I Bet Keanu Reeves ALWAYS Says I’m Sorry

This morning I read a great article in Time entitled, “Why Everyone Is So Rude Right Now,” and it reminded me of a post I started (but never published) about how no one says “I’m sorry” anymore. At the time I wrote it, I thought maybe it was just my overly sensitive reaction to a minor offense … definitely not worth exposing my deep central nervous system sensitivity to physical, emotional, or social stimuli. After all, I’m a pretty private person!

But ya know … I don’t think it’s just me.

To be clear, I’m not referring to Sorry Syndrome apologies, “the overwhelming need to apologize for every little thing, even if the individual apologizing isn’t to blame or if the event they’re apologizing for is completely out of their control.” I know I don’t have to apologize to the sofa for bumping into it, and my therapy sessions on this are coming along nicely, thank you very much. Nor am I referring to the fact that women apologize more than men. Which … don’t get me started.

Nope, I’m talking about situations in which a clear injury, error, or other clash has occurred, but rather than apologize, the other party either ignores the situation or obstinately reinforces their assault. “I can’t believe you’re upset because I just ran that red light and almost hit you. So now I’m going to turn around and intentionally run into you and really give you something to be upset about.”

Sounds a lot like “You better stop crying, or I’ll give you something to cry about.” Ugh!

What’s going on here?

It’s interesting that a “should I apologize?” query brings up MILLIONS of articles on the Internet. And telling that the first of those results is “11 Times You Should Not Say “Sorry” (And What To Say Instead).”

Some other examples are:

This alone wouldn’t be a problem, as most of these articles explain (later in the text) that they are referring to situations in which an apology really isn’t appropriate but wholeheartedly recommend an apology when a clear offense has been made. The problem is that on average, eight out of 10 people will read headline copy, but only two out of 10 will read the rest. That means that eight out of ten people have now learned that if you want to be a successful person you should stop apologizing and say “thank you” instead. Hmmm … (and by the way, congratulations if you’ve read this far and realize this post isn’t just about Keanu Reeves!)

But clearly there’s something more endemic going on here than a bunch of really confused people who have to “google” whether or not they should apologize.

People who cannot apologize often have such deep feelings of low self-worth that their fragile egos cannot absorb the blow of admitting they were wrong

Guy Winch, a licensed psychologist whose three TED Talks have been viewed over 20 million times (and I’m not even exaggerating this time!!), and author of three science-based self-help books that have been translated into 26 languages, offers an explanation in his article, “We all know people who just can’t apologize — well, here’s why.” “People who cannot apologize often have such deep feelings of low self-worth that their fragile egos cannot absorb the blow of admitting they were wrong” Winch explains. “So their defense mechanisms kick in — at times, unconsciously — and they may externalize any blame and even dispute basic facts to ward off the threat of having to lower themselves by offering an apology.”

Similarly, in “Saying I’m Sorry – 4 Guidelines for an effective apology,” Richard B. Joelson DSW, LCSW writes, “It seems that some people experience an apology as a sign of weakness. Interestingly, when asked if they view it that way when the apology comes from another, they do not see it as a weakness at all, but rather the “right” or “responsible” thing to do. Remarkably, some will say it is a sign of strength or maturity when the apology is offered by the other person, but still feel that it is an unacceptable admission of defeat—or weakness—when the apology is theirs to give to someone else.”

So how are you supposed to react in these situations? Winch suggests, “the best way to do this is to accept their behavior — annoying as it is — and realize they’re simply psychologically incapable of apologizing. What’s more, they’re not going to change. Practicing acceptance can help you disengage from arguments with them and help you limit your feelings of frustration, anger and hurt.”

But for many of us “just too sensitive” people, it’s hard to reconcile the damage done with the necessity to just accept the behavior of the person who caused it. I admit, that’s a tough one for me. Disengaging has never been my forté, and I never learned the words to “Let It Go.”

But (here, finally, comes the Keanu Reeves reference) while I think I’m as badass as John Wick and don’t want to back down, I’d also love to think that, at least for myself, I can be “The One who would bring peace” like Neo, and has a second chance to live up to my potential like Shane Falco.

Yes, I aspire to be every character Keanu Reeves has ever played, and yes, I thought Diane Keaton was INSANE to choose Harry Sanborn over Julian Mercer. But I digress. The point I’m rambling on about and will eventually make is that I just love that a guy who can play a legendary hitman who once killed three men with a pencil … “a fucking pencil” … is strong enough to also say, “I don’t want to be a part of a world where being kind is a weakness.” And if Keanu can say that, then so can I.

So, I think I’ve found a solution to my “weakness.” From now on, I’m going to proudly wear my “I’m too sensitive” badge as a reminder of my INNER John Wick, tough enough, mature enough, and responsible enough to recognize it takes an incredibly sensitive person to understand that rudeness and bullying are the real indications of weakness.

Stop that text!

I am very grateful for a successful 40+-year career in communications. Technology, however, has sometimes taken my perfectly crafted message and thrown me right under the Schoolhouse Rock bus! The message is crystal clear, the word choices are both sesquipedalian and vernacular, the conjunctions are junctioned, AND I ACCIDENTLY SEND IT TO THE WRONG PERSON!

Granted, this isn’t a horrible thing when we’re talking about an update on Los Angeles County real estate metrics. It IS a horrible thing when you’re supporting a friend who just bitched about their sister and you include the sister on the thread because you still don’t know how to use that pesky little “@” symbol properly.

Unfortunately, it’s not the first time my fingers worked faster than my brain. It has happened many times, over every medium. Email, text, social media – I’m pretty sure that had I been the one in charge of the smoke-signal warnings along the Great Wall of China, I would have somehow told the Mongol cavalry exactly where and how to breach. My husband has heard, “oh shit, oh shit, oh shit …” countless times when I’m texting, and my best friend barely communicates electronically because she’s been so traumatized by my stories of shame.

And I’m clearly not alone. In a survey of more than 1,000 people, nearly 45 percent of those sending text messages accidentally sent their conversations to the person they were talking about. When I searched “what to do when you send a text to the wrong person” about 5,910,000,000 results were delivered to me in less than 1 second.

Unfortunately, despite five billion answers, not one of them can tell you how to retract an iphone text message once it has been received. But there are some suggestions.

So, can you unsend a text message?

Apple Messaging

I reached out to Apple recently to see if there was ANY WAY you could redact a text message. It was the millionth time I reached out to them. I have a direct line. They know me. And every time the answer is the same – you can’t do it (“, Nikki. so please stop calling us and just slow down from now on!”).

BUT, if you’re faster than the speed of light AND you know how to quickly access Airplane Mode, AND you happen to be in an area with the worst WiFi reception in the world, then it is possible to stop a text that you sent from reaching the inbox of the recipient. Here’s how:

Immediately put your phone into airplane mode. If you’re successful, the message will fail to send.

IMMEDIATELY put your phone into airplane mode. If you’re successful, the message will fail to send, allowing you to delete it.

My experience? Good luck. I tried this a few times and here’s what I found out:

  1. I have amazing WiFi service (thanks Verizon?)
  2. Be careful when you’re trying this technique. Chances are it won’t work, so think carefully about those practice text comments

For what it’s worth, there was a rumor in June, 2020 that the iPhone 14 would include a feature that would “retract iMessages after sending them, with the retraction visible to both parties. Fine print visible to both the sender and recipients would indicate that a message has been retracted.” My fingers have been crossed for 15 months now (but it still hasn’t stopped me from sending texts to the wrong people!).

