresses melatonin production. Evening screen use delays sleep onset and reduces slow-wave sleep. And as I have described elsewhere, disrupted sleep amplifies emotional reactivity, worsens attentional capacity, and reduces the brain's ability to regulate mood the following day. The cognitive fogginess of brain rot is partly the accumulated effect of chronically compromised sleep.

Why It Feels So Hard to Stop

One of the most important things to understand about brain rot is that the difficulty stopping is not a willpower problem. It is a design problem.

As I wrote in a previous post on this blog, social media platforms were engineered using the same techniques developed by the casino industry to maximize engagement and minimize disengagement. Infinite scroll, autoplay, algorithmically personalized content, and the removal of all natural stopping points combine to produce what researchers call "dark flow" — a trance-like state of absorption that is structurally similar to the machine zone that slot machines generate.

The person who cannot put down their phone is not lacking self-discipline. They are responding to a system that has been specifically optimized to resist their attempts to disengage. Understanding this is not an excuse for inaction — but it does clarify that the solution requires changing the system, not simply applying more willpower to the same conditions.

The Mental Health Overlap

Brain rot sits at an interesting clinical intersection because it both resembles and contributes to several recognized mental health conditions.

The attentional difficulties it produces overlap with ADHD symptomatology — which has led some researchers to ask whether rising rates of ADHD diagnoses in young adults partly reflect a neurological response to the attentional environment rather than purely an increase in the underlying condition. This is not settled science, but it is a clinically meaningful question.

The emotional flatness and motivational depletion it produces overlap with depression and dysthymia. The compulsive quality of the scrolling overlaps with behavioral addiction. The disrupted sleep it generates worsens anxiety.

What makes brain rot particularly worth clinical attention is that it can function as both a symptom and a cause. People who are anxious, depressed, or struggling to manage their emotional experience are more likely to turn to screens as a coping mechanism — and sustained screen use then worsens the conditions that prompted it. This bidirectional relationship is one of the reasons it can be difficult to interrupt without support.

What Actually Helps

A few things that research and clinical experience both support:

Rebuild attentional capacity deliberately. The brain's capacity for sustained focus is a skill, and skills are rebuilt through practice. This means deliberately engaging in activities that require sustained attention — reading, writing, extended conversation, creative work — even when they initially feel effortful or boring. The discomfort is the neurological equivalent of the burn of a muscle being exercised after a period of disuse. It is the sensation of the capacity returning.

Reintroduce genuine boredom. Boredom is not a problem to be solved with a phone. It is a neurological state that has real value — it activates the default mode network, prompts creativity, and allows the mind to process experience that has not had space to settle. Tolerating boredom without reaching for stimulation is one of the more counterintuitive and effective interventions available.

Restructure access rather than rely on willpower. As with any behavioral pattern driven by a well-engineered system, changing the environment produces more durable results than repeated acts of self-restraint against the same conditions. This means physical distance from the phone, app timers, grayscale screen settings, and the deliberate creation of phone-free times and spaces.

Address what the scrolling is managing. For many people, excessive screen use is not primarily about the content. It is about avoidance — of boredom, of anxiety, of difficult emotions or tasks that feel harder to face. Identifying what the phone is being used instead of is often the most clinically productive question.

A Note on Not Pathologizing Yourself

Brain rot is a real experience with a real neurological basis. It is also worth keeping in perspective. The human brain is remarkably adaptive, and the changes that excessive screen use produces are largely reversible with intentional behavior change. This is not a permanent condition. It is a functional state that responds to different inputs.

If the experience is significantly interfering with your ability to work, enjoy things, maintain relationships, or feel like yourself — if the fog has become the background of your daily life rather than an occasional experience — that is worth addressing directly, potentially with clinical support. But for many people, recognition alone is the beginning of change. Naming what is happening, understanding the mechanism, and making a few deliberate adjustments to the environment can produce meaningful improvement without anything more intensive. The brain that consumed its way into brain rot is the same brain that can consume its way back out — it just requires a different diet.

APA CITATIONS

Kushlev, K., & Dunn, E. W. (2019). Smartphone use reduces feelings of social connectedness, even when engaging in social interactions. Social Psychology, 50(4), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000387

Mrazek, M. D., Franklin, M. S., Phillips, D. T., Baird, B., & Schooler, J. W. (2013). Mindfulness training improves working memory capacity and GRE performance while reducing mind wandering. Psychological Science, 24(5), 776–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612459659

Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583–15587. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903620106

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2019). Media use is linked to lower psychological well-being: Evidence from three datasets. Psychiatric Quarterly, 90(2), 311–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-019-09630-7

Radical Acceptance: What It Actually Means and Why It's So Hard

There is a particular kind of suffering that has nothing to do with the original painful event. It is the suffering that comes from fighting the fact that the event happened at all.

A relationship ends and the pain is real — but layered on top of it is the relentless mental loop: this shouldn't have happened, this isn't fair, if I had done something differently it would have been different, I can't accept this. The situation is painful. The refusal to accept it is its own additional torment, running continuously alongside the original wound.

This distinction — between the pain that is inherent in a difficult reality and the additional suffering generated by refusing to accept that reality — is at the heart of one of the most clinically useful and most commonly misunderstood concepts in modern psychotherapy: radical acceptance.

What Radical Acceptance Is Not

Because the phrase gets used loosely, it is worth starting with what radical acceptance is not.

It is not approval. Accepting that something happened is not the same as deciding it was okay, deserved, or acceptable. You can fully accept that you were treated unjustly while also knowing that the treatment was wrong. Acceptance is a statement about reality, not a moral verdict on it.

It is not giving up. Accepting a situation does not mean you stop trying to change it, stop advocating for yourself, or resign yourself to a future in which nothing is different. It means you stop arguing with the present moment — which is the only place from which effective action is actually possible.

It is not the same as feeling okay about something. Radical acceptance does not require the absence of grief, anger, or pain. In fact, it often allows those feelings to be experienced more fully, because energy is no longer being spent on the fight against reality.

It is not a one-time decision. People often expect acceptance to arrive and stay. It does not work that way. Radical acceptance is a practice — something that has to be returned to, sometimes many times, because the mind's tendency to resist painful reality is strong and persistent.

Where It Comes From

The concept of radical acceptance as a clinical tool is most closely associated with psychologist Marsha Linehan, who developed Dialectical Behavior Therapy in the late 1980s. DBT was originally designed for people with borderline personality disorder — a population characterized by intense emotional dysregulation, difficulty tolerating distress, and a chronic tendency toward crisis. Radical acceptance became one of DBT's core distress tolerance skills because Linehan recognized that much of the suffering her patients experienced was amplified not by their circumstances alone but by their inability to accept circumstances as they were.

The philosophical roots of the concept run considerably deeper. Acceptance of what cannot be changed is central to Stoic philosophy — Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus both wrote extensively about distinguishing between what is within our control and what is not, and the freedom that comes from releasing the fight against the latter. Buddhist teaching has long centered the relationship between suffering and resistance to impermanence. The Serenity Prayer, familiar to anyone who has encountered twelve-step programs, asks for acceptance of things that cannot be changed as explicitly as it asks for the courage to change things that can.

Linehan formalized these ideas into a clinical skill and placed them within a structured therapeutic framework. But the insight they encode is ancient: fighting reality does not change it. It only adds to the cost.

The Pain vs. Suffering Distinction

The clinical logic of radical acceptance rests on a distinction that is simple to state and genuinely difficult to internalize.

Pain is inevitable. Loss, illness, disappointment, failure, the death of people we love, the end of things we valued — these are not aberrations in an otherwise smooth life. They are part of what a human life contains. No amount of preparation, self-improvement, or correct decision-making insulates a person from them entirely.

Suffering, in the clinical sense, is what happens when pain is met with nonacceptance. This should not be happening. I cannot bear this. If only things were different. Why is this happening to me. These are not simply responses to the painful situation — they are an additional layer of distress generated by the mind's refusal to allow reality to be what it is.

Linehan expressed this as a formula that has become one of the more memorable in clinical psychology: Pain x Nonacceptance = Suffering. The pain is fixed. What the person can influence is the nonacceptance multiplier. Radical acceptance, in this framework, is not the elimination of pain. It is the removal of the additional suffering that nonacceptance generates.

This is why radical acceptance is sometimes described as the most compassionate thing a person can do for themselves. Not because it makes things not hurt, but because it stops adding to the hurt.

What Nonacceptance Actually Looks Like

Because nonacceptance is so common and so automatic, it can be difficult to recognize in oneself. It tends to show up in a few characteristic ways.

Rumination. The mind returns repeatedly to the situation — not to process it or move through it, but to relitigate it. To find the moment where things could have gone differently. To argue, internally, against the fact of what happened. Rumination feels like thinking about a problem, but it is usually the mind's attempt to undo through repeated mental review what cannot actually be undone.

Bitterness and resentment. These are the emotional signatures of sustained nonacceptance. They arise when a person has been fighting a reality for long enough that the fight itself has become a defining feature of their experience. The bitterness is not about the original event anymore — it is the residue of years of refusing to let it be what it was.

Magical thinking about the past. If only I had said something different. If only I had made a different choice. If only things had been different. These thoughts are the mind's attempt to rewrite history — to find the alternate path that would have led somewhere better. They have the feeling of productive reflection but produce no usable information, because the past cannot be changed and the alternate path was never taken.

Avoidance. Sometimes nonacceptance shows up not as active resistance but as refusal to engage with the reality at all — changing the subject, staying busy, not allowing quiet moments where the unwanted truth might surface. This is a more passive form of the same pattern.

Why It Is So Hard

If radical acceptance reduces suffering and is philosophically straightforward, why does it require sustained practice rather than a single decision?

Part of the answer is neurobiological. The brain's threat-detection system treats unresolved problems as open loops that require continued attention. A reality that has not been accepted registers, at some level, as a problem that still needs solving — and the mind keeps returning to it, generating the same nonproductive review, because that is what minds do with unresolved problems. Accepting a painful reality requires the mind to close a loop it has been treating as open, and that closure requires something more than intellectual understanding.

Part of the answer is emotional. Accepting a loss means fully feeling it — allowing grief, anger, or fear to be present without the buffer of the fight against reality. For many people, the nonacceptance is itself a defense: as long as the mind is occupied with arguing against what happened, it does not have to fully arrive at the feelings that accepting it would require. The resistance, paradoxically, is a way of not feeling the thing.

Part of the answer is relational and moral. Accepting something that was genuinely unjust can feel like a betrayal — of oneself, of others who were harmed, of the principle that things should be fair. This is where the distinction between acceptance and approval is most important, and most difficult to hold. You can accept that something happened, and that it cannot be changed, and that continuing to fight it is costing you, while still knowing it was wrong.

