Scientists Link ‪Selfies‬ To Narcissism, ‪Addiction‬ & Mental Illness

The growing trend of taking smartphone selfies is linked to mental health conditions that focus on a person’s obsession with looks.

Source: Scientists Link ‪Selfies‬ To Narcissism, ‪Addiction‬ & Mental Illness

According to psychiatrist Dr David Veal: “Two out of three of all the patients who come to see me with Body Dysmorphic Disorder since the rise of camera phones have a compulsion to repeatedly take and post selfies on social media sites.”

“Cognitive behavioral therapy is used to help a patient to recognize the reasons for his or her compulsive behavior and then to learn how to moderate it,” he told the Sunday Mirror.

Is it possible that taking selfies causes mental illness, addiction, narcissism and suicide? Many psychologists say yes, and warn parents to pay close attention to what kids are doing online to avoid any future cases like what happened to Bowman.

A British male teenager tried to commit suicide after he failed to take the perfect selfie. Danny Bowman became so obsessed with capturing the perfect shot that he spent 10 hours a day taking up to 200 selfies. The 19-year-old lost nearly 30 pounds, dropped out of school and did not leave the house for six months in his quest to get the right picture. He would take 10 pictures immediately after waking up. Frustrated at his attempts to take the one image he wanted, Bowman eventually tried to take his own life by overdosing, but was saved by his mom.

“I was constantly in search of taking the perfect selfie and when I realized I couldn’t, I wanted to die. I lost my friends, my education, my health and almost my life,” he told The Mirror.

The teenager is believed to be the UK’s first selfie addict and has had therapy to treat his technology addiction as well as OCD and Body Dysmorphic Disorder.

Part of his treatment at the Maudsley Hospital in London included taking away his iPhone for intervals of 10 minutes, which increased to 30 minutes and then an hour.

“It was excruciating to begin with but I knew I had to do it if I wanted to go on living,” he told the Sunday Mirror.

Public health officials in the UK announced that addiction to social media such as Facebook and Twitter is an illness and more than 100 patients sought treatment every year.

Selfies frequently trigger perceptions of self-indulgence or attention-seeking social dependence that raises the damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don’t spectre of either narcissism or very low self-esteem,” said Pamela Rutledge in Psychology Today.

The big problem with the rise of digital narcissism is that it puts enormous pressure on people to achieve unfeasible goals, without making them hungrier. Wanting to be Beyoncé, Jay Z or a model is hard enough already, but when you are not prepared to work hard to achieve it, you are better off just lowering your aspirations. Few things are more self-destructive than a combination of high entitlement and a lazy work ethic. Ultimately, online manifestations of narcissism may be little more than a self-presentational strategy to compensate for a very low and fragile self-esteem. Yet when these efforts are reinforced and rewarded by others, they perpetuate the distortion of reality and consolidate narcissistic delusions.

Check the infographic below for all the details, which comes courtesy of The Best Computer Science Schools.

READ Scientists Link Selfies To Narcissism, Addiction & Mental Illness


Healthy Holistic Living

Healthy Holistic Living brings you alternative health news from all over the web. These articles are sourced and shared with permission so you get all the news that’s fit to keep you in good physical and mental health. Stay happy, stay hungry, and stay on Healthy Holistic Living.

Want to Be a Nicer Person? Read a Novel

You are what you read.

Source: Want to Be a Nicer Person? Read a Novel

Photo by Natalia Y on Unsplash

Kristine Anthis Ph.D.

If one of your New Year’s resolutions is to be a nicer person who is more sensitive and aware of other people’s feelings, read more novels. Really.

Once you are absorbed in the world of Anthony Doerr’s All the Light We Cannot See and other popular novels, you might find yourself a more empathetic person. Researchers who study how reading literature affects us have found that just like anything else, we get better at a subject the more we practice it; the more fiction we read, the more we understand how and what other people think (Djikic & Oatley, 2014).

It may be that in the process of appreciating others’ lives, we incorporate these experiences into our own personality, resulting in a new and reconfigured self. Readers often experience emotions similar to those of fictional characters, which increases our empathy for them. In doing so, “Literature can help us navigate our self-development by transcending our current self while at the same time making available to us a multitude of potential future selves” (Djikic & Oatley, 2014, p. 503). So the more we read, the more we expose ourselves to other ways of being, and other potential identities.