TigerText for “Spies and Cheaters”

There are messaging apps that allow you to undo mistakes. Evidently there was a great app called “TigerText” that allowed you to retract unread messages, set a time limit after which text messages would self-destruct and be wiped from the original phone, the receiving phone, and the server.

I learned about TigerText in the aptly named article, “TigerText: The App for Spies and Cheaters.” However, after CBS chief Les Moonves and his executive team were accused of deleting critical messages in their legal battle with Shari Redstone (“What Is TigerText, the App CBS Execs Are Accused of Using to Delete Communications?“) the app was evidently rebranded as “TigerConnect” and is now used by physicans and hospitals as a messaging app fully compliant with HIPPA regulations (😳).

I have a feeling that if I had TigerConnect on my phone, I’d be breaking HIPAA regulations left and right.

WhatsApp

If you happen to be texting with someone on WhatsApp (you’re both using the app), there is a way to recall a message sent by mistake on your mobile phone if the recipient hasn’t read it yet. All you do is go to the chat window, hold down on the text you want to remove and tap “delete.” If the recipient has already read the message it will only be deleted from your chat window … not theirs. Bummer.

Even so, I wish everyone I knew used WhatsApp. It sounds like I might have a chance with this one!

Apologize, forgive yourself, and try not to do it again

So what can you do when you sent a text to someone without meaning to? I found lots of articles and posts offering excuses and lies for misdirected texts. There are some incredibly creative suggestions for this (Hey! I just sent a message to you that was meant for (name another person). Could you please forward that to them? Or there’s this one: Check out my last text I sent to ( so and so) I just sent you. What do you think?) In the study above, just over 33 percent of people who sent a text to the wrong person used some combination of pretending it didn’t happen, blaming someone else for using their device, making up a lie, or simply saying nothing.

But even though it is soul-crushingly difficult to own up to the mistake, it is ultimately the best solution. In fact, 57.4 percent of people who sent a text message to the wrong person apologized for their error. Yes, it’s nauseating. Yes, you might even lose a friend (1 in 5 people report that a relationship has been negatively affected by an unintended text), but a sincere apology can “heal humiliation and foster reconciliation and forgiveness.” And even though you might still feel horrible … doesn’t the person you hurt deserve your apology?

(Care to share your experiences? Feel free to leave a comment below.)

10.25.2021 Update!!! I just tried to “undo” a message on Facebook Messenger, and it works! You and the recipient see that the ,message has been unsent … but hey, that’s a WHOLE LOT BETTER than what it COULD say!!

The Name Game

You know how you’re at a gathering of some kind (say at a really great party, or at a reception following your induction into The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Okay, let’s be realistic … how many of us have actually been to a really great party? So, let’s just pretend you’re walking down the street) and you meet a new person who introduces themself* to you?

Right at that moment I start panicking, because I’m pretty sure I’ll never remember their name and equally as sure that I’ll see them again in an hour. And they’ll walk up and say, “hello again, Nikki” and I’ll be all …

Sometimes I think I remember someone’s name, and I want to say it to them so that they’ll be flattered by the fact that I remembered them, but then I’m petrified because what if I’m wrong? I’ve tried muttering it under my breath before only to have them totally blow my cover with a very loud, “WHAT?

Or the other day, I was so proud of myself for remembering a couple’s names … but forgot the actual people they belonged to. So when I said “Hi Steve and Bobbie” to two people who were not Steve and Bobbie, it became clear to me that remembering the name isn’t all that matters.

Many, many times I’ve met a person and their dog, and the only name I can remember when I see them again is “Sniffy Longdroppings” and for a moment I’ll be paralyzed thinking … “ugh, but what was the dog’s name?”

Yes, remembering names is really hard, and it’s not just something that happens as you get older. In fact, according to Dr. Charan Ranganath, the director of the Memory and Plasticity Program at the University of California, Davis, the simplest explanation for why we forget names so easily is … get ready for it …

… we’re just not that interested.

“People are better at remembering things that they’re motivated to learn,” says Dr. Ranganath. And even when we think we are motivated to remember, we often “underestimate the work necessary to remember something as seemingly simple as a name.”

People are better at remembering things that they’re motivated to learn

So, just how much work is involved? Lets’ see …

The “Grandmaster of Memory” Kevin Horsley, says that distraction is the reason we can’t remember names, and that if we “make compelling associations that stick in the mind like a TV commercial jingle” we’ll solve the problem. “[p]erhaps the best way for you to remember the name ‘Scott Morrison’ (Prime Minister of Australia) is by picturing a Scottish terrier chasing the Doors’ Jim Morrison” he recommends.

Evidently, experts say you can link the name with anything, literally anything, you already know. Researchers at Emory University determined that attaching a visual cue, like a unique facial or body feature, to their name can help improve name recall success by up to 69%. One example Vanessa Van Edwards gives in her video, “How to Remember Anyone’s Name” is to remember the name “Marilee” (whose picture she shows in the video) by her beautiful smile, her teeth with the double “ee” sound … so teeth … sounds like “eee” and she has a nice smile, so, teeth = Marliee.

Or associate their name with something it rhymes with. Say you meet someone named “Bob” – well, you can rhyme that with “rob” and picture your new friend Bob with a gun in his hand and a Zorro mask on his face, robbing a bank.

The problem for me is that I remember the association and not the name! I’ll have no trouble remembering “Jim Morrison,” “Teeth,” and “Zorro,” but the actual names they are associated with? Gone.

Another motivating tip is to imagine you’ll get $100,000 for remembering the name of the next person you meet. Or, you could repeat the name of the person a few times – like when you meet them, maybe once during the conversation, and again when you leave.

Many memory experts recommend repeating the names of all of the people you’ve met at the end of the day.

And that’s a big problem for me. Because if I have just spent a WHOLE DAY meeting new people I am way too emotionally exhausted to repeat anything except the names I was clearly VERY motivated to learn a long time ago: like “Peppermint Pattie, Orville Redenbacher, Baby Ruth, and Margarita.”


BTW, I spent waaaaay too much time trying to figure out whether to use “themselves” or “themself” in this case. For those of you who may wonder why I settled on “themself” please enjoy these references:

Photo by blogmonkey from FreeImages

Happy Mother’s Day, Herk

There’s a song, written in 1915 by Howard Johnson (he of “I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream for Ice Cream” fame) and Theodore Morse, called “M-O-T-H-E-R, A Word That Means the World to Me.”

Here’s the chorus:

“M” is for the million things she gave me
“O” means only that she’s growing old
“T” is for the tears she shed to save me
“H” is for her heart of purest gold
“E” is for her eyes with love-light shining
“R” means right and right she’ll always be
Put them all together they spell MOTHER, a word that means the world to me.

I mean, all that is pretty nice … except for “O,” right?

“O means only that she’s growing old”???

Do you think Mrs. Johnson was like, “Howard … really? You wrote a song about me that’s going to be sung all over the country, and even quoted 106 years from now by some smartass blogger, and the BEST YOU COULD COME UP WITH FOR ‘O’ IS ‘ONLY THAT I’M GROWING OLD’?

“How about obliging, optimistic, original, outstanding, open-minded, organized?”

I shouldn’t criticize Howard’s choice of words. At least he wrote his mother a song. Could I come up with anything better if I used the letters from MOTHER to describe my mother?

Hmmm … lemme give it a try. This one’s for you, Herk. If you disagree with any of my lyrics, talk to Mrs. Johnson. At least I never called you “old.”