What Radical Acceptance Looks Like in Practice

Radical acceptance is not a feeling that arrives. It is a practice that is chosen, often repeatedly, in the presence of the feelings that make it difficult.

It typically begins with acknowledgment — not a cheerful reframe, but a plain statement of what is true. This happened. This is real. This is the situation I am in. Naming reality without editorial is the first step toward accepting it.

It continues with the recognition of what is and is not within control. Some things about a painful situation may be changeable. Many are not. Radical acceptance focuses specifically on what cannot be changed — not as a reason for passivity, but as a reason to stop spending energy on a fight that cannot be won.

It involves turning toward rather than away from the associated feelings. Grief needs to be grieved. Anger needs to be acknowledged. The feelings that nonacceptance was buffering against need to be allowed. This is often the hardest part, and it is the part that most benefits from the support of a therapist.

It requires repetition. The mind will return to nonacceptance. The practice is noticing that return and choosing, again, to accept. Over time, with practice, the return becomes less frequent and the acceptance becomes more available.

When Radical Acceptance Is Most Relevant

Radical acceptance is particularly useful in situations characterized by irreversibility — situations where the painful reality cannot be changed and where the energy spent fighting it is not producing change but only additional suffering.

Grief and loss. The death of someone loved, the end of a relationship, the loss of a health or a capacity — these are realities that cannot be altered. The question is only whether they will be met with acceptance or with sustained resistance that extends the suffering indefinitely.

Chronic illness or pain. Living well with a chronic condition requires, at some level, accepting its presence — not surrendering to it or abandoning medical care, but releasing the exhausting fight against the fact of it.

The actions of other people. Other people's choices, particularly choices that have caused harm, are outside of our control. Radical acceptance of what another person did — while still holding them accountable, if that is possible and appropriate — is often the path out of the bitterness and resentment that sustained nonacceptance produces.

Past mistakes. The inability to accept one's own past decisions is one of the most common presentations in clinical work. The shame and self-criticism that accompany nonacceptance of past behavior are often more debilitating than whatever the original behavior warranted. Accepting what happened — including one's own role in it — is the prerequisite for genuine change, because change requires an accurate assessment of reality.

Radical Acceptance and Therapy

Radical acceptance is not only a DBT skill. It surfaces, in one form or another, across many therapeutic approaches. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy is built substantially around the practice of accepting internal experience rather than fighting it. Psychodynamic work often involves accepting aspects of one's history and character that have been resisted or denied. Grief therapy is, in many ways, the facilitated practice of accepting loss.

What therapy provides that makes radical acceptance more accessible is a relationship in which the painful reality can be held alongside another person — not argued away, not fixed, but witnessed and accepted together. The presence of a therapist who can tolerate the full weight of a difficult reality without flinching, and without rushing toward resolution, creates the conditions in which the patient can begin to do the same.

If you find yourself stuck in a pattern of resistance to something that cannot be changed — returning to the same rueful loops, carrying bitterness about something years old, unable to move forward because some part of you is still fighting the fact of what happened — that is worth exploring in a clinical context. Not because the thing that happened was not significant, but because the cost of continuing to fight it may have exceeded the cost of the thing itself.

APA CITATIONS

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2012). Acceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practice of mindful change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. Guilford Press.

Linehan, M. M. (2015). DBT skills training manual (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Marcus Aurelius. (2002). Meditations (G. Hays, Trans.). Modern Library. (Original work written c. 161–180 CE)

Teasdale, J. D., Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., Ridgeway, V. A., Soulsby, J. M., & Lau, M. A. (2000). Prevention of relapse/recurrence in major depression by mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(4), 615–623. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.4.615

Avoidant Attachment in Adult Relationships: What It Is and What to Do About It

There is a particular kind of relational pattern that brings people to therapy not because they are unhappy alone, but because the people they care about most keep telling them they are hard to reach.

They are described as emotionally unavailable. Cold when things get intense. Likely to withdraw precisely when a partner needs more closeness. They pull back at the moment a relationship begins to feel serious. They are more comfortable with the idea of intimacy than with its actual demands.

And often — not always, but often — they do not fully disagree with the description. They can feel it themselves: a kind of internal closing when someone gets too close, a preference for self-sufficiency that is so deep it barely registers as a preference at all. It just feels like who they are.

This pattern has a name in attachment theory: avoidant attachment. And understanding where it comes from, what it does in relationships, and whether it can change is among the more useful frameworks available for making sense of the specific kind of relational difficulty it produces.

Where Attachment Patterns Come From

Attachment theory, developed by British psychiatrist John Bowlby and later elaborated by developmental psychologist Mary Ainsworth, proposes that human beings are biologically wired to seek proximity to caregivers when distressed. In infancy and early childhood, the way a caregiver responds to that distress — consistently, inconsistently, or not at all — shapes what the child learns to expect from close relationships.

A child whose distress is met consistently and sensitively learns that other people are reliable sources of comfort: that it is safe to express need, that closeness is rewarding rather than threatening, that depending on another person does not end in abandonment or rejection. Attachment researchers call this a secure base.

A child whose distress is met with emotional unavailability, dismissal, or discomfort — not necessarily through neglect or cruelty, but through a consistent pattern of caregivers who are uncomfortable with emotional expression, who prize self-sufficiency, or who withdraw when the child needs closeness — learns something different. They learn that expressing need does not produce comfort. They learn to deactivate attachment needs — to suppress the pull toward closeness because closeness has not reliably been available.

This adaptation is intelligent. Within the early relational environment that produced it, it reduces distress. The child stops asking for what is not coming. But it is also a template — and templates travel. What was learned in the earliest relationships shapes what is expected, sought, and tolerated in every significant relationship that follows.

What Avoidant Attachment Looks Like in Adults

In adult relationships, the deactivation strategy that served a child in an emotionally unavailable early environment tends to manifest in recognizable ways.

Discomfort with emotional intimacy. Conversations that move toward emotional depth — about needs, fears, the relationship itself — produce a subtle but palpable closing. The person may change the subject, become intellectually analytical when emotional engagement is what the moment calls for, or simply go quiet. This is not performed indifference. It is a genuine activation of the deactivation strategy: the nervous system closing access to material that feels threatening.

Self-sufficiency as identity. People with avoidant attachment often have a strongly held belief — sometimes conscious, sometimes not — that needing other people is weakness, that depending on anyone is dangerous, and that the safest position is one in which they require nothing from anyone. This belief is often ego-syntonic: it feels like strength, not fear. It has often been reinforced by the external world, which tends to reward independence and punish visible need.

Withdrawal under pressure. As a relationship deepens and a partner's need for closeness increases, the avoidantly attached person often feels not warmth but pressure — a pull toward something that activates the old closing reflex. The response is typically to create distance: becoming busier, less communicative, more focused on individual pursuits. This is not conscious cruelty. It is the nervous system doing what it learned to do when closeness felt like a demand it could not meet.

Idealizing independence and devaluing the relationship when threatened. One of the more specific cognitive patterns associated with avoidant attachment is the tendency, when the relationship feels like too much, to mentally catalog its flaws — to suddenly notice everything that is wrong with the partner, to remember other relationships that felt freer, to idealize the idea of being alone. This is a deactivating strategy: the mind generating reasons to move away from the source of activation.

Difficulty expressing needs. Not only do avoidantly attached people struggle to respond to others' needs — they also struggle to express their own. Identifying what they need and asking for it directly is threatening in a particular way: it requires the acknowledgment that they need something, which conflicts with the self-sufficiency identity, and it risks the vulnerability of asking and not receiving.

Relationships that feel more comfortable at a certain distance. Many people with avoidant attachment have relationship histories that include difficulty sustaining intimacy past a certain point. Early stages of relationships — when everything is still somewhat abstract, when closeness is chosen rather than required — often feel good. It is the deepening that produces discomfort. This can generate a confusing pattern: intense attraction followed by a pull to withdraw as the relationship becomes real.

The Anxious-Avoidant Dynamic

Avoidant attachment rarely presents in isolation in the therapy room. It most often presents in the context of a relationship with someone who has an anxious attachment style — and the dynamic between the two deserves its own attention because it is both extremely common and extremely painful for both people involved.

An anxiously attached person's core fear is abandonment — that they are not enough, that closeness will be withdrawn, that the people they love will leave. Their relational strategy involves pursuing proximity: seeking reassurance, monitoring the relationship's temperature, escalating bids for connection when they feel uncertain about the other person's commitment.

This strategy activates the avoidantly attached person's deactivation reflex. The more the anxious partner pursues, the more the avoidant partner withdraws. The more the avoidant partner withdraws, the more the anxious partner pursues. Neither person is acting irrationally. Both are following the relational logic their early experience taught them. But the pattern is self-reinforcing, and without intervention it tends to escalate rather than stabilize.

What makes this dynamic particularly difficult to interrupt is that both people interpret it through their own attachment lens. The anxious partner experiences the avoidant's withdrawal as confirmation of their fear — that they are too much, that love will be taken away. The avoidant partner experiences the anxious person's pursuit as confirmation of their fear — that closeness means being overwhelmed, that relationships ask too much. Each person's response intensifies the other's anxiety, which intensifies the response, which intensifies the anxiety.

What Avoidant Attachment Is Not

It is worth naming a few things that avoidant attachment is often confused with, because the distinction matters for how it is understood and addressed.

Avoidant attachment is not introversion. Introverts may need significant solitude to recharge and may prefer fewer, deeper relationships to many superficial ones. This preference for solitude is not the same as the deactivation of attachment needs. Introverts can be securely attached. The discomfort avoidant attachment produces in close relationships is not about social preference — it is about the specific threat of emotional intimacy and dependence.

Avoidant attachment is not emotional strength or self-sufficiency. The cultural narrative that prizes independence and self-reliance can make avoidant attachment difficult to recognize as an attachment pattern rather than a personality virtue. But the inability to depend on others or allow others to depend on you is not strength — it is a constraint on the range of human experience that is available to you.

Avoidant attachment is not the same as being unfeeling. People with avoidant attachment have the same emotional needs as everyone else. What differs is the degree to which those needs have been suppressed, and the degree to which acting on them feels threatening. Studies using physiological measurement have found that avoidantly attached people show the same levels of physiological arousal in relational stress situations as securely attached people — but they suppress the behavioral and verbal expression of that arousal. The feelings are present. They are not available.

Can Avoidant Attachment Change?

Attachment patterns are not destiny. This is one of the most important things attachment research has established, and it is worth stating clearly.

Attachment patterns are working models — internal representations of what relationships are like, what to expect from other people, and what is safe to want. Working models are not fixed. They are updated, sometimes gradually and sometimes significantly, through accumulated relational experience. A person with avoidant attachment who has repeated experiences of being close to someone and finding that closeness safe — rather than overwhelming, smothering, or ultimately disappointing — is accumulating evidence that revises the working model.

