I’ve been feeling nostalgic since the recent death of Dr. Joyce Brothers the other week. I grew up watching Brothers on shows like Donahue and The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson while my grandmother crocheted afghans beside me.

I knew I wanted to be a therapist from a very young age, having analyzed my own familial relationships ad nauseum (I was a weird kid). Back then, I loved Dr. Brothers’ wit, grace, class and charm.

Today, I respect her as the rarity she was during her prime: an accomplished female in the field of psychology.

Dr. Brothers paved the way for women like me, and her extensive media exposure did not detract from her credibility — another rarity in the media machine known for exalting experts to guru status only to eventually chew them up and spit them out. No, Dr. Brothers had staying power because of her enduring wisdom. And I believe her wisdom endured because of its inherent simplicity.

Below are three quotes that have had the most impact on my work as a therapist:

1. “Trust your hunches. They’re usually based on facts filed away just below the conscious level.”

Often clients in crisis look to me for answers, but my belief is that each of us is an expert of our own lives. I think Dr. Brothers would have agreed that nature gave us hunches for a reason: to guide us. I regularly respond to clients’ questions with another question: “What does your gut tell you?”

The answer may not readily surface because hunches are not always initially clear. Sometimes it takes a quieting of the mind and body before we can check in and feel what our “guts” are trying to tell us. Much of my work as a therapist involves first teaching clients how to slow down and get in touch with their hunches, and then offering support as they find the courage to follow those hunches.

2. “Listening — not imitation — may be the sincerest form of flattery.”

Think about the last time someone really listened to you. Do you remember how good it felt to finally be heard? That’s because when someone listens to us, we feel like we matter. And that feels better than flattery! I take Dr. Brothers’ simple wisdom into my work with couples by modeling and teaching listening skills. 

Relationships often vastly improve when people begin to really listen, because it lifts the burden of emotion, decreases stress, dissolves defensiveness, increases clarity and fosters connection.

3. ”Anger repressed can poison a relationship as surely as the cruelest words.”

What I’ve come to learn thanks to the work of Dr. Brothers is that repressed anger does not equal invisible anger. We may think we’re doing a good job of repressing our anger, but a closer look often reveals otherwise. If anger is not properly addressed and released, it has a way of “coming out sideways.” In other words, anger (and its underlying emotions) can seep out in behaviors such as addiction, persistent sarcasm, promiscuity or bullying — to name just a few.

Repressed anger can also manifest as physical health issues like chronic back pain or a weakened immune system. I often say it like this to my clients, “Anger will find its own way if we don’t make a way.” It’s much better for our own health and for the health of our relationships if we acknowledge our anger, identify its roots, and then create healthier outlets for that anger.

I’m not saying it’s everyone — but many people have little sense of what it means to have love and acceptance for one’s self. I’m not talking about loving one’s self to the point of narcissism. That’s an entirely different thing, but often people think that’s what self-love is.

They’ll often tell me, “but that’s being selfish.” No, it’s not! It’s being selfish not to love yourself.

Depression often happens when people conclude they’re not good enough, or a failure. Most people I’ve worked with who are depressed are hard on themselves to the point of recklessness. The amount of pressure they put on themselves to be all things to all people means they spread themselves so thin that they have absolutely no time to care for themselves.

Doing things for others doesn’t make you happy. How you perceive yourself for doing things for others means you feel happy. There is a difference. Most depressed people I’ve worked with are conscientious, thoughtful, and like to help others, which is great. But they often do it to feel good about themselves because they have limited ability to feel good about themselves without others’ feedback. They are using the positive feedback from others to bolster their sense of being ‘good enough.’

If people had more self-love and self-acceptance, that feedback wouldn’t be so important. They would be able to do things freely for other people and not be so concerned with receiving positive affirmation. They would be more emotionally balanced because they have a healthier sense of what it means to be accepting of themselves – the good, bad and everything in between. If a person can only feel good about him- or herself by doing things for others, he or she is at the mercy of others’ feedback, and his or her sense of worth can go up and down like a yo-yo.

Let me give you a general example:

With self-love: if I give you a gift, I give it because it’s what I want to do and I do it without expectation. If you don’t like it I might feel sad or disappointed, but I can accept that’s your choice. Either way, I still know that what I did was a kind thing and I still have a good sense of self-love and self-acceptance.

Without self-love: if I give you a gift, I give it because it’s what I want to do, but I do it wanting you to like it and, by association, like me (with expectation). If you like it and praise me, I might feel warm and good about myself. If you don’t like it I might feel very sad and disappointed, leading to thoughts that I have failed and let you down. My sense of self has decreased because I didn’t fulfill my goal of you liking my gift and giving me love and acceptance back.

Learning to Love Yourself

So why is self-love important and how do I get it?