“M” is for the MANY times I completely disobeyed everything you said to me. I grew up in a Charlie Brown cartoon: waa, waa, waa … be home at 6, be home at 10, be home at midnight. I’m not sure I ever made it home before a curfew.

“O” means you OUGHT to have grounded me more often but those few times you did usually ended up pretty funny … like that time you locked me in the bedroom, but found Andrea hanging out of the window bringing me fried chicken from Woolworths.

“T” is for TEACHING me how to take care of myself while you and Daddy worked “outside of the house.” (At that time, all of the stuff you did “inside of the house” wasn’t even considered “work.” It was the 50s … you were just “being the mom,” doing all the house stuff after you got home from work and getting absolutely no credit for it.) But back to the “taking care of myself” part. To this day, I can totally claim “best pillowcase ironer in the world” thanks to your tutelage of me when I was six years old.

“H” is for the sense of HUMOR that you always had when I would hug you and unhook your bra, ALL THE TIME, wherever we were, up till the end! How did you NEVER suspect that I was going to do it!?! I DID IT EVERY TIME, MOM! But you always laughed (like it was still Hilarious!)

“E” is for EVERY time you let me be a “vilda chaya” (that’s Yiddish for “wild animal”) despite the fact that you probably wished I were a little tamer. Thanks for EVERY “barbeque” hole you let me dig in the backyard to cook baked potatoes and be a “pioneer,” thanks for EVERY racetrack we designed in the backyard despite the fact that you might have preferred grass and rose bushes, and thanks for EVERY day in the summer when you let me “run around” barefooted, with my wild frizzy hair while wearing a makeshift bikini made out of rolled-down underpants and a stretchy headband (hey, I was 6). Summers were so amazing!

“R” means I’d RATHER be telling you all this in person. I’d RATHER you hadn’t passed away when I was only 41. I’d RATHER you were here with me, still kvelling from me, my brother, my sister, our children, and their children.

I miss you, Mom. Sorry I was such a little shit! Hope you like the song!

I See Some Bad News Rising

Since May is Mental Health Awareness month, this seems like the perfect time to talk about something that definitely affects how many milligrams of Lexapro I need: negative news. 

Here’s a perfect example; today I woke up to this headline:

Pollution can be 5 to 10 times worse in your home than outside. Here’s what to do about it

Now, call me Pollyanna but has anyone else noticed that AS SOON AS something relatively good happens in the world, we’re immediately BASHED with something bad? Like, I’m just starting to feel somewhat safe walking through the grocery store parking lot without a mask (Vaccine 1 – check; vaccine 2 – check; two-week waiting period – check) and BLAM, now I might be able to go outside somewhat cautiously but I can’t go back inside because my house is going to kill me.

Is it just me?

In case you think I’m overestimating the proliferation of bad news, just take a look at some of the statistics in this March 2021 Letter.ly post, “16 Eye-Opening Negative News Statistics You Need to Know.” (FYI these statistics are based on results from studies and reports that have analyzed the issue and provide an “unbiased look at why the media reports negative news.”)

  1. Approximately 90% of all media news is negative. (Quora)
  2. Sensational stories form 95% of media headlines. (The Guardian)
  3. Nielsen ratings are at fault for 50% of negative news statistics. (The Balance Careers)
  4. 38% of Americans believe the media exaggerated the COVID-19 coverage. (Pew Research Center)
  5. Approximately 1 in 10 American adults checks the news every hour. (Time)
  6. A website lost 66% of its readers when it published positive stories for a day. (Quartz)
  7. Studies show that headlines with bad news catch 30% more attention. (Kinder)
  8. Reports show 65% of news organizations ignore mistakes. (The New York Times)
  9. Around 26.7% of people that are exposed to negative news go on to develop anxiety. (NCBI)
  10. An average of 79% of media companies print biased stories for advertisers. (ScienceDirect)
  11. Headline manipulation has been proven to double readership. (IndustryWeek)
  12. People are 49% more likely to read something negative than positive. (NCBI)
  13. 63% of kids aged 12–18 say that watching the news makes them feel bad. (Common Sense)
  14. Most people blame the public for the popularity of negative news headlines. (Quora)
  15. 79% of Americans believe media articles are not balanced in their arguments. (Pew Research Center)
  16. 87% of the COVID-19 coverage in 2020 was negative. (The New York Times)

So, about that 87% …

Even though any bad news is … bad news, I’m generally able to maintain some perspective before I start writing my obituary. I might be freaked when I read, “C.D.C. Issues E. Coli Warning on Romaine Lettuce Ahead of Thanksgiving,” but at least I can find out (sure, it takes me EIGHT PARAGRAPHS TO GET THERE!) who the manufacturer is, what the sell-by date is, and that “The products identified are already significantly past their use-by dates, so this voluntary recall most likely does not affect any product currently on store shelves.”

Good to know … maybe next time tell me that in the first paragraph?

But, when we’re talking about a GLOBAL PANDEMIC and a new strain of virus that has not ever been identified in humans, it’s pretty hard to maintain perspective. So if 87% of the coverage of that virus is negative, it’s no wonder that “more than 42% of people surveyed by the US Census Bureau in December reported symptoms of anxiety or depression in December, an increase from 11% the previous year.”

David Leonhardt’s New York Times weekday newsletter, “The Morning” first brought that 87% statistic to my attention. In his March 24, 2021 (updated April 22, 2021) article “Bad News Bias,” Mr. Leonhardt refers to a working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, “Why Is All COVID-19 News Bad?” by Bruce Sacerdote, Ph.D., an economics professor at Dartmouth College, and undergraduate fellow researchers Ranjan Sehgal (Dartmouth College), and Molly Cook (Brown University). 

In this study, Dr. Sacerdote and his colleagues analyzed the tone of COVID-19 related English-language news articles written since January 1, 2020 (written articles and transcripts were analyzed from television sources). They focused on the subtopics of COVID-19 vaccines, increases and decreases in case counts, and reopenings (businesses, schools, parks, restaurants, government facilities, etc.).

Here’s a few things they discovered: 

  • The most popular stories in The New York Times, CNN, and the BBC have high levels of negativity for all types of articles but particularly for COVID-19-related articles.
  • 87% of stories in the major U.S. news sources are negative versus 50% for non-U.S. major sources and 64% for scientific journals and that “the negativity does not respond to changes in new cases.”
    • Potentially positive developments receive less attention in U.S. than do negative stories. 
  • Negativity appears to be unrelated to the political leanings of the newspapers or network’s audience.
    • COVID-19 stories from all major U.S. outlets have high levels of negativity and the variation that does exist is not correlated with readers’ political leanings. 
  • Among U.S. major media, 15,000 stories mention increases in caseloads while only 2,500 mention decreases (a 6 to 1 ratio) During the period when caseloads were falling nationally (April 24 to June 27) the ratio remains relatively high (5.3 to 1)
  • U.S. major media are 38% more likely to be negative in vaccine articles relative to non-U.S. general media, and the gap in vaccine article negativity between U.S. major media and all other sources remained even after vaccines were approved for use (November 2020). 
    • The U.S. major media outlets ran 1,371 stories that mention COVID-19 vaccines and any names of the top ten institutions or companies working on a COVID-19 vaccine, while during the same period they ran 8,756 stories involving Trump and mask wearing, and 1,636 stories about Trump and hydroxychloroquine.
  • In the examination of school reopenings and U.S. major media consumption, the authors found that the strong negative correlation (across counties) between school reopenings and consumption of U.S. major media appears to be driven by selection rather than causality. 
    • Scientists collecting data on school reopenings have found that infection rates among students remain low and schools have not become super-spreaders; however, these positive findings are not reflected in the “overwhelmingly negative” U.S. major media. 86% of school reopening articles from U.S. major media are negative versus 54% for English-language major media in other countries.
  • The U.S. media outperform the non-U.S. media in promoting prosocial behavior (five percent of COVID-19 articles in major U.S. outlets mention the benefits of mask wearing compared to .6 percent for non-U.S. outlets and 2% for general U.S. sources), “though perhaps because such messages are more needed in the U.S.”
  • Demand for negative news is strong in U.S. and other countries. Considering more than 5000 Facebook shares during 2019 and 2020, heavily shared CNN, Yahoo!, MSN, and BBC articles are all very negative in tone, with the U.S. sourced articles being just as negative in 2019 (pre-COVID) as in 2020.