If you are wondering whether or not television or film have the same effect, the answer is unclear, given more research is needed. But television and film provide audiovisual information that novels do not, so literature likely requires more cognitive effort unless the television show or film is complex and challenging (and many contemporary media are).

Novels therefore provide ideal opportunities to practice our emotional intelligence skills such as empathy, as well as the awareness and monitoring of our emotions (Mar, Oatley, Djikic, & Mullin, 2011). And what we read matters, suspense and romance novels seem to foster greater interpersonal sensitivity than do science fiction novels (Fong, Mullin, & Mar, 2013). There are subtle distinctions within genres though. As a fan of Margaret Atwood’s speculative fiction, I look forward to more research on the differences among various genres and sub-genres of literature.

Regardless, the next time you are running errands and waiting in line, consider dipping into that novel you started rather than texting mindlessly or zoning out with a game — if you do so regularly, you will likely become a more sensitive and thoughtful person.


Djikic, M. & Oatley, K. (2014). The art in fiction: From indirect communication to changes of the self. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(4), 498-505.

Fong, K., Mullin, J. B., & Mar, R. A. (2013). What you read matters: The role of fiction genre in predicting interpersonal sensitivity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(4), 370-376.

Mar, R. A., Oatley, K., Djikic, M., & Mullin, J. (2011). Emotion and narrative fiction: Interactive influences before, during, and after reading. Cognition and Emotion, 25(5), 818-833.

New book reveals hidden details in world’s most famous paintings

The art secrets hiding in plain sight: Expert reveals the easy-to-miss details that are key to unlocking the meaning of some of the world’s most famous paintings (so did YOU spot them?)

  • Kelly Grovier’s book, A New Way of Seeing, examines the secrets hiding within famous works across time
  • Reveals an Easter egg hidden in Hieronymus Bosch’s famous The Garden of Earthly Delights from 1505-10
  • Also points out a tiny symbolic rabbit in J. M. W. Turner’s Rain Steam, and Speed – The Great Western Railway

Cultural critic Kelly Grovier, who was born in California but now lives in Ireland, has explored every element of 57 different works of art to discover their secrets for his seventh book.

Source: New book reveals hidden details in world’s most famous paintings


A new book has revealed the crucial hidden details you have missed in some of the world’s most well-known paintings.

A New Way of Seeing: The History of Art in 57 Works hopes to change the way people view these incredible pieces forever through recognising their hidden meanings.

From Sandro Botticelli’s The Birth of Venus to Edvard Munch’s The Scream, the book helps guide viewers to seemingly innocuous details that are actually bursting with meaning. 

‘I wrote A New Way of Seeing because I wanted to understand what makes great art great,’ Kelly said. 

‘I sensed there were hidden mysteries and strange depths to the paintings and sculptures that we all know by heart but never really look at. I wanted to help readers reconnect with those masterpieces that have the power to enrich our experience of the world.’ 

Here, Kelly reveals the details you might have missed in some very recognisable paintings… 

Sandro Botticelli, The Birth of Venus 

Sandro Botticelli, The Birth of Venus, c. 1482-85, tempura on canvas, 172.5 x 278.9 cm: Kelly said: 'In Botticelli’s famous painting, Venus windsurfs to shore on a supersized scallop shell. Striking a pose, she gently tilts her head towards a curlicue of golden hair that has miraculously spun itself into a perfect logarithmic spiral on her right shoulder. Too precise to be an accident of brushwork, this seashell-shaped curl whispers sweet nothings in the ear of the goddess who listens intently'

Kelly said: 'Since antiquity, this same spiral has mesmerised mathematicians as an intriguing twist of natural grace - observable in everything from flowers to cyclones, the swoop of raptors to the whorl of galaxies. It will eventually be christened Spira mirabilis ('the marvellous spiral') by a Swiss thinker, Jacob Bernoulli, at the end of the 17th century. And what, exactly, is the spiral murmuring to Venus in Botticelli’s masterpiece? Nothing much: just the secret to timeless beauty'