This can happen in significant relationships outside of therapy. A partnership with a securely attached person who is patient, consistent, and capable of tolerating the avoidant person's need for distance without withdrawing in turn can gradually provide the corrective relational experience that shifts the underlying model. This is not a quick process, and it requires both people to understand what is happening.

It also happens in therapy. The therapeutic relationship is particularly well-suited for this kind of work because it provides a consistent, boundaried relationship in which attachment dynamics reliably activate — and in which the clinician can respond in ways that do not confirm the avoidant person's expectation. The therapist who does not withdraw when the client closes, does not take it personally when the client pulls back, and continues to offer a steady and available presence provides precisely the kind of accumulated disconfirmatory experience that revises the working model.

What therapy also offers is the ability to name and examine what is happening explicitly. Many people with avoidant attachment have limited access to the internal experience the pattern is organized around — the early experiences that produced it, the feelings that the deactivation strategy keeps out of awareness, the needs that have been suppressed long enough to feel absent. Bringing that material into awareness, in a relationship that can hold it, is the beginning of genuine change.

Why You Can't Put Down Your Phone — And What It's Doing to Your Mind

You pick up your phone to check one thing. Twenty minutes later, you are still there. Nothing of particular value has happened. You are not happier or more informed in any meaningful way. And yet something kept you.

That feeling — that your phone has a kind of superglue on it — is not a failure of willpower. It is the intended outcome of a design process that has been refined over decades specifically to produce it. Understanding how it works is the first step toward having a different relationship with your device. And for a significant number of people, it is also the first step toward understanding something more personal: why a habit that feels compulsive does not yield easily to ordinary self-discipline.

The Gambling Industry Did This First

The features that make social media apps difficult to put down did not originate in Silicon Valley. They were developed, iteratively and methodically, in the casinos of Las Vegas — beginning in the 1980s, when the casino industry replaced mechanical slot machines and physical card tables with digital versions.

The motivation was initially economic: digital machines were cheaper to maintain. But they also allowed casinos to add features — lights, sounds, animations — and more importantly, to run continuous large-scale experiments on millions of gamblers each year. Tweak the machine, measure how long people stay on it, keep the changes that increase engagement, repeat for decades.

The result, according to anthropologist Natasha Dow Schull, who spent 15 years researching machine gambling, was the most addictive form of gambling ever created. Some users stayed at machines for 24 or 48 hours without stopping. Schull documented casino workers reporting that machines had to be cleaned nightly after users — in the grip of what she called the "machine zone" — refused to leave even to use a bathroom.

This is not a metaphor. It is a description of what happens when a carefully engineered system successfully overrides the normal regulatory mechanisms of human attention and bodily awareness. And when tech companies built social media platforms, Schull found that they had, whether by design or by parallel discovery, replicated the same four features that produce this state.

The Four Features — and What They Do to Your Brain

Science journalist Michaeleen Doucleff, in her new book Dopamine Kids, breaks down what she calls the "superglue recipe": the four features that, combined, are most effective at producing what researchers call "dark flow" — a trance-like state of absorption that is distinct from healthy engagement and consistently leaves people feeling worse rather than better after.

1. Solitude. You use the app alone. There are no other people physically present to provide social cues — cues that, in ordinary life, help regulate behavior. When we are around other people, we pick up feedback about whether what we are doing seems normal, enjoyable, or excessive. That feedback is absent when we scroll alone in a bedroom or on a couch. Research has found that children who use screens alone are more likely to remain on an app even when it interferes with sleep or homework. The same principle applies to adults: physical solitude removes one of the most natural brakes on behavior.

2. Bottomlessness. There is no end to the content. No final page, no closing credits, no natural stopping point. Infinite scroll, autoplay, and algorithmically generated feeds ensure that something new always appears the moment the previous thing ends. As Schull describes it, there is no natural stopping point — and in the absence of one, the ordinary thought "maybe I should stop now" is immediately preempted by the next item appearing before the thought can complete itself. When social media companies introduced infinite scroll in the 2010s, time-on-app increased dramatically.

3. Speed. The faster the interaction, the longer people stay engaged. The gambling industry discovered this with slot machines — at peak speed, a player can run through more than a thousand games per hour, one every three seconds. The same principle operates in scrolling: the smoother and faster the content flows, the harder it becomes to locate a natural moment of pause. Speed, Schull suggests, contributes to a blurring of the boundary between self and screen — a sense of merger that is a hallmark of the machine zone state.

4. Personalized teasing. This is perhaps the most psychologically sophisticated feature, and the one that AI has dramatically amplified. The algorithm does not give you what you want. It gives you something close to what you want — and then, a few interactions later, something a little closer. Full satisfaction would end the session. The goal is not to satisfy but to sustain the feeling of being on the verge of satisfaction.

Neuroscientist Mateusz Gola at UC San Diego explains the mechanism: when people feel they are making progress toward a goal, dopamine release intensifies their motivation to continue. The feeling of getting closer — even when the goal is receding — activates the same neurochemical drive as actual progress. The app generates the sensation of approaching satisfaction without ever delivering it. That gap is where the hours disappear.

Dark Flow Is Not the Same as Healthy Absorption

It is worth pausing on a distinction that NPR's coverage of this research highlights, because it matters for how we evaluate our own relationship with screens.

Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi described "flow" as a highly positive state of complete absorption in a challenging, meaningful task — playing an instrument, writing, solving a difficult problem, physical exertion at the edge of one's capacity. This kind of flow is associated with a sense of aliveness and competence, and it leaves people feeling satisfied and energized afterward.

Dark flow is structurally similar but experientially and neurologically different. It is produced by easy, repetitive, low-stakes interaction with an optimized system — not by genuine engagement with something demanding. And where healthy flow tends to leave people feeling good, dark flow consistently leaves people feeling flat, lethargic, and sometimes genuinely worse than before they began.

This distinction is clinically important, because people often experience both states as a kind of absorption and may not clearly distinguish between them in the moment. The question worth asking is not "was I engaged" but "how did I feel when I stopped, and did I stop because I chose to?"

What This Has to Do With Anxiety and Mental Health

The connection between heavy phone use and mental health struggles — particularly anxiety and depression — is well-documented, though the mechanisms are still being studied and the relationship is almost certainly bidirectional.

What the four-feature framework clarifies is one important pathway: the phone is not simply a distraction from anxiety. For many people, it has become a primary avoidance mechanism. Unpleasant emotions — boredom, loneliness, low-grade stress, the approach of a difficult task — reliably trigger phone use in a way that is functionally similar to other avoidance behaviors. The phone offers immediate relief from the discomfort of unstructured attention. And like other avoidance strategies, it works in the short term while maintaining and often deepening the underlying discomfort over time.

In clinical work, I often find that the question is not just how much someone is using their phone, but what they are using it instead of. What feelings are being interrupted? What gets picked up as soon as there is a pause — a moment in an elevator, a minute between tasks, the first quiet moment before sleep? The pattern of when phone use occurs is often more clinically revealing than the raw quantity.

The solitude feature is particularly worth noting in this context. The most psychologically costly phone use — the kind most strongly associated with worse mental health outcomes — tends to happen in the absence of other people, often late at night. This is the same time when, as I have written elsewhere on this blog, the brain's capacity for rational self-regulation is at its lowest and the default mode network has the most room to amplify worry. The phone, in this context, is not just distracting — it is feeding a system that is already primed toward rumination.

What You Can Actually Do

Knowing the mechanism does not automatically change behavior, but it changes the frame — and that matters. Struggling to put down your phone is not a character flaw. It is a reasonable response to a system that has been deliberately optimized to prevent you from putting it down. Naming it as such reduces the self-criticism that tends to accompany failed attempts at self-regulation and makes it easier to approach the problem practically.

A few things that research and clinical experience suggest are genuinely useful:

Add friction. The superglue recipe works by removing every obstacle between you and the next piece of content. Reversing this means deliberately adding obstacles back in. Paying per video rather than subscribing to unlimited streaming is one version of this. Keeping your phone in a drawer when you are home, and requiring yourself to go to the drawer to use it, is another. These feel cumbersome precisely because they are working against a design that has removed all friction. That friction is the point.

Use the phone around other people. The solitude feature is real. Physical presence of other people disrupts the conditions for dark flow. This does not mean you need to socialize every time you use your phone — it means that phone use in a coffee shop or a shared room is meaningfully different, neurologically, from phone use alone at 11pm.

Identify your trigger moments. Most compulsive phone use is not random. It is reliably preceded by specific emotional states — boredom, low-grade stress, the approach of something difficult, loneliness. Noticing your own pattern is the beginning of having a choice. Therapy is well-suited for this kind of pattern-mapping, particularly when the underlying feelings that are being avoided are worth examining in their own right.

Treat this as a systemic problem, not a willpower problem. If someone consistently struggles to disengage from a system that has been engineered to resist disengagement, the solution is to change the system — the physical availability of the phone, the subscription structures, the app configuration — rather than to rely on willpower to override it.

A Note on Children

Doucleff's book, and the research it draws on, is primarily oriented toward children and adolescents. This is appropriate: the developmental implications of early, heavy exposure to dark-flow-optimized systems are significant and warrant serious attention from parents and clinicians alike.

But the same mechanisms operate in adults. Two landmark legal cases in California in 2026 found that tech companies including Meta and Google had deliberately designed their apps to be addictive for younger users. The appeal process is ongoing, but the underlying science — the four features, the dark flow state, the gambling industry origins — is not in dispute. These systems were designed for maximum engagement without reference to user wellbeing. Adults are not immune to that design.

If you are an adult who recognizes your own phone use in this description — and most people reading this will — the same principles apply. The phone has superglue on it. That is not an accident. And acknowledging that is not surrender to it. It is the beginning of a more honest, and more effective, relationship with it.

Citations

Doucleff, M. (2026). Dopamine kids. [Publisher TK].

Gola, M., Wordecha, M., Sescousse, G., Lew-Starowicz, M., Kossowski, B., Wypych, M., Makeig, S., Potenza, M. N., & Marchewka, A. (2017). Can pornography be addictive? An fMRI study of men seeking treatment for problematic pornography use. Neuropsychopharmacology, 42(10), 2021–2031. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2017.78

Schull, N. D. (2012). Addiction by design: Machine gambling in Las Vegas. Princeton University Press.

Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin, G. N. (2018). Increases in depressive symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among U.S. adolescents after 2010 and links to increased new media screen time. Clinical Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702617723376

Doucleff, M. (2026, June 1). How your phone keeps you scrolling — even when you want to stop. NPR Short Wave. https://www.npr.org/2026/06/01/nx-s1-5823736/phone-social-media-addiction-tech

What the New Alcohol Research Means for Your Mental Health

A major study on alcohol and health made headlines this week — not only for what it found, but for how it got published.