Wait, but why?

In their study, Dr. Sacerdote and colleagues ask, “why are the U.S. major media so much more negative than international media and other outlets?” While their study shows demand for negative stories is quite strong in the U.S. and the U.K. among readers of The New York Times, CNN, and BBC, they find that “U.S. news outlets are more likely to cater to the demand for negativity than are international outlets.”

The authors suggest three possible explanations:

  1. Most of the non-U.S. markets in their sample include a dominant publicly owned news source that is the #1 news source in their countries: BBC (England); CBC (Canada); ABC (Australia). The publicly owned sources may follow a different objective function than private news providers.
  2. U.S. media markets are less concentrated than media markets in other OECD countries which may cause U.S. major media companies to use negativity to attract audiences.
  3. The U.S. Federal Communication Commission eliminated its fairness doctrine regulation in 1987 which required broadcasters to provide adequate coverage of public issues and fairly represent opposing views (the U.K. and Canada maintain such regulations). While this may be a reason why we see more partisan bias in U.S. media, it may also explain why U.S. news providers feel justified in responding to their consumers’ high demand for negative news.

Which brings us back to Mr. Leonhardt who won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary, has worked at The New York Times since 1999, and offers some reasons for the cynical perspective many journalists take.

Sometimes … our healthy skepticism can turn into reflexive cynicism, and we end up telling less than the complete story.

David Leonhardt, The New York Times

“In the modern era of journalism — dating roughly to the Vietnam War and Watergate — we tend to equate impact with asking tough questions and exposing problems. There are some good reasons for that. We are inundated by politicians, business executives, movie stars and others trying to portray themselves in the best light. Our job is to cut through the self-promotion and find the truth. If we don’t tell you the bad news, you may never hear it.

“Sometimes, though, our healthy skepticism can turn into reflexive cynicism, and we end up telling something less than the complete story.”

Looking for bad news

With this information, it’s pretty easy to see how this negative news about COVID-19 has affected our mental health. What seems contradictory to me is our “demand” for bad news when we know it will affect our levels of anxiety and depression (and by “our” I mean whoever it is who’s “liking” and “sharing” the most depressing news ever!).

In the next post I’ll share some explanation for why we seek it out negative news, and what we can do to break that habit (and by “we,” please see definition above). 

And in the meantime, here’s some really great news … “Prancer the ‘Demonic Chihuahua’ Who Went Viral Finds Dream Forever Home.”

Image credit: Ariel Davis

Amaze Your Children and Grandchildren When You Explain Blockchain Technology and Bitcoin to Them!

Have you heard the word “Bitcoin”? I’m sure you have. And while it might be confirmation bias (and by “confirmation bias” I mean a Google algorithm) that makes the word show up every day in my news feed, I doubt that can explain why it’s always on ‘World News Tonight with David Muir” or the lead article in my neighborhood newspaper.

As much as I was perfectly willing to audit conversations about Bitcoin (and its bestie, “blockchain”), write about its related scams (“Online Scams (or “How I (Almost) Met An American Hero”), and even listen to friends’ advice about investing in it, I didn’t have a clue what Bitcoin really was, how it works, where it comes from, if it’s legal, if it’s taxable, if it’s capitalized (in both senses!). NOTHING.

Which is like throwing down the gauntlet. If there’s a concept that’s this ubiquitous, Amazon Prime one-day delivery on books, and an entire Internet from which to learn about it …? Well, challenge accepted.

I dove headfirst down that wormhole. I read, “Blockchain for Dummies,” I devoured online articles, and I unabashedly reached out to experts all over the world (at this age, I clearly have no shame left at all). And here’s what I found out: cryptocurrency and blockchain technology are INCREDIBLY hard to explain – mainly because once you learn one tiny fact, you’re compelled to understand hundreds more.

And then I found Anders Brownworth, Maggie Hsu, and Adil Haris – experts who had not only published straight-forward explanations of Bitcoin and blockchain technology, but who offered to answer any questions I might have, so that those of us who are “not yet dead” can get a basic understanding – at least enough to know what all those news stories are all about and to think before investing our hard-earned retirement funds in it.

Adil, a Manager for the Financial Services Innovation team at Ernst and Young, received his Master of Science in Product Management at Carnegie Mellon’s School of Computer Science and Tepper School of Business and wrote, “Blockchain — A Short and Simple Explanation with Pictures” (pictures!). Anders, a Principal Architect in Applied Research at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and co-taught the first blockchain class at MIT, spoke on the subject extensively from which he created a visual demo of blockchain technology (more pictures! And they move!). Maggie, who leads global business development for Amazon Managed Blockchain and is co-founder of Gold House, sent me a link to this video in which she not only provided me the first understandable explanation of the blockchain and bitcoin, she also illustrated the value of the blockchain technology.

So, here’s a (hopefully) very simple explanation, just to give you a head start. If you want to join me in the wormhole, be sure to click on the links provided by Anders, Maggie, and Adil.

Let’s start with the blockchain

Super simple explanation: Imagine a box (block) filled with information or transactions (data). Kinda like your checkbook ledger, except that it not only shows a record of your transactions, but it can also show a record of the transactions that your payee makes with the payment they receive, and so on, and so on, and so on. Just a big ol’ history of the provenance of that item of value (in this example, dollar) and all of the travels it makes through time.

Now imagine a bunch of computers (nodes) spread out all over the world who verify that the information in that box is accurate (mining) and add their seal of verification (hash). They get paid for this work (verifying that data) in native tokens (bitcoins in the case of the Bitcoin blockchain. Other blockchains may offer other coins or tokens).

Okay, now let’s say a new box of transactions comes along that needs verification (each block can contain a certain amount of information). This new box of data also contains the seal of verification (hash) from the previous box. Once this new box of transactions is verified and is given its own unique seal of verification (hash), it is chained to the previous box (block / chain) so that there’s a running history of verified transactions. The process continues as more and more boxes of data are added and verified. And because all the computers (nodes) running the blockchain have the same list of blocks and transactions and can transparently see these new blocks being filled with new transactions, no one can cheat the system.

All of the information on the blockchain (boxes of data, verified and chained together) is called an “immutable shared public ledger.” An important benefit of this system is that no one can change any of the data or transactions that have occurred (immutable) without affecting the seal of verification (hash) in their blockchain. If they do, it is immediately evident that their hash is different from all of the others who have the same blockchain on their computers, and that their data is not valid. Then the offending (minority) chain is dropped – the nodes simply choose not to talk to the offending node anymore and they carry on maintaining consensus without that node/copy of the blockchain.

And what is Bitcoin?

Bitcoin (BTC) is perhaps the most well-known of more than 6,700 cryptocurrencies in the marketplace (“crypto”). Cryptocurrencies, often called “tokens,” can be used as an online payment for certain goods and services. It’s important to note “online” here, as bitcoin is a digital asset and can only be used digitally.