J. M. W. Turner, Rain Steam, and Speed – The Great Western Railway 

J. M. W. Turner, Rain Steam, and Speed - The Great Western Railway, 1844, oil on canvas: Kelly said: 'Turner is famous for going big. Big skies. Big storms. Big ships. All painted with a big brush. But going big sometimes means going small. When Turner’s famous Rain, Steam, and Speed – The Great Western Railway was exhibited in 1844, a tragedy that occurred two and a half years earlier, on Christmas Eve in 1841, was still fresh in visitors’ minds'

Kelly said: 'Ten miles from the bridge depicted in the painting, a train derailed and nine third-class commuters were killed and another sixteen disfigured. With a tender painterly touch, Turner pays tribute to the wrenching loss. Dashing out ahead of the locomotive is a deftly enunciated hare – since antiquity a symbol in art of rebirth and hope. The tiny hare, easily lost in the mire of shadow and tracks, alone rescues the work from being an abstract statement on the collision of technology and nature to something more intimate and heartfelt'

Édouard Manet, A Bar at The Folies-Bergère 

Édouard Manet, A Bar at The Folies-Bergère, 1882: Kelly said: 'On either side of the barmaid in Édouard Manet’s famous depiction of a raucous cabaret in Paris, bottles of a British beer manufactured by the Bass Brewery call attention to themselves by the distinctive, red triangle printed on their label. The very first officially protected trademark in the United Kingdom, the Bass logo may seem a strange product placement in a proto-Impressionist masterpiece; yet it is key to unlocking the work’s meaning and poignant power'

Kelly said: 'Seen in the context of the commercial label, the spray of roses across the barmaid’s cleavage, which takes the organic shape of a red triangle, marks her out as a product to be purchased and consumed – a woman to be bought and sold. The Folies-Bergère was well-known as a place where barmaid’s moonlighted as prostitutes. Suddenly, the shadowy man we see approaching her from the right in the mirror behind her is a trader in souls, and we, standing precisely where he is, are implicated in the transaction'

Gustav Klimt, The Kiss 

Gustav Klimt, The Kiss, 1907, oil and gold leaf on canvas: Kelly said: 'Look closely at the woman’s resplendent frock in Gustav Klimt’s much-adored portrait of passion, The Kiss, and it appears decorated with round Petri-dish-like slides teeming with pulsing cells. In 1907, the year Klimt painted his iconic work, the air in Vienna was abuzz with talk of platelets and plasma, red blood cells and white'

Kelly said: 'At the University of Vienna (where Klimt himself had been commissioned to create some paintings based on medical themes), Karl Landsteiner, a pioneering immunologist who was the first to distinguish blood groups, was busy investigating how to make blood transfusions work. Within each of the opulent ovoid slides that Klimt has stitched into the woman’s frock, vibrant platelets and agglutinating blood cells judder and throb, as if a microscopic glimpse into her cellular constitution has just been obtained – as if the artist has glimpsed a luminous biopsy of never-ending love'

Hieronymus Bosch, The Garden of Earthly Delights 

Hieronymus Bosch, The Garden of Earthly Delights (triptych open), 1505-10, oil on panel: Kelly said: 'To crack the code of Hieronymus Bosch’s famously cryptic vision of fleshly shenanigans, you must first find the Easter egg he’s hidden for us in his carnal garden. To locate it, all you have to do is draw a cross: imagine tracing a line down the very middle of the work vertically and one across its equator horizontally and, voilà, 'egg' marks the spot at the dead centre of the masterpiece'

Hoisted onto the head of a traveller, a breakable but, as yet, still unbroken eggshell stares back at us like a piercing pupil-less eye, reminding us how precarious the soul’s journey is through this world and the next. When Bosch’s triptych is closed, it reveals a cosmic depiction of the world floating in space: a ghostly egg we endlessly crack open every time we swing the work’s hinges wide

Edvard Munch, The Scream 

Edvard Munch, The Scream, 1893, oil, tempera, pastel and crayon on cardboard: Kelly said: 'Edvard Munch’s 1893 portrait of a howling figure has become an archetype of existential angst and continues to hypnotise, like a flickering bulb swaying above us. Munch took an anxious interest in electricity and the technological advances of the day, and once confessed to his journal that he was haunted by a mysterious shape that 'directed the wires — and held the machinery in his hand'