It helps to realize that you are as important as anyone else, and what you think and feel is valid. For many, this is the most difficult part. Maybe you’ve grown up thinking that others are always better than you, and you don’t matter, and people aren’t interested in you unless you please them. But that thinking will only lead you to conclude that others’ happiness is more important than yours, and it isn’t.

Self-love involves the following:

• Self-care.

  Self-care means you treat yourself just as kindly and thoughtfully as you would anyone else. If you are uncomfortable doing something, then you don’t do it and that’s OK. Just because somebody might be disappointed that you didn’t help him or her, that’s his or her choice to feel that way.

• Considering your needs.

  If that means others don’t get all of you, all the time, then that’s also OK. People can learn to adjust and be responsible for themselves.

• Caring for yourself with the same level of effort that you do for others.

  That might mean you don’t always fulfill your goal of helping others because you’d prefer to spend time doing something for yourself. That’s not selfish.

• Accepting yourself for all that you are — both your positive aspects and your human fallibility. 

  You cannot be all good all the time. That’s OK. You can work on self-improvement, but that doesn’t mean you discount the parts of yourself you don’t like as much. Those aspects are still part of your whole.

• Saying no to others’ requests.

  hat’s OK. You are not totally responsible for everybody else’s needs.

Working toward self-love and acceptance can take time. If you are somebody who has little regard for yourself, then you might want to start with self-like-a-little, working up to self-like. In time, you’ll learn to self-love and accept yourself for all that you are.

The answer has been elusive. That’s probably because sexuality isn’t just about blood flow to your sexual organs, but also the blood flow to your primary sexual organ — your brain. Research has suggested that for women, the brain is as important as any other body parts. And for researchers looking for a female sexuality pill, that presents a unique set of challenges.

The New York Times talks about researchers’ latest attempts at crafting such a pill, called Lybrido. It’s an in-depth story that explores women’s personal experiences — and frustrations — with their decreased sexual desire.

Daniel Bergner has the story of married couples who lose that lovin’ feeling. Here Linneah, one of the women Bergner interviewed, tells her story:

Around the arrival of their second child in 2004, something insidious crept in, partly fatigue but partly something else that she couldn’t name. She talked about her to-do lists, the demands of the kids, “but let’s face it,” she said, “sex doesn’t take that much time.” Rather than feeling as if she still wanted to grab her husband’s hand and hurry him up the stairs in their small brick house, on many nights she waited in bed, somewhat like prey, though the predator was tender, though he was cherished.

Around once a week, her husband tried to reach through the invisible barriers she built — the going up to bed early, the intense concentration on a book, the hoping he was too tired to want anything but sleep. “He’ll move closer to me in bed, or put his arm around me, or rub my back.” She willed herself not to refuse him.

And mostly, she didn’t. Usually they had sex about four times each month. But it upset her that she had to force herself and that she put up those barriers to deter him from reaching more often.

“I’m scared that if it’s slimmed to this by now, what’s going to happen as we get older?” she said. “I want to stay close, not just psychologically, physically. I want to stay in love. I have a friend, they have sex so intermittently, every three months. She is so unhappy. I don’t want that to happen to me.”

She longed for a cure, a tab of magic. As she got into her car in the parking lot at the center, she hoped that her first set of pills had been placebos, that she’d been given fakes for the first eight weeks, that today she was driving away with the real drug and that their sex life would be transformed.

The long article delves into a lot of detail and individual stories I found fascinating. Especially interesting was the description of the strange, uncomfortable science of exploring female libidos:

The equipment can seem bizarre and the laboratory situations comical — picture a woman in a lounge chair with her pants around her knees, a tampon-shaped tube in her vagina and a cord running from this device to a console while she stares at a video of gay men partaking in foreplay — but then, sex research has always had an absurd if valiant quality.

In the ‘50s and ‘60s, William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson filmed and observed hundreds of subjects having intercourse in their lab, in an effort to determine whether all female climaxes are clitoral in origin. That debate goes on even today. Barry Komisaruk, a neuroscientist at Rutgers University, buys plastic rods, heats them in his oven at home, bends them into dildos shaped to isolate different genital sensations and aims to settle the orgasm question once and for all.

Lest you think only women get this sort of treatment, the science of exploring men’s erections is no less humiliating, with the use of a penile plethsmograph. Ah, psychological science… Isn’t it… weird?

Today, there’s no magic bullet for women as there is for men. But scientists are hard at work trying to unravel the mysteries of the female libido. And it’s likely that in the next decade, we’ll see something for women whose sexual desire has waned in their relationship.

Read the full article: Unexcited? There May Be a Pill for That

But it’s very hard to know ourselves. It’s easy to be distracted by the way we wish we were, or think we ought to be, or what others think we should be, until we lose sight of what is actually true. There’s a certain sadness to self-knowledge.