Cryptocurrency got its name from “cryptography.” Cryptography keeps information secure by using a series of mathematical proofs to both hide (encode and decode) and authenticate (hash/sign) data. These proofs guarantee the security of the transactions or data, the security of the participants, the independence from central authority (like a bank … or a government), and the protection from double spending (ensuring that, like a physical dollar bill, you can only spend it once).

You can purchase bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies via a cryptocurrency exchange. You can also obtain it as a payment for goods and services. And you can “mine” it.

Mining is the process of solving a complex mathematical equation (proofs) first. Then, once your solution is verified by everyone else, you are paid in cryptocurrency. While anyone could ostensibly mine bitcoin by downloading the necessary software on a computer capable of running it, the cost of the computing resources necessary to do so makes mining much less tempting than simply purchasing it on an exchange.

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have “value” in that there is a limited amount out there – just like there’s a limited amount of gold. The price fluctuates depending on media attention, rumors, speculation, and availability. That’s the cart-and-horse nature of cryptocurrencies – until they are accepted worldwide as valuable currencies, the volatility will likely continue. And until the volatility as a payment mechanism settles, it is unlikely to gain worldwide acceptance.

What does a blockchain have to do with Bitcoin?

This one is easier to answer. The Bitcoin network relies on blockchain technology to operate because the blockchain technology is what is providing the security, immutability, and historical ledger to the transactions. This organized collective of computers (nodes) is called a peer-to-peer network in that it allows each individual to interact directly with the others. In the case of Bitcoin, the network is built in such a way that each user is broadcasting the transactions of other users. And, crucially, no bank is required as a third party.

How might blockchain technology be used in the future?

Blockchains are decentralized ledgers that can keep track of essentially any data, transaction, asset, etc. If you imagine that every asset can be given a digital identity, then you can imagine how, in the future, all of those assets will be made trackable and unalterable via blockchain technology.

With blockchain technology, there will no longer be a need for third party involvement in many types of transactions. Instead, all of the data will be on the blockchain and accessible to the parties directly involved. Medical records, global financial products, banking, land ownership and real estate transactions, insurance, ID systems, intellectual property, program management within organizations, authentication and tracking can all be put on a blockchain system, one that will be secure, private, and immutable.

Lesson 1: Complete

Despite how confusing it got at times, learning about cryptocurrencies and blockchains was a fun exercise. And while there’s still a debate as to whether “brain training” activities have any effect on dementia, I guarantee you that you’ll know a little bit more the next time you hear someone say “Bitcoin.”

Associated lingo

Cryptography – the field of science that is involved with the authentication and hiding of data using mathematics.

Hash – a unique, fixed-length string of random numbers that is the digital fingerprint of some data. Hashes are produced when a hashing algorithm runs a complex calculation on any data and generates a hash as the result of the calculation. For a great, visual explanation, see Anders Brownworth’s video here.

Miners (not minors) – the computers running the hashing algorithm who are paid in tokens (Bitcoins, for example) for their work.

Peer-to-Peer (P2P) – computers that are connected on the Internet via networks, rather than a central server, so that files can be shared directly.

Private keys and public keys – A private key is produced by a complicated mathematical algorithm that allows you to decrypt data. A public key is created from the private key the same way, so that whatever is encrypted with the public key requires the related private key for decryption and vice versa. The public key is made available to everyone that needs it (it is recorded on the blockchain) while the private key is confidential and only shared with its owner. It is nearly impossible to reverse the process of key generation, such that one could generate a private key from someone’s public key.

Consider this example from Adil Haris’s “BlockchainA Short and Simple Explanation with Pictures”: The public key is like your mailbox which everyone knows about, and can drop you messages. The private key, on the other hand, is like the key to that mailbox. Only you own it, and only you can read the messages inside.

Signature – a cryptographic way to prove ownership. You would use your private key to sign something and then the resulting signature could be verified by everyone against your public key.

Wallet – where you keep all your money – in this case, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

Photo by Pascal Bernardon on Unsplash

Body Image as We Age: Why Aren’t We Kinder to Ourselves?

I’d love to think I’m an evolved adult woman. And in many ways, I’ve learned a lot over my 64 years and have made some healthy improvements (like, one shot of tequila is enough – the other five won’t make me a better singer or dancer). But one area in which I haven’t grown as much as I would like to is in my perception of my “looks.” Depending on the day, the outfit, the social media influencers, the people I’m with, or the magazine I’m reading, my body image can swing from “meh, fine” to “why can’t I zip this zipper, and why are those lines in my forehead so freakin’ prominent, and when am I going to go back to the hairdresser and get a decent dye job?”

Then I keep the ball rolling by criticizing myself for even thinking those things! With all of the troubles in the world, is that really what’s important?

Let’s just say that I can dig a really deep hole for myself that starts with just. one. zipper.

As you might imagine, I’m not alone. In one Glamour magazine poll, 97 percent of women said they have at least one negative thought about their body image every single day.

Dr. Leslie Morrison Faerstein, Ed.D., LCSW, believes we can change those distorted images of ourselves. In the mid-’80s, “Dr. Leslie” founded the first New York State licensed, nonprofit mental health clinic specializing in Eating Disorders and women’s issues. Her practice now focuses on women, aging, and body issues, and she runs a weekly Body Positivity group for Sesh. Dr. Leslie shares her expertise with us in this week’s post.

NYD: Some women feel that they can’t find the perfect balance. If they “act their age” they might be considered boring, irrelevant, invisible, but if they succumb to societal pressure to remain youthful, unwrinkled, thin, non-gray, they are judged for “trying too hard.” How can women reconcile these conflicting pressures in a healthy way?

Dr. Leslie: They can ignore these constrictions and “shoulds.” There is no perfect balance and whose balance is it anyway? I think the bigger question is why do they care that “acting their age” or looking their age – whatever that means – suggests that others (men?) would consider them boring, etc.? I wonder why we try to do what we can for the “male gaze” as well as for some societal/media expectation of what women should look and act like at “a certain age.” 

I let my hair go gray several years ago. I was always blonde but started covering the gray in my late 40s. Then around five years ago, my stylist said my hair looked like it was coming in silvery or ash blonde and let’s not color it. I was all for that considering the cost. I love my natural hair – there’s almost something subversive about not coloring it and claiming my age (now 70). With the pandemic, there seems to be a “greynaissance” going on, and increasingly more women are not only letting their hair go natural, but many younger women are now dying their hair gorgeous shades of gray.

NYD: Considering the large number of women in the aging Baby Boomer demographic, and the fact that we hold the majority of wealth in the US, why aren’t advertisers understanding us and changing their narrative?

Dr. Leslie: It’s certainly puzzling when we do indeed hold the majority of wealth and there are so many of us. I’m always disturbed when older women show up in so many pharmaceutical commercials or ones for needing a supplement to “sharpen” their minds.

With so many wonderful older women actors, it still baffles me that younger women are chosen to play older women. Several years ago, Maggie Gyllenhaal was turned down to play the role of the lover of a 55-year-old man because she was too old. She was  37! She said that at first, she was astonished: “It made me feel bad, and then I felt angry, and then it made me laugh.” Recently, I watched “The Dig” a British film with Ralph Fiennes and Carey Mulligan.  Mulligan, 35 years old, is a terrific actor, but she was playing a real-life woman who was in her 50s at the time. Are there no appropriate women actors in their 50s? We can all think of quite a few. Why don’t advertisers and producers change their narrative? Ageism and Sexism.