Kelly said: 'One can only imagine how he reacted to the spectacle at the 1889 Exposition Universelle in Paris of 13,000 incandescent lamps arranged into the luminous shape of a gigantic light bulb. Like a bulging glass skull whose bulbous cranium tapers to an elongated jaw, the lamp towered above visitors. The shape appears to have seeped deep into Munch’s imagination. It flipped a switch. The yowling head that glows in The Scream echoes with uncanny precision the crystalline contours of Edison’s modern god'

A New Way of Seeing: The History of Art in 57 Works by Kelly Grovier (Thames & Hudson)

Best Christmas ads 2018: Watch Google’s amazing Home Alone Again and more

Watch Macaulay Culkin revisit his glory days in the Google Home ad, plus many more excellent festive commercials.

Source: Best Christmas ads 2018: Watch Google’s amazing Home Alone Again and more


We thought we’d seen the all the Christmas adverts this year already, with only a few days left until the big day itself. However, Google has arrived late to the party with what could be the best of them all.

Its Home Alone Again commercial, posted on YouTube, is quite simply brilliant. It brings Kevin McAllister (Macaulay Culkin) back for a modern retake on the classic Christmas movie – one of our favourites of all time.

You can watch it below, along with a selection of the best Christmas adverts that have appeared on UK TVs or online during the 2018 festive period.

Google: Home Alone Again

Imagine what Kevin McAllister’s Home Alone experience would have been like with a Google Home digital assistant.

It must also be said that Macaulay Culkin is looking great these days. Would be good to see him more active on TV or film in 2019.

John Lewis: The Boy and the Piano

You might be a bit sick of it by now, and it’s no patch on former years’ efforts, but the 2018 John Lewis Christmas ad is still one of the best around.

We’re not convinced many small kids will be getting pianos this year though.

Twitter: #NotARetailStore

While you can watch the actual John Lewis advert above, spare a moment for the real John Lewis who is regularly inundated on Twitter by confused customers.

Twitter brilliantly captured this in its own festive advert this year.

Waitrose: Fast Forward

Another great John Lewis spoof comes from one of the retailer’s own brand partners, Waitrose.

It apes a lot of family’s thoughts on the annual unveiling of the JL Christmas ad.

Aldi: Kevin the Carrot and the Wicked Parsnip

Aldi went all out with its Kevin the Carrot Christmas adverts this year, with several reimagined fairy tales featuring an evil parsnip.

This is our fave, not least for the punchline.

Sainsbury’s: The Big Night

Sainsbury’s went with the tried and trusted children’s Christmas play for its 2018 commercial.

Here, you can see a much longer version than the one aired on TV. We still like the bit with the plug.

Iceland: Say Hello to Rang-tan

You won’t have seen this Iceland advert on British TV this Christmas as it was banned for being too political.

However, it is a great commercial with a good message that’s well worth a watch.

Apple: Share your Gifts

To highlight the creative applications possible with Apple devices, it made a wonderfully animated short film about a girl afraid to show others her work.

The much longer version than shown on TV is available above.

McDonald’s: Reindeer Ready

As a follow up to last year’s McDonald’s ad, the 2018 version now features Santa treating his own herd to the fast food chain’s “Reindeer Treats”.

To be honest, they’d probably have preferred Big Macs.

Visa: Keep it Local this Christmas

Finally, another good message, this time from Visa.

With online shopping and Christmas deliveries being easier than ever, don’t forget the humble high street shop keeper who relies on your custom – especially at this time of year.


Why You Love Glossy Things – Media Psychology

People’s taste for shiny stuff might be rooted in a very basic instinct. Image: Sports car via stephen rudolph / Shutterstock Source: An Evolutionary Theory For Why You Love Glossy Things BY ERIC JAFFE The evidence that people are drawn to shiny things is all around us: from the pages of lifestyle magazines to the […]

via An Evolutionary Theory For Why You Love Glossy Things — consumer psychology research

End of the world: MIT prediction from 1973 is proving true

An MIT model predicted when and how human civilization would end. Hint: it’s soon.

Credit: ABC.