The Alcohol Intake and Health Study was commissioned by the federal government but unreleased under President Trump, who decided not to feature its findings in new dietary guidelines after pushback from the alcohol industry and a congressional committee. The study, published June 9 in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, found that health risks increase with even low levels of drinking, and that no level of alcohol offers a protective effect on mortality. Grow Therapy

The scientific content is worth examining on its own terms, separate from the politics. And from a psychological standpoint, there is a dimension of this conversation that rarely gets the attention it deserves: not just what alcohol does to the body, but what it does to the mind.

What the Study Actually Found

Researchers reported there was no protective net effect of any level of alcohol consumption on health. Low levels of alcohol use may be associated with elevated health risks, with higher consumption associated with progressively increased risks of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and death and disability.

"We did not observe a significant protective effect of alcohol on health at any level of consumption," said Dr. Shield. "At low levels, alcohol may be associated with a reduced risk of ischemic heart disease and stroke. But when you look across the full range of health outcomes, including cancer and other chronic diseases, those potential benefits are outweighed by the risks, even at seven drinks per week."

The study concludes that even "moderate" drinking raises the risk of early death and more than 200 diseases, including cancer and heart disease, and that no amount of alcohol can protect against premature death. The researchers noted that individual risk varies based on genetics, lifestyle, and other factors — population-level statistics do not translate directly to any one person. But the headline finding is clear: the belief that moderate alcohol consumption is harmless or beneficial is not supported by the best available evidence.

The Politics Are Worth Noting — and Then Setting Aside

The study was commissioned by the Biden administration as one of two government reviews meant to inform new dietary guidelines. One official involved accused the Trump administration of "sidelining" the research — an allegation the administration denies. The guidelines that were released advised consuming "less alcohol for better overall health" without providing the detailed risk thresholds the study authors had developed.

Whatever the policy outcome, the science is published, peer-reviewed, and consistent with years of accumulating evidence. It is available.

The Mental Health Dimension

This is where I want to spend most of this post, because it is the part of the alcohol conversation that tends to get least attention.

Alcohol is not primarily a physical health issue for the people I work with. It is primarily a psychological one.

Most people who come to therapy with complicated relationships to alcohol are not people whose drinking looks like textbook addiction. They are people who have a glass or two of wine most evenings to decompress. People who drink more during difficult periods and less during easier ones. People who tried to cut back and found it harder than expected. People who use alcohol the way they use other things — scrolling, overworking, overeating — to manage feelings that have nowhere else to go.

Alcohol and the Anxiety-Depression Loop

Alcohol is a central nervous system depressant. In the short term, it reduces anxiety by dampening the brain's stress-response systems. This is why it feels like it works. The problem is what happens next.

As alcohol is metabolized, the nervous system rebounds — producing heightened anxiety, disrupted sleep, and emotional dysregulation that can last well into the following day. A 2026 systematic review found a significant association between hangovers and increased negative affect, including anxiety, stress, and depression, with people who have higher baseline anxiety experiencing the most severe effects.

This creates a cycle that is clinically recognizable and extremely common: anxiety leads to drinking, drinking temporarily reduces anxiety, the rebound effect increases anxiety, increased anxiety motivates more drinking.

Research found that drinking to cope was significantly associated with greater stress, anxiety, depression, and loneliness — and was a meaningful predictor of increases in depression over time. The motivation to manage distress appears to be driving the negative effects of alcohol use on mental health. Drinking while stressed is not the same, clinically, as drinking because the alternative is feeling something you do not have the tools to tolerate.

What Alcohol Use Often Communicates

In a clinical context, alcohol use rarely presents in isolation. It almost always appears alongside something else: unprocessed grief, chronic anxiety, a relationship that is not working, loneliness, trauma that has not found another way to surface.

This is not a moral judgment. It is a clinical observation. The nervous system learns, through experience, that alcohol reliably alters its state. When the state it most wants to alter is distress, alcohol becomes a solution — one with real short-term efficacy and significant long-term costs.

One of the most important things therapy can offer is not a focus on the drinking itself, but on the function it serves. What is the drinking solving? What emotional experiences is it managing that have no other outlet? These questions often open into territory that is far richer than a conversation about units per week.

A Note on the Sober-Curious Conversation

The sober-curious movement has normalized a kind of low-pressure re-evaluation of drinking that was largely absent from public discourse a decade ago. This is clinically useful. It has made it easier for people to examine their relationship with alcohol without the threshold of "do I have a problem?" — which carries significant stigma and tends to prevent honest reflection.

You do not need to identify as an alcoholic, or be in crisis, to ask whether your drinking is serving you well. The new research supports that curiosity. It does not demand abstinence. What it does suggest is that the cultural default — that moderate drinking is benign, and that examining your relationship to it is only necessary if things have clearly gotten out of control — is not well-supported by the evidence.

If you are noticing something — recognition in the anxiety-depression loop, a discomfort with how much you are drinking, an awareness that it has become harder to stop than it used to be — that is worth paying attention to. Not as evidence of a disorder, but as information about what else is going on.

Why "Good Enough" Is Better for Your Mental Health Than "The Best"

Here is something that shows up in therapy more often than you might expect: a person who is objectively doing well — good job, good relationship, good life — who cannot stop wondering if something better is out there.

They are not ungrateful, exactly. They are haunted. By the apartment they did not rent, the job offer they turned down, the partner they might have met if they had stayed on the app a little longer. Every decision, once made, immediately generates a parallel universe in which a different choice led somewhere better.

This is not a character flaw. It is a well-documented cognitive style that psychologists call maximizing — and the research on it has a lot to say about anxiety, decision fatigue, and the specific kind of unhappiness that feels inexplicable precisely because everything is, by most measures, fine.

The Psychology of Maximizing

The concept comes from Nobel laureate Herbert Simon, who spent decades studying how humans actually make decisions. Simon observed that humans cannot truly evaluate all available options for most decisions — there are too many, our information is incomplete, and our minds are not built for it. Instead, we consider a manageable set of options, find one that meets our standard, and move on. He called this satisficing — a blend of "satisfy" and "suffice." The satisficer's standard is not "the best available" but "good enough for what I need."

Simon was a committed satisficer in his own life. He wore one brand of socks, ate the same breakfast every morning, lived in the same house for 46 years. These were deliberate choices to remove low-stakes decisions from his attention so that his cognitive resources remained available for the things that actually mattered.

The maximizer operates differently. The standard is not "good enough" but "the best." And because that standard is difficult to confirm — you can only know you found the best if you have exhausted all the others — the search tends to continue long past the point of diminishing returns.

What the Research Shows

Researchers developed a scale to measure where individuals fall on the spectrum between maximizer and satisficer. What they found was consistent: maximizing is associated with worse outcomes, not better ones.

Maximizers tend to be less satisfied with their decisions even when those decisions are objectively good.

They are more prone to regret, more likely to engage in social comparison, and less happy overall. They second-guess more. They ruminate more. The very process of trying to ensure the best outcome produces the psychological conditions that undermine satisfaction with whatever outcome they reach.

Satisficers do not have lower standards. They simply have standards that are achievable and confirmable. "Good enough for me" can be met. "The best" rarely is.

Why It Has Gotten So Much Worse

The sheer proliferation of options is part of it — one economist calculated that consumer options in modern economies exceed those of preindustrial societies by a factor of roughly 100 million. That extends into the most fundamental questions of identity: who to be, how to live, where to work, whom to love.

Social media added a specific and damaging layer: the infinite comparison engine. When you can see curated versions of other people's careers, relationships, and lives at all times, "good enough" begins to feel like settling. Research has found that simply having many options to compare makes people less satisfied with whatever they choose. The mere awareness that something else might be out there degrades the present moment.

Dating apps are the purest expression of this — a system architecturally designed to keep users wondering whether a better match exists beyond the next swipe. And AI now promises to optimize everything, which carries the hidden risk of expanding the menu of comparisons indefinitely, producing not better outcomes but more haunted ones.

What This Looks Like in the Therapy Room

The clinical presentation of maximizing rarely announces itself by name. It tends to look like this: a patient who made a good decision but cannot stop wondering if it was the right one. Someone in a solid relationship with a persistent background awareness that other options exist. A person who accepted a good job and immediately began scanning for signs they should have waited.

What is tricky is that maximizing feels like conscientiousness. It presents as due diligence. The person doing it is not sure they have permission to stop — because stopping before finding the best option feels like settling.

But the research is clear: the search itself is a cost. And most maximizers are not accounting for it.

Satisficing Is Not Lowering Your Standards

This is the point most people resist. Choosing "good enough" is not resignation or a failure of ambition. It is the recognition that there is a standard — your standard, based on what actually matters to you — and that when that standard is met, continued searching produces diminishing returns on outcomes and significant costs to wellbeing.

The question worth asking is not "is this the best?" but "is this good enough for what I actually need?" Those questions produce different psychological experiences. The first cannot, in most cases, be answered with confidence. The second can be.

A Practical Reframe

In clinical work, one of the most useful reframes for people caught in maximizing patterns is this: the goal is not to find the best option. The goal is to find a good option and then fully invest in it.

Research on relationship satisfaction bears this out. Couples who psychologically close the door on alternatives — rather than keeping it open — report higher satisfaction and stronger attachment. The act of committing, not the quality of the match itself, is a significant predictor of relationship wellbeing. Investment produces satisfaction. Continued search undermines it.

A few things that help in practice:

• Clarify your actual criteria before you start searching. "The best" is not a criterion — it is an instruction to keep looking. Specific, confirmable criteria allow the search to stop.

• Name the cost of continued searching. Time, attention, cognitive load, and eroding satisfaction with what you already have are real costs. Making them explicit counteracts the bias toward treating more searching as always worthwhile.

• Practice committing. For chronic maximizers, closing options feels like loss. That discomfort is worth sitting with rather than immediately acting on — it is usually the sensation of commitment, not the sensation of a mistake.

The Deeper Stakes

There is a Haruki Murakami story in which a boy and girl meet on a street corner and immediately recognize they are perfect for each other. They talk for hours. Then doubt creeps in: if they are truly meant for each other, they reason, they can part and will inevitably find each other again. The boy walks west. The girl walks east. They were perfect for each other. Years later they pass on a street, memories faded. They never reconnect.

The tragedy is not that the right person was lost. It is that the search for certainty destroyed something that was already, right there, enough.

Many of the patients I work with who are caught in maximizing patterns are not missing something. They are standing inside a life that contains real good things, unable to settle into it because some part of their mind is still searching for confirmation that this is the right life.

That particular kind of suffering responds well to therapy. Not because therapy provides the certainty the maximizing mind is looking for, but because it helps people examine the standard they are holding themselves to, where it came from, and whether it is actually serving them.

Good enough, chosen consciously and invested in fully, is often where a life of real satisfaction begins.