NYD: How does family affect our body image?

Dr. Leslie: This question particularly interests me as I’ve been talking about how attitudes about our body image is passed down through the generations. I’ve written four separate blogs on this in regard to my family on my website, LeslieMFaerstein.com

We need to recognize that what our grandmothers may have passed down to our mothers and then to us is powerful. Women’s roles, how they dress and how they interact with both men and other women affects our beliefs about our bodies. I come from a family of working and professional women starting with my grandmother who was the Executive Secretary to the President of Paramount Pictures in New York in the 20s, 30s and 40s. She was known as “Sexy Sadie” and was obsessed with her body and how to look attractive, based on the fashions of those decades. 

My mother who was born in 1929 was called “Bubbles” as she grew up which, of course, she hated, and her weight was a constant concern of my grandmother’s and, of course, to my mother herself. She was a professor at Columbia University at a time when there were few women in these positions, but she was always obsessed with her weight and subsequently mine as well. She thought she had the answer to her weight, caring for two small children and getting her advanced degrees when she discovered amphetamines when working at a hospital where they were readily available. She always wrote down what she wore to each class she taught, in case she repeated an outfit and students might think she didn’t have a full wardrobe. She smoked three packs of cigarettes a day from the time she was 16.  When she was diagnosed, not surprisingly with lung cancer at 69, she said to me “Screw it – for the first time in my life I’m going to eat whatever I want.” This blew my mind and was very upsetting.  Only when facing death did she feel that the world of food was open to her.

I was also caught up in dieting and looking professional. It was only when I met Susie Orbach in the early 80s that I started to revise my thinking about diets and the world of food. Susie wrote “Fat is a Feminist Issue” in 1979. This changed my world. Since my daughter was three when I continued my training in Eating Disorders at the Women’s Therapy Centre Institute, I raised her with the idea that all food is equal, you eat what you want when you’re hungry and you stop when you’re satiated. She is the one who has broken free from the bonds of dieting. She feels comfortable in her body but has also said that she lives in this culture so is aware of wanting to look good and fit. However, she doesn’t diet and has a healthy relationship with food.

So, this is a long history and way of saying: of course, our families and what our grandmothers and mothers pass down to us affect how we look at ourselves. The good news, though, is that we can break free of the generations of expectations.

NYD: Do body image issues only affect certain socio-economic groups?

Dr. Leslie: We all live in this culture, so many women from all the socio-economic groups experience body image issues. They may differ based upon the expectations of their particular culture and what their “ideal” body type may be. Anorexia and Bulimia were often thought of as privileged white women’s problems. 

Back in the 1980s, I started the first New York State licensed, nonprofit mental health clinic specializing in Eating Disorders and women who had been sexually abused. I was determined to provide good treatment for all women, regardless of whether they could pay or had public health insurance. When I went to the licensing hearing the evaluators – all white men – were hesitant to grant the license because they felt that “poor” women or women on public assistance didn’t have eating disorders and therefore, I didn’t need to receive Medicaid payments for their treatment. Somehow, this illusion persists.

NYD: Certainly, the traditional media play a part in the low self-esteem that women have about body image, but what effect does social media have? Is it equally impactful? More so?

Dr. Leslie: This question follows from the previous one. I think one of the most striking studies demonstrating the power that media has on women and their body image comes from Fiji.

Prior to 1995, television did not exist in Fiji. Then American television started to show up. By 1998 – in three short years – eating issues and body image distortions became rampant among the female population. Prior to this, women who were larger were seen as better off – they had access to food and a larger body meant well-being. However, by 1998, 11% of Fijian women and girls engaged in self-induced vomiting, 29% were at risk for a clinical eating disorder, 69% had dieted and 74% felt “too fat” (reported in “Pursing Perfection” by Margo Maine and Joe Kelly).

I do believe that social media has upped the challenge about how we feel about our bodies and our own beauty, since the images we see are of women like us but who have made themselves the arbiter of beauty – at any age – and I wonder what their own body images are if there is the desire to project themselves as the model we measure ourselves against. We believe so much of what others post and envy their lives, their bodies, their beauty. There is this belief that our bodies are plastic. The average American woman is 5’4” and weighs 164 lbs. The average model is 5’10” and weighs 107 lbs. It’s not realistic to measure ourselves against this ideal of beauty.

The average American woman is 5’4″ and weighs 164 lbs. The average model is 5’10” and weighs 107 lbs. it’s not realistic to measure ourselves against this ideal of beauty.

I am, however, encouraged by the Body Positivity movement – and the images on social media – encouraging women to feel good about their bodies no matter what the size at that moment in time.

NYD: I heard you say (in “Twisting the Plot – Twist Your Body Image”) that diets don’t work – they are made not to work, and that it isn’t an issue of discipline. Can you elaborate on that? Would you recommend this to someone who might be reading this and feeling discouraged by dieting?

Dr. Leslie: Dieting begets more dieting. The usual cycle is: “I’m too fat, I have to go on a diet” which then leads to finding a new diet. We follow this diet with its restrictions and may very well lose weight but at some point, we can’t live in a “cage,” so we break out. Once we eat something not on the diet (we’ve been “bad”), our response is often “Screw it – I’ve already blown it, so I’ll eat all the things I haven’t been able to eat.” This leads to bingeing, feeling bad about ourselves, trashing ourselves and then finding another diet that “will work.” The U.S. Weight loss/control industry is now worth $72 billion! There’s a lot riding on keeping us on diet after diet and feeling bad about our bodies.

I believe that if we identify when we’re hungry (not starving) and eat what feels right (intuitive eating), stop when we’re satiated (that’s the hard part), then we will reach our set point without dieting. The great thing is that we have multiple times during the day to work on identifying what we really want to eat when hungry. We can ask ourselves: do I want something crunchy, smooth, hot, cold etc. and then find the right match to our hunger. It is like going back to being a baby. If a mother is nursing, she doesn’t know how many ounces of milk the baby is taking in. The baby herself stops when full. It’s at the point that we introduce solid food that we put a value to it. Certain foods become particularly charged, especially those that may be considered “junk” or “special occasion” food. We don’t tell our children to hurry up and finish your ice cream so you can have broccoli. This is what I mean by all foods are equal.  It’s all food: cauliflower, chocolate, cake, chicken.  If we take away the “charge” around those foods like cake, etc. then there will be times we’re hungry and want that or just feel like having some of it for whatever reason.

I also recommend to my clients that if you’re not hungry and you find yourself looking for something to eat, then there is a feeling state going on that has nothing to do with hunger. It’s useful to try to identify that state and what is really going on: boredom, sadness, anxiety? If you realize that after you’ve eaten when not hungry, try to go back and slow down the experience from the time the idea of eating popped into your head. Look at it frame by frame and try to identify the feeling and what might have taken care of it more appropriately than food.

During the pandemic, so many people (of all ages and genders) have put on weight while home and isolating due to anxiety, depression – a host of feelings.

Food and alcohol have been one way to cope with it. We did what we can to get through this period. We’ve talked about the Covid “19” but it’s also been reported that many gained between 20-29 lbs. We need to be kind to ourselves and not go on crash diets as we start to slowly move out of isolation. So many of us have experienced this, and it takes time. I would recommend starting to get in touch with body hunger and experience the pleasure that comes from eating the right match to what your body wants at that moment.

NYD: Can you suggest any practices that will help women overcome negative body image internal messages? (Mindfulness practices, social media vacations, journaling, etc.)