Source: End of the world: MIT prediction from 1973 is proving true


In 1973, a computer program was developed at MIT to model global sustainability. Instead, it predicted that by 2040 our civilization would end. While many in history have made apocalyptic predictions that have so far failed to materialize, what the computer envisioned in the 1970s has by and large been coming true. Could the machine be right?

Why the program was created

The prediction, which recently re-appeared in Australian media, was made by a program dubbed World One. It was originally created by the computer pioneer Jay Forrester, who was commissioned by the Club of Rome to model how well the world could sustain its growth. The Club of Rome is an organization comprised of thinkers, former world heads of states, scientists, and UN bureaucrats with the mission to “promote understanding of the global challenges facing humanity and to propose solutions through scientific analysis, communication, and advocacy.”

The predictions

What World One showed was that by 2040 there would be a global collapse if the expansion of the population and industry was to continue at the current levels.

As reported by the Australian broadcaster ABC, the model’s calculations took into account trends in pollution levels, population growth, the amount of natural resources and the overall quality of life on Earth. The model’s predictions for the worsening quality of life and the dwindling natural resources have so far been unnervingly on target.

In fact, 2020 is the first milestone envisioned by World One. That’s when the quality of life is supposed to drop dramatically. The broadcaster presentedthis scenario that will lead to the demise of large numbers of people:

At around 2020, the condition of the planet becomes highly critical. If we do nothing about it, the quality of life goes down to zero. Pollution becomes so seriously it will start to kill people, which in turn will cause the population to diminish, lower than it was in the 1900. At this stage, around 2040 to 2050, civilised life as we know it on this planet will cease to exist.

Alexander King, the then-leader of the Club of Rome, evaluated the program’s results to also mean that nation-states will lose their sovereignty, forecasting a New World Order with corporations managing everything.

Sovereignty of nations is no longer absolute,” King told ABC. “There is a gradual diminishing of sovereignty, little bit by little bit. Even in the big nations, this will happen.

How did the program work?

World One, the computer program, looked at the world as one system. The report called it “an electronic guided tour of our behavior since 1900 and where that behavior will lead us.” The program produced graphs that showed what would happen to the planet decades into the future. It plotted statistics and forecasts for such variables as population, quality of life, the supply of natural resources, pollution, and more. Following the trend lines, one could see where the crises might take place.

Can we stave off disaster?

As one measure to prevent catastrophe, the Club of Rome predicted some nations like the U.S. would have to cut back on their appetites for gobbling up the world’s resources. It hoped that in the future world, prestige would stem from “low consumption”—one fact that has so far not materialized. Currently, nine in ten people around the world breathe air that has high levels of pollution, according to data from the World Health Organization (WHO). The agency estimates that 7 million deaths each year can be attributed to pollution.

Here, Parag Khanna gets into the specifics of what the world may be like in the near future, if we don’t change course:

Control of Screen Time Should Begin by Age 2


Source: Control of Screen Time Should Begin by Age 2

By Rick Nauert PhD

A Canadian study suggests that watching too much television can contribute to poor eating habits in adolescence and suboptimal school performance. While the concept is not new, the study suggests that screen time must be controlled by the early age of two, confirming new recommendations by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Researchers at Université de Montréal’s School of Psychoeducation, performed a longitudinal study looking at a birth cohort of nearly 2,000 Quebec boys and girls born between spring 1997 and 1998. The children were followed since they were five months old as part of the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development.

When they reached two years of age, their parents reported on their daily television habits. Then, at age 13, the youths themselves reported on their dietary habits and behavior in school.

The research appears in the journal Preventive Medicine.

“Not much is known about how excessive screen exposure in early childhood relates to lifestyle choices in adolescence,” explains Professor Linda Pagani. Pagnai supervised the research of graduate student Isabelle Simonato.

“This birth cohort is ideal, because the children were born before smartphones and tablets, and before any pediatric viewing guidelines were publicized for parents to follow. They were raising their children with TV and seeing it as harmless. This makes our study very naturalistic, with no outside guidelines or interference — a huge advantage.”

Simonato added, “Watching TV is mentally and physically sedentary behavior because it does not require sustained effort. We hypothesized that when toddlers watch too much TV it encourages them to be sedentary, and if they learn to prefer effortless leisure activities at a very young age, they likely won’t think much of non-leisure ones, like school, when they’re older.”