Citations:

Iyengar, S. S., Wells, R. E., & Schwartz, B. (2006). Doing better but feeling worse: Looking for the "best" job undermines satisfaction. Psychological Science, 17(2), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01677.x

Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1178–1197. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1178

Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042769

Sparks, E. A., Ehrlinger, J., & Eibach, R. P. (2012). Failing to commit: Maximizers avoid commitment in a way that contributes to reduced satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(1), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.09.002

Neuroplasticity Is Real — And You Don't Have to Be an Olympian to Use It

Eileen Gu is 22 years old, the most decorated freestyle skier in Winter Olympics history, a Stanford student, and worth north of $20 million. When Fortune recently asked her to take readers inside her mind, she did not talk about talent or discipline in the way athletes usually do. She talked about something more specific: the daily practice of examining and deliberately modifying her own thinking.

"I apply a very analytical lens to my own thinking, and I modify it," she said. "You can control what you think. You can control how you think. And therefore, you can control who you are."

She credits neuroplasticity — the brain's capacity to change its own structure and function based on experience — as the mechanism behind this. And she is right that the science supports her. What is worth unpacking, from a psychological standpoint, is what neuroplasticity actually means, what it requires, and why it matters far beyond elite athletic performance.

What Neuroplasticity Actually Is

Neuroplasticity is not a metaphor or a motivational concept. It is a well-documented property of the brain — the capacity to reorganize its neural connections in response to experience, learning, and behavior.

For most of human history, the brain was thought to be largely fixed after childhood. What neuroscience established over the latter half of the twentieth century is that this is wrong. The brain retains the ability to form new neural pathways, strengthen existing ones through repeated use, and weaken or prune connections that go unused throughout the entire lifespan. Learning a new skill, developing a habit, practicing a way of thinking — all of these activities physically change the brain's structure over time.

The oft-cited phrase in neuroscience is "neurons that fire together, wire together," attributed to the work of Donald Hebb. When we repeatedly activate the same neural circuits — through thought patterns, behaviors, emotional responses — those circuits become more efficient, more automatic, more deeply embedded. This is why habits are hard to break: the neural pathways supporting them have been reinforced through repetition until they require very little deliberate effort to activate.

It is also why change is possible. New patterns, practiced consistently, can become as automatic as the old ones.

What Gu Is Actually Doing, Psychologically

What Eileen Gu describes — journaling, breaking down her thought processes, applying an analytical lens to her own thinking and then deliberately modifying it — maps closely onto something clinical psychologists have been doing with patients for decades.

It is metacognition: thinking about thinking. The capacity to step outside your own cognitive processes, observe them as processes rather than facts, and evaluate whether they are serving you.

This is one of the core mechanisms of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. In CBT, a significant portion of the work involves helping people notice the automatic thoughts that arise in response to situations — the interpretations, predictions, and self-assessments that happen below the level of deliberate awareness — and examine them. Are they accurate? Are they the only way to interpret the situation? Are they producing responses that are useful or responses that are making things harder?

What Gu is doing informally through journaling is a version of the same process. She is interrupting the automatic nature of her own thinking, holding it up to examination, and asking whether it is aligned with who she wants to become. The fact that she is doing this as a 22-year-old with a brain still rich in the particularly high plasticity of early adulthood gives her a real advantage. But the mechanism is available at every age.

The Therapy Connection: Neuroplasticity Is Why Treatment Works

One of the most important clinical implications of neuroplasticity is that it provides a neurobiological basis for why psychotherapy produces lasting change.

For a long time, a common skepticism about therapy was that it could change how someone felt or thought temporarily, but could not change anything fundamental. The neuroscience suggests otherwise. Effective psychological treatment — CBT, EMDR, exposure-based therapies, and others — does not just shift mood or thinking in the moment. It changes the brain.

Studies using neuroimaging have found that successful CBT treatment for conditions like OCD, depression, PTSD, and anxiety produces measurable changes in brain activity and structure — in some cases comparable to the changes produced by medication. The prefrontal cortex, which is involved in regulation, evaluation, and executive control, shows increased activation after treatment. The amygdala, the brain's threat-detection hub, shows reduced reactivity. The neural pathways supporting rumination, avoidance, and threat amplification become less dominant. New pathways supporting more flexible, regulated responding become more established.

This is neuroplasticity in action. Therapy is, among other things, a structured way of using the brain's capacity to change itself.

The Part the Success Narrative Leaves Out

The Fortune article, and the broader cultural conversation around neuroplasticity, tends to frame it as a tool for optimization — a lever high performers can pull to become better, faster, more successful.

That framing is not wrong, but it is incomplete in ways that are clinically important.

The same mechanism that allows Eileen Gu to deliberately shape her thinking toward her goals is also the mechanism by which anxiety, depression, trauma, and dysfunctional patterns become entrenched. Neural pathways supporting worry, self-criticism, avoidance, and threat perception are reinforced by the same process as neural pathways supporting confidence and clarity. The brain does not distinguish between patterns that serve us and patterns that do not. It strengthens what it uses.

This means that for people who have lived with chronic anxiety, early trauma, or years of negative self-talk, the task is not simply to "think positively" or "rewire the brain" through journaling and good intentions. Those pathways have been reinforced over years, sometimes decades, and they run deep. The work of changing them is real work — it requires sustained effort, often professional support, and a tolerance for the discomfort of doing things differently before the new way feels natural.

This is not pessimism. It is accuracy. And it is actually more hopeful than the optimization narrative, because it takes seriously what change requires and points toward approaches that are evidence-based rather than simply aspirational.

What This Looks Like in Practice

For the people I work with in therapy, neuroplasticity is not a concept I invoke by name very often. But it is the implicit foundation of almost everything we do together.

When someone with anxiety practices responding to a feared situation without avoidance, they are weakening the neural pathway that links that situation to danger and building a new one that links it to manageability. When someone with depression practices behavioral activation — engaging in activities even before motivation returns — they are using behavior to shift neural states rather than waiting for the neural state to shift first. When someone examines and challenges a long-held belief about themselves and practices holding a different one, they are doing exactly what Gu describes: modifying their own thinking through deliberate, repeated effort.

The key word is repeated. Neuroplasticity does not work through insight alone. The moment of recognizing a pattern is important, but it is not the same as changing it. Change requires practice — not perfect practice, but consistent, sustained engagement with the new way of responding, thinking, or behaving, often while the old way is pulling hard in the other direction.

This is why therapy is not just a conversation. It is a structured opportunity to practice new ways of processing experience, with support, feedback, and the gradual accumulation of a different neural history.

You Do Not Have to Be 22

One of Gu's more notable comments was that she has neuroplasticity "on her side" as a young person. She is right that the brain's plasticity is particularly high in early adulthood, when the prefrontal cortex is still developing and neural networks are especially open to reorganization.

But neuroplasticity does not end at 22, or 35, or 60. The research on adult neuroplasticity is clear: the brain retains meaningful capacity for structural change throughout the lifespan. The rate may be somewhat lower and the effort required somewhat greater than in early development. The capacity itself does not disappear.

What this means practically is that it is never too late to change a pattern, learn a new way of responding, or build a different relationship with your own thinking. The evidence base for psychological treatment shows this consistently: people in midlife and later adulthood make significant, lasting changes through therapy, and the neurobiological substrate for those changes is the same one that allows a 22-year-old Olympic champion to deliberately shape who she is becoming.

The brain you have now is not the brain you are stuck with.

What is genuinely interesting about Eileen Gu's approach is not the success it has produced, though that is impressive. It is the orientation it reflects: treating the mind as something to engage with deliberately rather than something that happens to you.

That orientation is at the heart of good psychological work. The thoughts that arise automatically, the emotional patterns that feel like personality, the self-assessments that feel like facts — none of these are fixed. They are the current output of a brain that learned, through experience, to run those processes. And a brain that learned something can learn something different.

That is not a promise that change is easy. It is a statement that change is possible — which, for many people carrying long-standing patterns they did not choose and did not deserve, is exactly what they most need to hear.

APA CITATIONS

Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory. Wiley.

Linden, D. E. J. (2006). How psychotherapy changes the brain: The contribution of functional neuroimaging. Molecular Psychiatry, 11(6), 528–538. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.mp.4001816

Pittenger, C., & Duman, R. S. (2008). Stress, depression, and neuroplasticity: A convergence of mechanisms. Neuropsychopharmacology, 33(1), 88–109. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.npp.1301574

Takeuchi, H., Taki, Y., Hashizume, H., Sassa, Y., Nagase, T., Nouchi, R., & Kawashima, R. (2011). Effects of training of processing speed on neural systems. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(34), 12139–12148. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2948-11.2011

The "Core Sleep" Myth: What Sleep Medicine Actually Says

If you have spent any time on wellness corners of the internet recently, you may have come across the concept of "core sleep" — the idea that there is a minimum essential portion of your night that delivers the most important sleep benefits, and that the rest is optional. The implication is appealing: sleep smarter, not longer. Get the good stuff, skip the padding, and reclaim your hours.

It sounds like optimization. As a sleep psychologist, I want to gently redirect it.

"Core sleep" is not a clinical term. It does not appear in sleep medicine literature, and it is not a concept used in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia (CBT-I), which is the gold-standard, evidence-based treatment for sleep difficulties. What it appears to be is a simplified — and somewhat distorted — interpretation of something real about how sleep is structured, applied to a conclusion that the research does not support.

Here is what the science actually says, and why it matters for how you think about your own sleep.

There Is Something Real in the Idea — But the Conclusion Is Wrong

Sleep is not uniform across the night. Deep sleep — specifically slow-wave sleep, or NREM stage 3 — does concentrate more heavily in the first portion of the night. REM sleep, the dreaming stage most associated with emotional processing and memory consolidation, accumulates more in the second half. This architecture is real and well-documented.

The mistake the "core sleep" concept makes is treating the first part of the night as sufficient because it contains more deep sleep, and treating the second half as less essential. This misunderstands what the different stages are doing.

Deep sleep and REM sleep serve different and complementary functions. Deep sleep is particularly important for physical restoration, immune function, and certain forms of memory consolidation. REM sleep plays a central role in emotional regulation, creative thinking, and the processing of complex or emotionally charged experiences. Both matter. They are not interchangeable, and neither is optional.

A useful way to think about it: sleeping only through the first half of the night is like leaving a film at the halfway point. The setup is complete. But the second half is where the meaning gets made, where the threads come together, where the experience becomes whole. You have not gotten the film — you have gotten part of it.

Why "Core Sleep" Is So Appealing

It is worth taking seriously why this concept resonates. It taps into something deeply familiar in how many of us relate to productivity and time: the belief that everything, including the body, can be optimized. If sleep has a most-efficient portion, maybe we do not need to give it the full eight hours. Maybe we can compress it, extract the essentials, and get back to everything else.