Dr. Leslie: It’s helpful to talk to others who are also struggling. A Body Positivity group can help. If it’s a problem that haunts you, seeking therapeutic help is always useful. Mindfulness or Intuitive Eating is a good place to start – there are books, workbooks and courses that can teach you how to approach food this way. I find it helpful to remember “If we talked to our friends the way we talk to our bodies, we’d have no friends” (Marcia Germaine Hutchinson). That often brings us up short. Follow women who are part of the Body Positivity movement and see how they relate to their bodies. If you enjoy journaling, then by all means write down how you speak to yourself and your body – what’s going on at those times.

And it’s always delightful to see Ari Seth Cohen’s beautiful older women in Advanced Style.

My teacher, Susie Orbach said “Women are trying to change the shape of their lives by changing the shape of their bodies.” I think that’s something we should think about: what really needs to change in our lives? 

Leslie Morrison Faerstein, Ed.D., LCSW has over 40 years of experience in nonprofit administration, founding the first New York State licensed, nonprofit mental health clinic specializing in Eating Disorders and women’s issues in the mid- ‘80s. She then went on to help establish, as Executive Director, Musicians On Call, bringing weekly live music to the bedsides of patients in 6 cities. Most recently, she was the first Executive Director of amazing.community, a nonprofit organization that worked to expand the workplace for women 50+ who had a gap in their work history. She has always maintained a psychotherapy practice as well. 

Currently, Leslie is focusing on women, aging and body image.  As she approached 70 (she is now approaching 71), she started thinking and writing about issues this generation now faces. She is expanding her practice and runs a weekly group on Body Positivity for Sesh. You can find her at LeslieMFaerstein.com and she can be reached at LeslieMFaerstein@gmail.com. She is very much Not Yet Dead.

COVID-19 and Fear of Flying: An Anxiety Daily Double

Depending on which study you read, one-third to nearly one-half of Americans have some fear of flying. Whether it’s turbulence, unusual sounds, or claustrophobia, fear of flying is one of the most common phobias, second only to fear of public speaking.

And in March 2020, we added a new phobia to our repertoire. Survey data from YouGov shows that the majority of American adults fear contracting Covid-19 to some degree, from “very” to “somewhat.”

Now, after a year of being isolated from family and friends, we’re starting to tentatively emerge from our homes, like the munchkins when meeting Dorothy. And many of us are thinking about travel, whether to see family, fulfill a bucket-list entry, or just see something other than our four walls.

But what about the fearful flyer? Has COVID-19 made fear of flying worse? Has it doubled down on anxiety or has it superseded fear of flying such that those formerly afraid to fly are putting aside their concerns just to get out? And what about those with flight phobia who think, “I’ve lived this long without it. Why risk it now?”

I asked Captain Tom Bunn, LCSW, a retired airline pilot and licensed therapist who has specialized in the treatment of fear of flying for over thirty years, to share his observations about how COVID-19 has affected the fear of flying. Since 1982, Capt. Tom’s company SOAR, Inc. has helped more than 14,000 clients control fear, panic, and claustrophobia. For more information about his bestselling book SOAR: The Breakthrough Treatment for Fear of Flying, and app for iOS and Android, please see the end of this article.

NYD: How has COVID-19 changed anxiety levels for fliers, and what should they know?

Capt. Tom: It has been a bit of a journey. At the beginning of the pandemic, a lot of anxious fliers felt relieved. They had a valid reason to avoid flying with no feelings of shame. But as the pandemic dragged on, fearful fliers were saying they wanted the pandemic to be over so they could travel, even if it meant taking a plane.

As to this kind of change, a client said before the pandemic her fear of flying was unjustified. Then, during the pandemic, there was good reason to be afraid to fly. She was aware of both positions. The two things were in her mind at once: her justified fear of being on a plane during the pandemic, and her unjustified fear before the pandemic. Somehow, when she thought of the pandemic being over, and thus her justified fear being over, she had trouble continuing to be afraid of her unjustified fear. She began to look forward to being able to fly again.

I don’t think flying during the pandemic is a good idea. There is no clear line as to what is safe and what isn’t. If a person really needs to fly, with good precautions they should be fine. But every exposure is worth avoiding unless necessary. It is not just being on the plane. There is getting to the airport, checking in, going through security, and boarding on the departure end. There is deplaning, getting to a hotel or other accommodations, and meeting with business people or family. Eating – obviously without wearing a mask – is going to be done in the presence of others who are not wearing a mask and whose COVID status is unknown. All in all, a trip is not just one exposure but a constellation of many exposures to people who have also had many recent exposures.

After vaccination, there is a lot of protection and that should make flying OK.

Another thing people are going to run into is this. After being at home for a year, just going out in public is going to trigger the amygdala. The amygdala is no longer used to what used to be routine. If a person lacks good ability to activate the parasympathetic nervous system, what you used to do routinely is going to cause anxiety – which will not make sense to them unless they understand the amygdala is regarding it as something they have never done.

NYD: Does having even more years in which to gather crashes in “your mental filing cabinet” make it even harder for the older adult to overcome fear of flying?

Capt. Tom: I think so. There doesn’t seem to be a “best used before” date on past crashes. There should be, because the problems that caused crashes years ago no longer exist. We are flying better planes, and they are being flown by better-trained pilots. Thus, there should be a cutoff date.

When would that date be? I think it should begin after all the first generation of jet airlines had been retired (707, DC-8, 727, A-300) The 747 produced a huge leap in engineering standards. The post-747 planes are much safer than the pre-747 planes. All the older planes were retired in the early 2000s. So, start with 2005 and consider the crashes since then. Also, because standards are different elsewhere, disregard crashes outside the U.S., Canada, Mexico, the UK, and Europe. How many crashes does that leave us to fret over? Zero.

NYD: Is anxiety about flying different from generalized anxiety? Specific to flying? Is it treated much like any other anxiety disorder would be treated? If not, how is fear of flying treated differently?

Capt. Tom: All anxiety comes from the same source. When operating your car, you have the accelerator to go faster, and the brake to slow down. A person with anxiety is like a person who bought a Tesla that is supposed to drive itself, and someone forgot to service the brakes. It would accelerate just fine. But when it was time to slow down or stop, it wouldn’t be able to. Anxiety is like that. It is due to a lack of psychological programming to operate the system that is supposed to slow us down when stress hormones build up and get us going too fast.

NYD: How would you respond to the comment: “I’ve lived this long without flying, I don’t need to risk it now”?

Capt. Tom: What’s the risk? It’s less than driving to the supermarket. The risk is so low that if you stop doing your daily routine that involves some driving and you fly someplace instead, you have made yourself safer.

… if you stop doing your daily routine that involves some driving and you fly someplace instead, you have made yourself safer.

NYD: How can the SOAR Course help someone who experienced anxiety while flying years ago, and has not returned to it for many, many years?

Capt. Tom: One (of my clients) had a panic attack on a flight when she was a teenager. Finally, forty years later she did the SOAR Course. Now she has done about 60 flights. Sometimes the motivation turns out to be disgust that you are not able to do what others do. Sometimes it is a bucket list thing: not wanting to get any older without seeing the places you want to see.

Tom Bunn, L.C.S.W., is a retired airline captain and licensed therapist who has specialized in the treatment of fear of flying for over thirty years. He is the author of the bestselling book on flight phobia, “SOAR: The Breakthrough Treatment for Fear of Flying. His company, SOAR, Inc., founded in 1982, has helped more than 14,000 clients control fear, panic, and claustrophobia.

I’m one of them!