In their study, the researchers found that every hourly increase in toddlers’ TV viewing forecasted bad eating habits down the road — an increase of eight percent at age 13 for every hourly increase at age two.

In questionnaires, those early-TV adolescents reported consuming more French fries, prepared meats and cold cuts, white bread, regular and diet soft drinks, fruit-flavored drinks, sports drinks, energy drinks, salty or sweet snacks, and desserts.

Early TV viewing also translated into less eating of breakfast on school days (by 10 percent) and led to more overall screen time at age 13.

Every additional hour of watching TV also predicted a higher body mass index (a 10 percent increase) and less effortful behavior at school in the first year of secondary school, ultimately affecting performance and ambition.

“This study tells us that overindulgent lifestyle habits begin in early childhood and seem to persist throughout the life course,” Pagani noted. “An effortless existence creates health risks. For our society that means a bigger health care burden associated with obesity and lack of cardiovascular fitness.”

The researchers also measured their results against revised screen time guidelines by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reduced the amount of daily viewing from two hours a day to one a day for children between ages two and five.

Compared to children who viewed less than one hour a day at age two, those who viewed between one and four a day later reported (at age 13) having less healthy dietary habits, skipping breakfast on weekdays, having a higher BMI, engaging in more intense screen time, and being less engaged as students.

“Because we had a lot of information on each child and family we were able to eliminate other psychological and socio-demographic factors that could have explained the results, which is a really ideal situation,” said Simonato.

“We even removed any influence of screen time habits at age 13 to really isolate long-term associations with toddler viewing.”

Source: University of Montreal/EurekAlert

Dr. Rick Nauert has over 25 years experience in clinical, administrative and academic healthcare. He is currently an associate professor for Rocky Mountain University of Health Professionals doctoral program in health promotion and wellness. Dr. Nauert began his career as a clinical physical therapist and served as a regional manager for a publicly traded multidisciplinary rehabilitation agency for 12 years. He has masters degrees in health-fitness management and healthcare administration and a doctoral degree from The University of Texas at Austin focused on health care informatics, health administration, health education and health policy. His research efforts included the area of telehealth with a specialty in disease management.

Don’t Become an Information Junkie: A Balance Between Learning And Taking Action

One big trap in self improvement is becoming an “information junkie.” This is when we spend more time learning new information than putting it into action.

Source: Don’t Become an Information Junkie: A Balance Between Learning And Taking Action


An “information junkie” is someone who spends a lot of time reading books, watching videos, and listening to podcasts about self improvement, but they spend very little time actually putting what they learn into practice.

This is a very common problem for many people. We stuff our brains with loads of information, but then we find ourselves not knowing what to do with all of it. This is especially true in our current “information age,” where we are constantly consuming stuff on the internet and social media.

Of course, it’s a very positive thing to want to learn as much as possible and to do your own research into various topics. Overall — reading books, watching videos, and listening to podcasts is a very healthy and beneficial thing to do. Even the occasional surfing on Google and Wikipedia can be fun and informative.

But there comes a point when if you’re NOT able to apply this information to your everyday life, how useful is it really?

Endlessly seeking new information can ultimately become a distraction. We feel we’re not ready to make a change yet, so we think “Well, I should really read more articles or books before I decide what the best course of action is!”

But this can often become an impossible and never-ending task.

You’ll never know everything about a topic. Often times, being successful with your goals means learning how to “take action” even when you realize you don’t have perfect knowledge and perfect information.

And even more importantly, much of what we learn throughout our lives comes not just from books and videos, but through personal experience.

By focusing on information and not action, you’re actually limiting your education and self-growth by ignoring the importance of getting hands-on experience and real world knowledge.

It’s like reading books about how to play baseball without ever picking up a baseball and throwing it, or watching videos of people riding a bike without ever getting on a bike yourself. How good can you really get without any experience?

Have you fallen into the trap of becoming an “information junkie?” Do you spend too much time “learning” and not enough time “doing?”

Here’s advice on how to break out of this habit.

The “Consumer” vs. “Producer” Mindset

One important shift in your attitude is to go from a “consumer mindset” to a “producer mindset.”