There is also something specific about sleep recommendations that breeds fatigue. Consistent sleep schedule. Limit screens before bed. Keep the bed for sleep only. These are the recommendations that have been repeated for years — because they are the recommendations that actually work. But familiarity can make them feel less exciting, and people are naturally drawn to approaches that feel newer or more sophisticated.

In clinical work, a significant portion of what we do together is not explaining the recommendations — most patients already know them. It is the harder work of examining what gets in the way of actually carrying them out, and troubleshooting the real obstacles. That is usually where the change happens.

The appeal of "core sleep" is understandable. But the underlying promise — that you can function well on meaningfully less sleep if you just structure it correctly — is not one the evidence supports.

What Happens When You Consistently Underslept

One of the more striking findings in sleep research is the gap between how people feel when they are chronically sleep-restricted and how they are actually performing. Studies consistently show that people adapt to reduced sleep in the sense that they stop noticing the deficits. They feel as though they are functioning fine. Objective measures of focus, memory, reaction time, and decision-making tell a different story.

This matters for how we evaluate sleep strategies. If you try limiting yourself to what you believe is your "core sleep" and you feel okay the next day, that feeling is not strong evidence that the strategy is working. It may simply reflect the brain's diminished capacity to accurately assess its own impairment.

Over time, consistently shortchanging sleep — even by amounts that feel manageable — accumulates. The effects appear in cognitive performance, emotional regulation, immune function, and longer-term health outcomes. Sleep debt is real, and the body keeps its own accounting.

What Actually Makes Sleep Restorative

In clinical practice, the question that matters most is not whether someone is hitting a specific number of hours, but how their sleep is functioning and how they are functioning because of it.

The qualities that tend to make sleep most restorative are continuity and consistency. Consolidated sleep — sleep that flows relatively uninterrupted through its cycles across the whole night — is more restorative than the same total hours fragmented by repeated awakenings. Consistent timing, going to bed and waking at roughly similar times, supports the circadian regulation that allows all the stages to occur in their proper sequence and proportion.

Daytime functioning is the other essential signal. Energy, focus, mood, and the ability to engage with your life are what we are ultimately trying to support. If sleep is doing its job, those things should be reasonably stable. When they are not — when fatigue is persistent, concentration is scattered, mood is fraying — that is information that the sleep, regardless of its duration, may not be providing what the body and brain need.

It is also worth naming something that often gets lost in optimization-oriented sleep conversations: good sleep does not have to be perfect. Even people with genuinely healthy sleep have off nights. Variability is normal. The goal is not flawless sleep architecture measured to the hour — it is sleep that is, over time, sufficient and restorative. Releasing the pressure to achieve perfect sleep is, somewhat paradoxically, one of the things that tends to make sleep better.

The Deeper Issue With Sleep Shortcuts

The "core sleep" concept is one example of a broader pattern in how sleep information circulates online: a real scientific observation gets extracted from its context, simplified, and repurposed into a recommendation that the original science does not actually support.

This matters because beliefs about sleep shape behavior around sleep, and some of those beliefs can quietly make sleep worse. The belief that you can function on very little sleep if you just optimize correctly can lead people to undersleep and then rationalize their impairment. The belief that there is a specific, narrow window of essential sleep can generate anxiety about whether you are hitting it — and anxiety about sleep is itself one of the most common drivers of insomnia.

CBT-I spends a significant amount of time working directly with beliefs about sleep: examining where they came from, testing them against evidence, and replacing unhelpful ones with more accurate and flexible thinking. What someone believes about sleep is often as clinically relevant as what they are doing behaviorally.

What to Focus on Instead

If the goal is genuinely restorative sleep, the evidence points clearly toward a few things:

Prioritize the full night. Both the deep-sleep-rich early portion and the REM-rich later hours serve your brain and body. Protecting the whole sleep period — not just the first part — is what allows all the stages to complete their work.

Consistency over perfection. A regular wake time is the most powerful regulator of your sleep architecture. It does not have to be rigid to the minute, but the more consistent it is, the better your circadian system can anticipate and prepare for sleep.

Pay attention to how you feel. Daytime energy, mood, and cognitive clarity are your best personal metrics for whether sleep is doing its job. These are more meaningful than a sleep tracker score or a fixed hour target.

Approach sleep without excessive pressure. Sleep is a biological process, not a performance. The more urgently we pursue it, the more elusive it can become. Good enough, most nights, is genuinely good enough.

Citations

Diekelmann, S., & Born, J. (2010). The memory function of sleep. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2762

Killgore, W. D. S. (2010). Effects of sleep deprivation on cognition. Progress in Brain Research, 185, 105–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53702-7.00007-5

Morin, C. M., & Espie, C. A. (2003). Insomnia: A clinical guide to assessment and treatment. Springer.

Van Dongen, H. P. A., Maislin, G., Mullington, J. M., & Dinges, D. F. (2003). The cumulative cost of additional wakefulness: Dose-response effects on neurobehavioral functions and sleep physiology from chronic sleep restriction and total sleep deprivation. Sleep, 26(2), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/26.2.117

Walker, M. P., & Stickgold, R. (2006). Sleep, memory, and plasticity. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070307

Winter Fatigue vs Depression vs Insomnia: How to Tell the Difference

Feeling exhausted in the winter is common. Shorter days, colder weather, and disrupted routines can leave many people feeling sluggish, unmotivated, or “off.” But not all winter exhaustion is the same. Fatigue, depression, and insomnia can look similar on the surface, yet they have different causes and require different approaches.

Understanding the difference can help you choose the right next step and avoid unnecessary frustration.

Winter Fatigue: When Your Body Is Slowing Down

Winter fatigue is often a physiological response to seasonal changes. Reduced daylight affects circadian rhythm and melatonin production, which can leave you feeling groggy, low-energy, or mentally foggy.

Common signs of winter fatigue include:

• Low energy during the day

• Heavier sleep or difficulty waking up

• Increased appetite or cravings

• Reduced motivation without persistent sadness

Importantly, people with winter fatigue can usually sleep when given the opportunity. The issue is not insomnia, but rather a mismatch between light exposure, activity levels, and internal clocks.

Helpful strategies often include:

• Morning light exposure

• Gentle increases in movement

• Consistent wake times

• Reduced daytime napping

Depression: When Fatigue Is Emotional as Well as Physical

Depression can intensify in the winter months, especially for those sensitive to seasonal changes. While fatigue is a common symptom, depression goes beyond tiredness.

Signs that fatigue may be part of depression include:

• Persistent low mood or emotional numbness

• Loss of interest or pleasure in activities

• Feelings of hopelessness, guilt, or worthlessness

• Changes in sleep and appetite that do not improve with rest

Sleep in depression can be irregular. Some people sleep excessively and still feel unrefreshed. Others experience fragmented or early-morning awakenings. The defining feature is not just poor sleep, but a shift in mood, motivation, and self-perception.

Treatment often focuses on:

• Psychotherapy

• Behavioral activation

• Addressing negative thought patterns

• Supporting sleep and circadian rhythm

Insomnia: When Sleep Itself Becomes the Struggle

Insomnia is not simply about being tired. It is a condition defined by difficulty falling asleep, staying asleep, or returning to sleep, despite adequate opportunity to rest.

Key signs of insomnia include:

• Long periods awake in bed

• Frequent nighttime awakenings

• Racing thoughts at night

• Anxiety about sleep itself

In winter, insomnia often worsens due to disrupted schedules, reduced light exposure, increased stress, and longer time spent in bed. Over time, sleep can become effortful and associated with frustration or fear.

Unlike fatigue or depression, insomnia is often maintained by:

• Increased sleep effort

• Over-monitoring sleep

• Spending excessive time in bed

• Trying to “force” rest

Evidence-based treatments like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia (CBT-I) target these patterns directly.

Why These Conditions Overlap and Get Confused

Winter fatigue, depression, and insomnia frequently coexist. Poor sleep can worsen mood. Low mood can disrupt sleep. Fatigue can increase time in bed, which can worsen insomnia.

This overlap makes self-diagnosis difficult and often leads people to try solutions that inadvertently increase symptoms. For example:

Sleeping in may worsen circadian disruption

Trying harder to sleep may increase insomnia

Pushing through exhaustion may deepen burnout

Understanding what is driving your symptoms helps clarify what will actually help.

When to Seek Support

If fatigue, low mood, or sleep difficulties persist for several weeks, interfere with daily functioning, or feel increasingly distressing, professional support can be helpful. The right intervention depends on the underlying pattern, not just the symptom.

Winter can be a challenging season, but struggling during this time does not mean something is wrong with you. Often, it means your system needs a different kind of support.

Feeling tired in winter is common. Feeling stuck, hopeless, or unable to sleep is not something you have to push through alone. Differentiating between winter fatigue, depression, and insomnia allows for more compassionate and effective care.

Sometimes the most important step is not doing more, but understanding what your body and mind are actually asking for.

Mental Wellness Month: Why You Don’t Need Extreme Resolutions to Improve Your Well-Being

January marks Mental Wellness Month—a time meant to help us reset, restore, and reconnect with ourselves after the intensity of the holiday season. But in reality, the New Year often brings a different atmosphere: pressure, urgency, and a sense that we should be doing more, achieving more, or transforming ourselves completely.

Instead of feeling refreshed, many people feel behind before the year even starts.

This is the paradox of January: the month designed for mental wellness can easily become one of the most emotionally demanding.

Why the New Year Feels So Emotionally Heavy

The New Year taps into the psychology of the “fresh start effect,” which can be motivating—but also destabilizing. The moment the calendar resets, many of us feel compelled to reinvent our health, productivity, relationships, and routines all at once.

The problem is that this mindset encourages all-or-nothing thinking, which is closely tied to anxiety, self-criticism, and burnout.

Layer onto this the winter season—shorter days, disrupted sleep schedules, social withdrawal, and reduced natural light—and it’s easy to see how January can become a perfect storm for emotional overwhelm.

Mental Wellness Month helps reframe the conversation: well-being doesn’t come from pursuing an ideal version of ourselves. It comes from cultivating sustainable habits that support the nervous system and allow our minds to reset.

Why True Mental Wellness Comes From Sustainable Habits

The research is clear: long-term change is driven by consistency, not intensity.

The more pressure we place on ourselves to “fix everything,” the more likely we are to freeze, avoid, or abandon the plan entirely.

That’s why the most effective mental wellness practices are simple, gentle, and realistic—especially at the start of a new year.

Here are a few habits that truly make a difference:

1. Protecting 10–15 Minutes of Intentional Rest

One of the easiest ways to support mental health is to introduce brief periods of intentional rest into your schedule.

This isn’t zoning out on your phone or half-watching TV—it’s a deliberate pause that signals your nervous system to downshift.

Examples:

• Folding laundry slowly and mindfully

• Sitting with a warm beverage

• A few minutes of quiet stretching

• Simply breathing without multitasking

Even small doses of restorative rest can reduce irritability, improve emotional resilience, and calm racing thoughts.