Be sure to download the “SOAR Conquers Fear of Flying” app, free for iOS and Android that features:

  • a step-by-step “Basics” course that provides reassuring information about flying at all steps along the way, from “Getting Ready” to “At the Airport” to “In the Air” to “Landing” including relaxation exercises to soothe anticipatory anxiety
  • a G-force meter that you can use to prove that turbulence is safe and never approaches the plane’s limits
  • Live forecasts for turbulence potential around the world and storm position and height
  • in-app purchases including Capt. Tom’s “Take Me Along” to coach you through the flight

The Story of a Toy Inventor and the Daughter Who’s Telling His Tale

This September, toy inventor Eddy Goldfarb will be 100 years old. Most likely, he’ll spend part of his day tinkering in his garage, developing a new idea, and figuring out how to make it work. A process, he says, that is a big factor in his longevity. 

You’ll probably recognize some of Eddy’s most famous inventions: Kerplunk, Giant Bubble Gun, Chutes Away, Arcade Basketball, Stompers, Vac-U-Form, and the iconic Yakity Yak Talking Teeth. It’s no wonder Eddy Goldfarb is a member of the Toy Industry Hall of Fame, along with such notables as Milton Bradley, George Parker (Parker Bros.), Herman Fisher (Fisher-Price), Jim Henson, and Toys R Us founder, Charles Lazarus.

Eddy Goldfarb is the father of more than 800 toys and holds nearly 300 patents. But Eddy is also the father of Lyn Goldfarb, Fran Goldfarb, and Martin Goldfarb. And while I could paraphrase from the hundreds of articles written about Eddy Goldfarb’s fascinating life, no one could tell Eddy’s story better than his daughter Lyn, an Emmy award-winning documentary filmmaker who directed and produced, “Eddy’s World.” Lyn’s 18-minute film tells the story of Eddy Goldfarb’s creative, optimistic, and curious personality, and shares his “philosophies of life and his wisdom on aging.”

So while I started writing this post about the indomitable spirit of Eddy Goldfarb, it’s also the story of a daughter who found her father’s life, his work, and his outlook interesting and worth sharing. And unlike the hundreds of other articles about Eddy on the Internet, this one was literally told through his daughter’s lens. 

“I first started out really to do a family Legacy project,” Lyn told me. “My mother had Parkinson’s and my father was her caregiver, and he didn’t look well either. After my mother died in 2013, my father walked his way back to health and creativity. His optimism allowed him to grieve, but also look forward towards life. That was one of the reasons I started making the film – to capture his grace in aging.

“I realized that it really would be a great little film. And has been great – I really got to know my father in a different way making the film about him and having the opportunity to talk about the items, tell the stories of his life, but also the real privilege of watching him work.”

Because while Lyn does remember playing with prototypes (while being sworn to secrecy) and getting “tons of cereal” sent to the house during the time that Eddy was designing the premium toys that were included in cereal boxes, she didn’t see Eddy as the “toy inventor,” but as her father.

“He went off to work like most parents that went off to work outside of the house,” she says. 

I can relate to Lyn Goldfarb’s memory of the father who just “went off to work.” As children, we don’t really pay attention to what our parents are doing or what they are thinking. We’re more aware of our experiences, and how our parents are seemingly only there to interrupt our agendas.

But have you ever thought about their motivations, their struggles, their loves, their fears? Do you remember some of the stories you heard from and about their lives? 

In the film, Eddy tells the story of meeting his wife of 65 years, Anita Stern, at a dance in Chicago after World War II. He asked Anita to marry him the next day, and nine months later they were wed. Eddy’s tale reminded me of the story I had heard about my father and mother meeting at a USO dance in Chicago during the war as well. Like Eddy and Anita, my folks fell in love immediately, and although my father returned to his deployment two days after meeting her, he would return six months later, and they would marry immediately. 

Lyn’s loving film reminds me how important it is to record those few stories I still have of my parents to keep their memory alive. While my media will not be as professional as Lyn’s, I realize that if I don’t record their stories somewhere, no one other than my siblings and myself will ever know them. If I don’t record the other memories of my parents (who died when I was barely in my 40s) what will my children, and their children, know about their lives? I’ve already lost the stories of my grandparents, how they immigrated to America, how they lived, worked, and loved. I don’t want to lose those few I have of my parents.

Toward the end of the film, Eddy talks about making lithophanes of family and friends. “For some reason, the lithophane has a little magic to it,” he says. Maybe it’s because it’s a lasting memory of someone you love. It’s the same “little magic” that Lyn Goldfarb has created in “Eddy’s World.”

Rosamund Pike Sheds Light on Guardianship Fraud in Golden Globes Acceptance Speech

Last night on the Golden Globes, Rosamund Pike won “Best Actress in a Motion Picture – Musical/Comedy” for her portrayal of Marla Grayson, a professional legal guardian who defrauds her elderly clients using loopholes in the US guardian/conservatorship system, in the Netflix movie “I Care a Lot.”

“If we delivered this story on this subject matter in a way that tugged at the heart string and was told from the victim’s point of view, it would be unbearably difficult to watch,” Pike said in a recent interview. “We took this subject matter and flipped it. So, yes, we go on this fun, seductive ride, which is fun and funny, but we also get to get angry at the same time. I’m open to the debate whether this is a comedy or not.”

I watched the movie about a week or so ago, and I don’t remember one LOL moment. In fact, it freaked me out, because as far as I know, I don’t have a Russian mobster family to protect me (but I do remember my dad telling me about a Russian great-great-great-great grandfather who was a rabbi. … although I don’t feel any safer knowing that).

Unfortunately, there are some scary examples of guardianship/conservatorship fraud, and you don’t have to be elderly to become a victim. Just look at the ongoing struggle Britney Spears has been facing in court battles to stop, or at least limit her father’s 13-year legal conservatorship that removed her control over her finances, career, and well-being. If Britney can’t win, how can we expect to protect our anonymous, financially modest, sometimes disenfranchised elderly?

The day after I watched the movie, I contacted the Florida State Guardianship Association. I figured if ANY place was familiar with elderly guardianship it was Florida in which 1/4 of the state’s population is age 60 or older. Evidently, they were well prepared for my query and sent me this white paper from the National Guardianship Association (NGA), written in preparation of the release of “I Care a Lot.”

Guardians “follow a code of ethics and statutory guidelines, caring for individuals and managing their property after they have been deemed incapable of doing so,” the paper states. “Typically, our clients have serious chronic mental illness, dementia, a developmental disability, or traumatic brain injury.” These clients are evaluated by licensed mental health professionals, physicians and others with the ultimate goal of ending guardianship whenever possible. And the paper goes on to give examples of wards who have regained their independence.

I truly believe the NGA is “leading the way to excellence in guardianship” through its mission to establish and promote nationally recognized standards, encourage the highest levels of integrity and competence through guardianship education, and protect the interests of guardians and people in their care. However, despite the NGA’s intentions, the best laid codes aren’t always followed, and people can still find ways to take advantage of the system and the wards in their care. (In her acceptance speech last night, Pike thanked “America’s broken legal system for making it possible to make stories like this.”)

Here’s just a few examples of how guardianship can go wrong:

This is a conversation that has been gaining volume, and Pike’s award will hopefully bring even greater awareness to the situation. If you have ANY concerns about guardianship fraud, contact:
Adult Protective Services in your area (these differ by state)

And learn more from:
The National Center on Law and Elder Rights (See paper here, “When the Guardian is an Abuser”) and The National Association to Stop Guardianship Abuse.