The “information junkie” typically views themselves as a consumer. They feel they need to find the right book, the right video, or the right podcast that finally reveals to them some important piece of information that they’ve been waiting for.

Ultimately, they are searching for something outside of themselves before they can move forward, and not simply looking inside and doing the best with what they have.

Unlike the “consumer,” the “producer” is someone that is taking action with the knowledge they have and creating something of value that they can share with the world.

One important question to ask yourself is: “What am I creating on a daily basis? How am I adding value to the world and not just subtracting from it?”

This is a great question for everyone – not just people who are actively seeking self improvement.

In many ways, our culture has turned us all into crazed consumers. We’re constantly searching for the next movie to watch, the next video game to buy, the next fashion trend to jump on, etc. And this is where we draw a lot of our “happiness” from.

But we must also learn how to think of ourselves as “producers,” and not just “consumers.” And often this shift in your mindset can be far more fulfilling.

One important shift for me was making it a personal mission to create something new everyday. Even if it was just working on a new article or new video, I wanted to at least have something that I could show people and say, “I created this!”

The best part is: When you shift into a “producer mindset,” it does wonders for your confidence and self-esteem.

You stop seeing yourself as just a mindless consumer that depends on others. Instead, you become someone who is actually adding to the world and creating stuff – and that gives you an important sense of accomplishment that every human being craves.

There’s no better feeling than being able to point at something in the real world and say “I did this.” It shows you are participating in life and making a difference, however small it may seem to others.

To avoid becoming an “information junkie,” ask yourself, “What am I doing on a daily basis that brings me closer to my goals?” Take a second and write down the small steps you can begin taking within the next 24-48 hours.

Another important rule-of-thumb to follow is for every book, article, video, or podcast you consume, try to identify at least one action you can take based on the information you’ve learned.

Always remember: learning isn’t enough, we must put our knowledge into action, or whatever we learn will be meaningless.


Steven Handel is a self improvement author, blogger, speaker, and coach. He first started The Emotion Machine in June 2009 and has since published over 800 articles covering a wide-range of topics including Positive Psychology, Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy, Social Psychology, Mindfulness Meditation, Emotional Intelligence, and much more!

The More Miserable You Are, the Happier Your Social Media Posts, and This Twitter Thread Proves It

A huge online discussion shows why you should never be envious of other people’s glamorous online lives.

By Jessica Stillman

Of all the ways social media can be bad for you, one of the worst, according to science, is the ability of Facebook and the like to induce envy. You see your friends posting smiling selfies at exotic destinations and humblebragging about their professional and personal accomplishments, and you end up thinking your own life doesn’t measure up.

Of course, intellectually we all know that our real life selves and our highly curated online selves differ hugely, but it’s still easy to fall into the trap of letting other people’s perfect social-media profiles convince you that you’re somehow falling short. An emotional and revealing new Twitter thread should explode that worry for good.

The grass really, really isn’t greener.

The deeply revealing discussion was kicked off by this tweet from Tracy Clayton, host of the BuzzFeed podcast Another Round. (Hat tip Quartz.)

Apparently, she hit a nerve, as responses poured in. People shared a torrent of posts about the reality behind seemingly cheerful vacation snaps, glamorous selfies, smiling family portraits, and sports triumphs. Happy-looking couples confessed to fighting moments before the photo, while others bravely told of the mental health issues they were hiding in their smiling posts. Here’s a sampling:

These posts obviously testify to the courage of those who shared them. They also speak volumes about our yearning for genuine human connection and authenticity, even at the cost of potential embarrassment. But on a less personal level, the sheer scale of the response to Clayton’s tweet is a useful reminder that what you see on social media bears basically no resemblance to people’s actual lives.

Remember that next time you’re feeling bad after comparing yourself to something you’ve seen online. Or even let this torrent of truth motivate you to consider scaling back your social media for good. Science suggests you’ll be happier for ditching a habit proven to induce envy, disconnection, and loneliness.

Have you ever posted a happy pic online to mask your real-life suffering?


Jessica Stillman is a freelance writer based in Cyprus with interests in unconventional career paths, generational differences, and the future of work. She has blogged for CBS MoneyWatch, GigaOM, and Brazen Careerist.