2. Getting Daily Natural Light (Even Briefly)

Light exposure is one of the strongest regulators of mood and circadian rhythm.

In the winter, reduced daylight can worsen sleep disturbances, fatigue, and symptoms of depression.

You don’t need a long outdoor routine—just:

• 2–5 minutes by a window

• A quick walk around the block

• Standing outside while you drink your coffee

These tiny exposures help reset your internal clock and can improve both mood and sleep.

3. Choosing “Minimum Goals” Instead of Extreme Resolutions

Most resolutions fail not due to lack of willpower, but because they’re too big, too fast.

Instead of:

• “I’ll meditate every day” → Try “I’ll take 3 slow breaths before bed.”

• “I’ll work out daily” → Try “I’ll move my body 2–3 times a week.”

• “I’ll sleep perfectly” → Try “I’ll dim my lights 15 minutes earlier.”

Minimum goals build momentum. Extreme goals build guilt.

4. Prioritizing Real Human Connection

Emotional well-being is strongly tied to our sense of belonging.

But January often brings isolation—cold weather, social fatigue, and a return to packed schedules.

Intentionally scheduling two small moments of connection—a walk with a friend, calling a family member, or simply chatting with someone you trust—can significantly reduce feelings of loneliness and stress.

5. Treating Sleep as a Foundation, Not an Afterthought

Sleep underpins mental health in almost every measurable way.

Better sleep improves:

• Emotional regulation

• Cognitive function

• Stress tolerance

• Overall resilience

You don’t need a complicated routine. Try:

• A stable wake time

• A short wind-down without screens

• A darker, cooler sleeping environment

These simple shifts often have a larger impact than people expect.

Mental Wellness Month: A Gentle Invitation, Not a Mandate

Mental Wellness Month is about stepping back from the pressure to “be better” and instead focusing on being steadier. Wellness doesn’t require a reinvention. It requires compassion, pacing, and habits that work with your life—not against it.

As we move deeper into the new year, remember that mental wellness is built in the small margins of the day—in the pauses, the connections, the breaths, and the choices that support your nervous system.

If you begin the year gently, you give yourself the space to grow sustainably through the months ahead.

The New Year Isn’t Always a Fresh Start — Anxiety & Depression in January

Every December, the world seems to hit “reset.” We’re encouraged to reflect on the past year, write fresh goals, rethink our habits, and step into January as a new version of ourselves.

For some, that feels exciting.

For others—especially those dealing with anxiety or depression—the New Year can feel heavy, stressful, or confusing.

If the transition into January brings more pressure than motivation, you’re not alone.

Why the New Year Can Trigger Anxiety

1. Pressure to “fix” everything at once

New Year’s culture often leans into perfectionism: new habits, new routines, new productivity systems. For people who already struggle with anxiety, that pressure can amplify worries about not doing enough.

2. Uncertainty about the year ahead

An anxious mind naturally scans for risk and unpredictability. A brand-new year—full of unknowns—can feel overwhelming rather than refreshing.

3. Increased social comparison

Year-in-review posts, success highlights, and big resolutions can create a sense that everyone else is moving forward faster. This can intensify anxiety and self-doubt.

How the New Year Affects Depression

1. Low energy meets high expectations

Depression often brings fatigue, low motivation, and difficulty initiating tasks. Pair that with the message that January requires a major life reset, and the emotional load can feel even heavier.

2. The post-holiday crash

The holidays disrupt routines, bring emotional highs and lows, and often involve intense social interactions. When January arrives, the sudden quiet can amplify feelings of loneliness or emptiness.

3. Self-reflection can turn self-critical

Reflecting on the past year is healthy, but depression often skews reflection toward perceived failures or shortcomings. This can deepen feelings of hopelessness.

What Helps: Supportive Ways to Enter the New Year

1. Set intentions instead of resolutions

• Intentions are flexible and values-based, like “Prioritize rest” or “Be gentle with myself.”

• Resolutions tend to be rigid and all-or-nothing.

• Intentions reduce pressure and support emotional steadiness.

2. Start small—really small

• Small, doable steps create momentum without overwhelming the brain.

Examples: A 10-minute walk, drinking one glass of water in the morning, two minutes of journaling at night, ease back into routine gradually.

• Routines help stabilize mood, but there’s no need to flip a switch on January 1st. Think of the month as a soft start.

4. Reduce comparison triggers

• A short break from social media can significantly reduce emotional overload during the first week of January.

5. Remember that nothing magical has to happen on January 1st

• The New Year is not a performance review. It’s simply another day on the calendar. You’re allowed to move into it slowly, quietly, and on your own terms.

The New Year Can Be Both Hopeful and Hard

If this season feels complicated for you, it doesn’t mean you’re doing anything wrong. Many people experience anxiety or depression this time of year—especially when the cultural pressure to “start over” is so high.

You don’t need a full reinvention.

You just need small, kind steps that help you feel grounded as you enter the year ahead.

Why We Overlook CBT-I—and Why Life Transitions Often Trigger Sleepless Nights

Insomnia is one of the most common sleep disorders, yet it is often misunderstood. Many people assume sleepless nights are simply the result of stress or a busy mind, but insomnia can appear suddenly, especially during life transitions, and quickly become chronic.

Despite its prevalence, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia (CBT-I)—the gold-standard, evidence-based treatment—is often overlooked in favor of generic sleep hygiene tips or short-term medications.

Life Transitions and Insomnia

Insomnia often emerges during periods of change, both positive and negative. Common triggers include:

• Major life events: moving, starting a new job, retirement, or divorce

• Health changes: chronic pain, illness, or surgery

• Emotional stressors: grief, caregiving, financial strain

• Exciting transitions: marriage, parenthood, or career promotions

Even happy changes can create heightened arousal and racing thoughts that disrupt sleep. What begins as temporary sleep loss can develop into persistent insomnia if unaddressed.

Sleep Hygiene vs CBT-I

Many people first try sleep hygiene, which includes:

• Limiting caffeine and alcohol before bed

• Avoiding screens in the bedroom

• Maintaining a cool, dark sleep environment

• Keeping a consistent sleep schedule

While these strategies are helpful, sleep hygiene alone rarely resolves chronic insomnia. It addresses lifestyle factors but does not change the learned patterns of wakefulness or anxious thoughts that perpetuate insomnia.

CBT-I, in contrast, is a structured, evidence-based therapy designed to retrain both mind and body. It goes beyond environmental tweaks to target the root causes of insomnia:

• Sleep restriction: Limiting time in bed to match actual sleep, then gradually expanding as sleep efficiency improves

• Stimulus control: Strengthening the association between bed and sleep by leaving the bedroom if unable to fall asleep

• Cognitive restructuring: Addressing anxious or racing thoughts about sleep

• Relaxation and mindfulness: Teaching the body to wind down naturally

Unlike sleep hygiene or medication, CBT-I produces lasting improvements and reduces the risk of relapse.

Why CBT-I Is Overlooked

Despite strong evidence, CBT-I remains underutilized:

• Low awareness: Many patients—and some providers—don’t know CBT-I exists

• Access barriers: Few clinicians are trained in CBT-I, creating long waitlists

• Quick-fix culture: People often prefer medications, which offer immediate but short-term relief

• Misconceptions: Patients may believe sleep hygiene alone is enough, not realizing CBT-I is a separate, more effective therapy

Steps to Address Insomnia

If you’re struggling with sleepless nights, especially after a life transition:

1. Recognize the difference: Sleep hygiene supports healthy sleep habits; CBT-I treats chronic insomnia.

2. Maintain consistent wake times: Even after a poor night, getting up at the same time helps reset your body clock.

3. Limit time in bed awake: Leave the bedroom if unable to sleep for 15–20 minutes and engage in a calming activity.

4. Seek specialized help: Look for therapists trained in CBT-I or evidence-based digital programs.

Moving Forward

Sleep is foundational for mental and physical health. While sleep hygiene is useful, it is not a cure for chronic insomnia. CBT-I is the most effective, evidence-based approach, helping you restore restorative sleep, regulate mood, and build resilience during life transitions.

Stronger Every Decade: What Seniors’ Powerlifting Teaches Us About Aging Well

When we think about aging healthfully, the conversation often centers on diet, slowing down, or managing chronic conditions. But what if the secret to thriving later in life is less about slowing and more about lifting?

A gym outside Detroit, featured recently in the New York Times, is championing exactly that: showing how serious barbell training for people in their 60s, 70s, 80s—and beyond—is not only possible, but transformative.

Aging Meets Strength: Shifting the Narrative

At Greysteel Strength and Conditioning, older adults powerlift with purpose. It’s not just about building muscle—it’s a way to reclaim autonomy, improve mood, sharpen cognition, and stave off age-related decline. When someone in their 80s deadlifts impressive weights, it becomes more than a physical feat—it’s a statement about resilience in any stage of life.

Why Lifting Matters For Body and Mind

Physical strength plays a vital role in mental health, especially as we grow older:

• Empowerment and Identity: Mastering strength challenges builds confidence. Each lift is a reminder that growth is still possible, regardless of age.

• Brain-Body Connection: Resistance training enhances not just muscle tone, but cognitive clarity, memory, and stress regulation.

• Emotional Resilience: Pushing physical boundaries can also help confront mental ones—providing a sense of mastery that spills into daily life.

• Community and Purpose: The gym environment—rooted in encouragement and mutual support—is a powerful antidote to social isolation.

Clinical Insights: Encouraging Strength in Aging Clients

How can psychologists and health professionals integrate the lessons from gyms like Greysteel into meaningful support?

1. Reframe strength as lifelong. Don’t see aging clients as fragile—see them as capable. Encourage physical routines that challenge them, not just preserve them.

2. Think physical, not just psychological. Strong movement can be healing. Explore partnerships with trainers or recommending strength work as part of holistic mental health care.

3. Use strength as symbolic therapy. Each weight lifted can mirror emotional resilience. Frame physical progress as a visible metaphor for inner growth.

4. Foster community-based strength. Aging clients often benefit from more than one-on-one therapy. Group movement programs—where camaraderie and purpose meet—can change lives.

Powerlifting isn’t just for bodybuilders. For many older adults, lifting is a tool for reclaiming health, independence, joy—and mental well-being.

If you work with older clients—or have aging loved ones—consider how strength training can be a pillar of mental wellness. In a world that sometimes sees aging as decline, these lifters remind us: growth can happen at any age with the right support, community, and a barbell within reach.

How Travel Can Unlock Your Creative Potential

Travel is often seen as a chance to get away from the daily grind, but it’s so much more than just a break. It can actually be a powerful catalyst for boosting creativity and inspiring fresh ideas. When you step outside your usual surroundings and immerse yourself in new environments, your brain is invited to think in different ways, opening up pathways to innovation and insight.

