“Something’s not right with me, but I don’t know what it is.”

“I should be happier. What is wrong with me?”

During more than 20 years as a psychologist, I have discovered a powerful and destructive force from people’s childhoods that weighs upon them as adults. It saps their joy, and causes them to feel disconnected and unfulfilled. This childhood force goes completely unnoticed while it does its silent damage to people’s lives. In fact, it’s so invisible that it has flown under the radar of not only the general public, but also the mental health profession.

I call this force childhood emotional neglect, and have spent the last two years trying to help people become aware of it, talk about it, and heal from it.

Anyone traversing the terrain of infertility inevitably bumps up against a sea of “whys?” “Why am I not pregnant?” “Why is this happening to me?” “Why don’t I feel hopeful about my fertility journey?”

It’s human nature to ask “Why?” — especially when faced with feelings of deep uncertainty and feeling out of control.

Our minds are powerful, and often trick us into believing that if we uncover the answers to all of our “whys,” we will somehow alleviate our pain, creating a buffer against the waters of grief that so often surge during this vulnerable time.

A few weeks ago, as I was sitting with some friends over dinner, there were multiple times when a lot of “shoulds” circulated through the conversation. “He should have picked you up for the date,” or “he shouldn’t act like that.”

I myself was guilty as charged, “should-ing” here and there as well. And then, when I actually pondered the meaning of what we were suggesting, the blinker in my mind flashed red, and I tried to bring myself back into check.

That wasn’t the first time that I’ve had difficulty with just letting people be.

These days, social media may serve as a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the social networking world brings you a variety of information. That certainly can aid in the progression of learning about someone, whether it’s links to articles they might enjoy reading or general musings about life’s happenings, I sometimes peruse profiles to garner more knowledge about a guy I may be interested in.

Yet, isn’t there also something to be said for not wanting to know it all right away?

Is social media eliminating elements of intrigue and mystery? And what if we see particular photos, status updates, tweets, or blog posts that negatively affect our view of the individual? Are we judging their online activity too quickly?

It is Mental Health Awareness month, and I began to contemplate what mental health means to me.

Mental health and wellness is the state at which one feels, thinks, and behaves. Mental health can be viewed on a continuum, starting with an individual who is mentally well and free of any impairment in his or her daily life, while someone else might have mild concerns and distress, and another might have a severe mental illness.

Everyone has “stuff” that they keep contained in a tightly sealed plastic bag. There are some who occasionally can’t help but let the “stuff” leak, and there are those with the bag wide open.

However, in our society, we still tend to stigmatize those who let their “stuff” leak out instead of helping them, understanding them, or simply not judging them. Just as we all know someone with cancer, we all know someone with a mental health disorder.

Sex, drugs & rock n’ roll. Ever wondered why those three things go together in this famous expression?

Neuroaesthetics is the relatively recent study of questions such as “Why do we like the things we like?” and “Why do some people find one thing pleasing while others find it appalling?” It has focused on issues such as creativity, visual and motor processing in visual artists and the varying factors involved in creative domains.

Many of these studies have examined music and the neural activity that occurs when we listen to and evaluate what we hear.

Salimpoor and Zatorre (2013) reviewed a number of research studies examining the effects of music on brain activity; in particular activity that relates to the feeling of pleasure. The evidence was clear: not only does music boost our sense of pleasure but there is also a dopamine activity in anticipation to the music that “touches us.”

A relatively hot topic turned up at the end of last year, found in and among commentary on national bestseller lists, with scores of subsequent articles and essays in magazines, journals and online: taking risk to achieve the happiness you crave and deserve in life and work.

Suggestions abound about the necessity (not mere option) of striving toward certain pinnacles in life, be they health challenges to overcome or professional goals to better implement. The condition of being human in a complex world requires much life-energy spent on going after what’s really important and required of each of us, rather than in chasing distractions.

I like the addition to this philosophy, though, of an element I believe that’s equally required in the mix. It was well stated in a New York Times Career column editorial on Sept. 30, 2012, describing that mere work and dedication are not enough to reach one’s goals.

Real “audacity” must be paired with a balancing measure of “humility.”

Google Glass, for those of you who have been living under a rock the past week, is a new technology product that resembles a funky pair of modern glasses… without the glass. Over one eye, instead, is a cube of glass that displays information in front of your eyeball. Instead of looking at a handheld device’s screen, you’re kind of looking at this “heads-up” display of info. It takes voice commands to navigate, just like the latest generation of smartphones can.

Some people are really excited by this new technology device. It is one step closer to interacting with a computer inside your brain rather than through our organic input devices (in this case, our eyeballs and voice).

But it begs the question — who is having difficulty using existing devices where wearing your computer on your head is less obtrusive (or obnoxious) than wearing it in your pocket or purse?

In the past week, I’ve seen some incredibly sensationalistic articles published about the upcoming DSM-5 and a letter recently released by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). In the letter by Dr. Thomas Insel, director of the NIMH, wrote in part, “That is why NIMH will be re-orienting its research away from DSM categories.”

Some writers read a lot more into that statement than was actually there. Science 2.0 — a website that claims it houses “The world’s best scientists, the Internet’s smartest readers” — had this headline, “NIMH Delivers A Kill Shot To DSM-5.” Psychology Today made the claim, “The NIMH Withdraws Support for DSM-5.” (The DSM-5 is the new edition of the reference manual used to treatment mental disorders in the U.S.)

So is any of this true? In a word, no. This is science “journalism” at its worse.