A New Study Has Found a Way to Stop People From Believing in Conspiracy Theories

Mockery feels good but it just makes conspiracy theorists dig in their heels. Try this research-backed idea instead.

Source: A New Study Has Found a Way to Stop People From Believing in Conspiracy Theories

By Jessica Stillman

Apple, YouTube and Facebook have pulled the plug on Infowars’ Alex Jones for peddling loathsome lies such as the idea that the Sandy Hook massacre was an elaborate hoax. Twitter has failed to follow suit, stirring up heated debate about the proper role of media and tech platforms to rein in hateful speech and disinformation.

But while that’s certainly a debate worth having, it’s also worth asking: Does banning those who peddle lies actually reduce the number of people who believe them? Are there other ways to fight back against conspiracy theories and baseless rumors?

Who believes in Pizzagate anyway?

To start answering that question it’s important to understand exactly what sort of person believes the moon landing was faked.

Belief in conspiracy theories is more common than you might think. One study found roughly half of Americans believe at least one (and hey, a few past “conspiracy theories” actually proved true). This popularity is supported by biases hard-wired into us all, psychologists say, such as our tendency to look for information that confirms our beliefs and disregard information that challenges them, or the desire to find big causes for big events.

That means conspiracy theories will probably always be this us to some extent, but there are also demographic and psychological factors that make it more likely people will believe in them, including:

  • Being less educated. This one hardly needs much explaining.

  • A desire to feel special. Those who want to stand out from the crowd (aka those with narcissistic tendencies) can adopt extreme beliefs in order to do so.

  • Feelings of powerlessness. An explanation for events beyond a person’s control — no matter how ludicrous those explanations sound to others — can still be psychologically preferable to being the victim of blind chance or happenstance.

  • A need for certainty. “Seeking explanations for events is a natural human desire,””explains psychology professor David Ludden. “And we don’t just ask questions. We also quickly find answers to those questions–not necessarily the true answers, but rather answers that comfort us or that fit into our worldview.”

Management professors vs. tinfoil hat peddlers

Knowing this, what sort of interventions actually seems to persuade people to see the light and give up on conspiracy theories? As tempting as it can feel to non-believers, mocking conspiracy theorists usually just makes them dig in their heels. And it’s an open question whether taking away the microphones of their leaders will make any real dent.

But when Kellogg School management professor Cynthia Wang and colleagues recently went searching for a way to reduce belief in conspiracy theories they found one promising technique. You can’t quickly make someone more educated or less narcissistic to inoculate them against lies, but you can encourage them to take concrete action in pursuit of their goals. That simple step, which reduces feelings of powerlessness and reinforces the link between cause and effect, seems to move the needle.

Simply by prompting study participants to write about their aspirations the researchers were able to nudge people away from coming to wild-eyed conclusions when asked to evaluate fictional scenarios that might be viewed as conspiracies (for instance, a bank filing for bankruptcy). Subjects were also less likely to endorse existing conspiracy theories after focusing on how to improve their futures.

“You can actually shift someone’s mindset so they see fewer conspiracies,” Wang concluded from the findings.

More control equals fewer conspiracy theories (at work too)

The key to doing that is giving people a sense of control over their lives, even in small ways. “Wang and her co-authors suggest that government organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control can increase public trust by promoting messages that emphasize the ways individuals have control over their health outcomes,” notes the Kellogg Insight write-up of the research.

Whether any intervention along these lines is enough to stop a truly malignant character like Alex Jones is doubtful, though it is handy to know that in order to stop lies like his from spreading you need to build people up rather than tear them down. Broad public applications of this truth remain an open (but interesting) question. Managers can put them to use today, however.

Want less speculating around the office about backroom deals or arbitrary promotions? Science suggests that your best bet is to talk to your people often about their goals and help them understand the steps to take to get there. If people see real, controllable paths to power and self-betterment, they’re far less likely to think a tinfoil hat or a snake oil merchant is the answer.

Jessica Stillman is a freelance writer based in Cyprus with interests in unconventional career paths, generational differences, and the future of work. She has blogged for CBS MoneyWatch, GigaOM, and Brazen Careerist.