Why Changing Your Environment Matters

Our brains naturally rely on routines and patterns to function efficiently. While this helps us manage day-to-day tasks, it can also limit our thinking, making it harder to come up with novel solutions or creative breakthroughs. Traveling disrupts these patterns by exposing you to a flood of unfamiliar stimuli—new landscapes, sounds, smells, and social interactions—that demand your brain’s full attention.

This disruption helps increase cognitive flexibility, a key ingredient in creative thinking. By adapting to new surroundings and ways of life, your brain strengthens its ability to connect seemingly unrelated ideas and solve problems in fresh, inventive ways.

The Power of Novelty and Dopamine

One of the reasons travel boosts creativity lies in the brain’s response to novelty. Encountering something new—whether it’s an exotic food, an unfamiliar tradition, or a different architectural style—activates the release of dopamine. This neurotransmitter is often called the brain’s “reward chemical” because it enhances pleasure, motivation, and learning.

When dopamine levels rise, your brain becomes more engaged and receptive to new ideas. This heightened state encourages curiosity and playfulness, which are essential for creative exploration and expression.

Learning From Different Cultures

Travel also provides a unique opportunity to experience diverse cultures firsthand. Meeting people with different values, beliefs, and ways of solving problems expands your own perspective. These cultural exchanges challenge assumptions and introduce alternative approaches to everyday challenges.

By integrating these new viewpoints, you enrich your creative repertoire. Whether you’re working on a project, tackling a work challenge, or pursuing a hobby, the insights gained from other cultures can lead to innovative thinking and fresh solutions.

Tips to Maximize Travel’s Creative Benefits

• Observe with curiosity. Make a habit of noticing details—whether it’s the way light falls on a building, local gestures, or street art. These small observations can serve as seeds for creative ideas later.

• Keep a travel journal or sketchbook. Writing or drawing your impressions helps deepen your experience and solidify creative inspiration.

• Try new things. Engage in activities outside your comfort zone, like learning a local craft, tasting unfamiliar dishes, or exploring off-the-beaten-path locations. Novel experiences stretch your brain and promote creativity.

• Connect meaningfully. Conversations with locals or fellow travelers can provide insights and stories that spark new ideas.

Bringing the Spark Home

You don’t have to travel far or long to reap creative rewards. Even exploring a new part of your city or taking a short trip can shake up your routine and inspire your mind. The key is to maintain the mindset of openness and curiosity.

Once home, try to hold onto the sense of wonder and perspective that travel cultivates. Use it as a springboard for creative projects, problem-solving, or simply seeing your everyday world in a new light.

Creativity is a skill that thrives on novelty, flexibility, and diverse experiences. Travel naturally provides these elements by immersing you in unfamiliar environments and cultures, pushing your brain to adapt and innovate.

So next time you plan a getaway, remember it’s not just about the destination—it’s about giving your mind the chance to grow, change, and create in exciting new ways.

What Kinds of Behaviors Does AI Reinforce? Understanding How Algorithms Shape Our Habits

Artificial intelligence (AI) is woven into our everyday lives—often in ways we don’t even notice. It powers our social media feeds, streaming suggestions, online ads, maps, shopping recommendations, job applications, and more.

But here’s something many of us don’t stop to consider:
AI doesn’t just respond to our behavior—it shapes it.

Whether we’re scrolling, searching, swiping, or shopping, the algorithms behind these platforms are constantly learning from us. And in turn, they’re reinforcing certain behaviors—sometimes in ways that help, and other times in ways that quietly impact our mental health, habits, and sense of agency.

So, what kinds of behaviors does AI tend to reinforce? And how can we stay mindful in the process?

1. Repetition and Routine

AI systems are designed to notice patterns. The more often we click on something—like a certain type of video, headline, or product—the more likely we are to see similar content again. This can make our digital experiences feel personalized, but it also reinforces repetition.

Helpful when:
You’re building a healthy habit (e.g., workout reminders, meditation apps, meal planning tools).
You want consistent recommendations based on your preferences.

Risky when:
You get stuck in a loop—only seeing content that reinforces your current views, interests, or mood (also known as an echo chamber).
It’s hard to break out of old patterns or discover something new.

2. Instant Gratification

AI is very good at figuring out what keeps us engaged. That means it tends to reward behaviors that give us quick emotional feedback—likes, shares, dopamine hits, short-form content, and easy answers.

Helpful when:
You need fast results (e.g., directions, quick answers, mood boosts from positive content).

Risky when:
You become reliant on quick rewards and lose tolerance for boredom, frustration, or slow progress.
You struggle to focus, reflect, or stay present because you’re constantly chasing the next hit of stimulation.

3. Avoidance and Emotional Reactivity

Many platforms use AI to optimize for attention—not well-being. If you engage more when you’re angry, anxious, or distracted, that emotional state may be unintentionally reinforced.

Helpful when:
You find relatable content that helps you feel seen, especially during emotional moments.

Risky when:
You’re nudged toward doomscrolling, outrage, or content that amplifies fear and worry.
You use technology to avoid discomfort or disconnect from your feelings, rather than process them.

4. People-Pleasing and Performance

On social media, AI reinforces what gets the most engagement. That can lead us to shape our online presence around what gets likes, approval, or validation—even if it’s not aligned with how we truly feel.

Helpful when:
You’re building a business, platform, or creative project and want to understand your audience.

Risky when:
You start equating your self-worth with likes, comments, or followers.
You censor or contort yourself to fit an algorithm, rather than connect authentically.

So What Can We Do?
Staying Mindful in a Digital World

We don’t have to reject AI or technology to protect our well-being—but we do need to be aware of how it shapes us. Here are a few ways to stay grounded:

Notice your habits
Pay attention to what content you're drawn to and how it affects your mood or mindset.

Take breaks from reinforcement loops
Try stepping away from the algorithm (e.g., switching to human-curated playlists, reading offline, or spending time without devices).

Get curious about discomfort
If you’re using AI-powered tools to avoid boredom, anxiety, or loneliness, gently explore what’s underneath.

Reclaim your agency
You can disrupt the loop. Seek out new perspectives, silence unhelpful content, or use tools that prioritize values over clicks.

You Are Powerful Too

AI systems are designed to serve us, but they’re not neutral. They reflect and amplify patterns—often without context or care for our mental health. That’s why awareness matters.

By understanding what kinds of behaviors AI reinforces, we give ourselves the chance to choose more consciously. We can ask:
Is this helping me grow?
Is this aligned with how I want to live?
Is this truly me—or a reflection of the clicks I’ve made?

The answers might surprise you. And they might help you reclaim a little more space, clarity, and freedom in your digital life.

Signs You May Be Struggling with Your Mental Health

Mental health can fluctuate, just like physical health. Some days feel manageable, while others feel overwhelming. But when emotional struggles persist and start interfering with daily life, it might be time to check in with yourself and seek support.

Recognizing the signs of mental health struggles can be the first step toward healing. Whether you’ve been feeling off lately or are unsure if what you’re experiencing is normal stress, here are some key signs that your mental health may need attention.

1. Persistent Feelings of Sadness, Anxiety, or Numbness

Everyone has bad days, but if you find yourself feeling down, anxious, or emotionally disconnected for weeks at a time, it may indicate something deeper. You might experience:

✔ A constant low mood or feeling empty

✔ Excessive worry or racing thoughts that won’t stop

✔ A sense of numbness or disconnection from yourself and others

If these feelings persist, they may signal depression, anxiety, or burnout.

2. Changes in Sleep Patterns

Sleep and mental health are closely linked. Disruptions in sleep can be both a symptom and a cause of emotional distress. Signs to watch for include:

✔ Trouble falling or staying asleep (insomnia)

✔ Sleeping much more than usual but still feeling exhausted

✔ Frequent nightmares or restless sleep

Poor sleep can amplify stress and make it harder to manage emotions, so it's important to address sleep struggles early.

3. Loss of Interest in Activities You Used to Enjoy

A sudden or gradual loss of interest in hobbies, work, relationships, or social activities can be a red flag. If you find yourself avoiding things you once loved—whether it’s exercising, spending time with friends, or pursuing creative passions—you may be experiencing a symptom of depression or emotional exhaustion.

4. Difficulty Concentrating or Making Decisions

Mental fog, forgetfulness, or struggling to stay focused can be more than just distraction—it can be a sign of stress, anxiety, or depression. You might notice:

✔ Trouble remembering things, even simple tasks

✔ Feeling overwhelmed by choices or unable to make decisions

✔ Losing track of time or struggling with productivity

When your brain is overloaded with stress, it can become difficult to think clearly.

5. Increased Irritability or Mood Swings

If you’re feeling unusually short-tempered, easily frustrated, or overwhelmed by small inconveniences, it could be a sign of emotional distress. Mental health struggles don’t always show up as sadness—sometimes they manifest as irritability, anger, or mood swings.

6. Withdrawing from Others

Feeling like you want to isolate yourself can be a sign that your mental health is suffering. You might:

✔ Ignore texts or cancel plans with friends and family

✔ Feel emotionally distant, even when surrounded by others

✔ Struggle to express what you're feeling, leading to further isolation

While alone time can be healthy, consistently avoiding connection can worsen feelings of loneliness and sadness.

7. Unhealthy Coping Mechanisms

When emotions become overwhelming, some people turn to coping strategies that provide temporary relief but create long-term problems. These might include:

✔ Increased use of alcohol, drugs, or smoking

✔ Emotional eating or skipping meals altogether

✔ Excessive scrolling on social media to escape reality

✔ Overworking or avoiding responsibilities as a distraction

If you find yourself using these coping mechanisms frequently, it may be a sign that deeper emotional struggles need to be addressed.

8. Physical Symptoms with No Clear Cause

Mental health issues don’t just affect the mind—they can manifest in physical ways too. Common signs include:

✔ Headaches or body aches with no medical explanation

✔ Digestive issues (nausea, stomach pain, or changes in appetite)

✔ Chronic fatigue, even after getting enough rest

If your body is showing signs of stress or distress, it’s worth considering whether emotional factors are playing a role.

What to Do If You Recognize These Signs

If you see yourself in any of these signs, know that you are not alone—and help is available. Here are some steps you can take:

✔ Talk to someone you trust – Whether it’s a friend, family member, or therapist, opening up can provide relief and support.

✔ Seek professional help – A mental health professional can offer guidance, coping strategies, and treatment if needed.

✔ Prioritize self-care – Small daily actions, like getting enough sleep, eating well, and engaging in activities that bring joy, can help stabilize your mood.

✔ Move your body – Exercise, even gentle movement like walking or yoga, can boost mood and energy levels.

✔ Be kind to yourself – Mental health struggles are not a personal failure. Healing takes time, and it’s okay to ask for help.

Recognizing that you’re struggling is a brave and important first step. You deserve support, care, and the chance to feel better.