As Christopher Alexander observed:

It is hard, so terribly hard, to please yourself. Far from being the easy thing that it sounds like, it is almost the hardest thing in the world, because we are not always comfortable with that true self that lies deep within us.

Here is a list of questions meant to help you think about yourself, your daily habits, your nature, and your interests.

There are no right or wrong answers; they’re fodder for reflection.

If something is forbidden, do you want it less or more?

Is there an area of your life where you feel out of control? Especially in control?

If you unexpectedly had a completely free afternoon, what would you do with that time?

Are you comfortable or uncomfortable in a disorderly environment?

How much time do you spend looking for things you can’t find?

Are you motivated by competition?

Fill in the blank: “I really wish I could make consistent progress on my project to _______.”

Do you find it easier to do things for other people than to do things for yourself?

Whom do you envy? Why?

What do you lie about? For instance, a friend told me he’d been telling people that he walked to work, when in fact he almost never does.

What did you do for fun when you were ten years old? Do you still do that activity–or would you like to do it?

Do you work constantly? or think you should be working?

Do you embrace rules or flout rules?

Do you keep New Year’s resolutions?

Do you work well under pressure? Deadlines?

What would your perfect day look like?

How much TV do you watch in a week (and yes, this includes computer time spent watching videos, movies, YouTube)?

Are you a morning person or a night person?

What’s more satisfying to you: saving time or saving money?

Do you like to be in the spotlight?

Is your life “on hold” in any aspect? Until you finish your thesis, get married, lose weight, move?

What would you do if you had more energy?

If you suddenly had an extra room in your house, what would you do with it?

What people and activities energize you? Make you feel depleted? For instance, as an under-buyer, I very much dislike shopping.

Is it hard for you to get rid of things that you no longer need or want?

On a typical night, what time do you go to bed? How many hours of sleep do you get?

If at the end of the year, you had accomplished one thing, what is the one accomplishment that would make the biggest difference to your happiness?

Is there an activity that you love to do–yet somehow never seem actually to do it?

The process of answering these questions is meant to help spur ideas for possible change. I often find that once I start paying attention to an area of my life, it becomes natural and easy to make helpful alterations in my everyday habits.

Here’s a final question for you: What questions would you add to this list, to help other people know themselves better? It’s so important, and so elusive.

I agree. Sheff diagnoses the nation’s response to addiction as being as sick as addiction itself. His message cuts across not only the policies of criminalization but the criminalization of an addict’s character.

While slamming prevention and treatment effectiveness, Sheff approaches the subject by methodically laying out the research. His own conclusions, reached through the experience of being an addict’s father, are in line with the reviewer’s and no doubt many readers. As Sussman puts it, the work is “a manifesto aimed at clinical professionals and policy makers,” as well as a good guide for both addicts and their loved ones.

“Addiction isn’t a criminal problem, but a health problem,” according to Sheff. Many clinicians are trying to get this message across to the public, to politicians, and to family.  As with mental illness, the stigma attached to being an alcoholic or addict obliterates the ability for respectful, genuine communication.

Sheff is known for his book “Beautiful Boy,” which outlined his despair over his son’s struggles.  He set out to go one step further in “Clean,” actually “sprint[ing] through the research for every aspect (neuroscience, social science, psychology, law) of every stage (preventing early use, identifying abuse, detox, treating addiction, maintaining sobriety) of every drug problem.”

It would appear his work is not only an informed addition to the literature but a rightfully irritated plea for folks to “get it,” to see that drug addiction is a health problem, one that ultimately affects the brain as much as genetics, biology and the environment. For instance, only in recent years has it become more widely known that the drug-addicted brain undergoes actual structural changes that can be specified and studied and targeted with appropriate medicine.

Beyond its significant informational highlights, though, “Clean” is most importantly read as a call for change.

You can check out Sheff’s new book here.

Today’s panic disorder might’ve prevented our ancestors from venturing to potentially dangerous places, far away from their families and tribes.

Today’s social anxiety might’ve maintained social hierarchies and peace in primitive times.

Today’s obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) might’ve helped our ancestors keep tidy and safe nests.

In part one of his book, Kahn delves into the social instincts that underlie these five disorders: panic disorder, social anxiety, OCD, atypical depression and melancholic depression. In part two he delves into the advancement of civilization and the rise of reason (which explains why we’re not shackled to our social instincts, running amok; we’re able to override these cues).

Angst may be the result of a tug-of-war between our primal social instincts and our modern-day rational, civilized selves. According to Kahn:

Amazingly, those instinctive biological sensations that told our primeval ancestors how to comport themselves in society can today turn up as conscious emotional pain. So when you feel the pain of angst, you are actually feeling the unrecognized call of ancient social instincts. These days we don’t obey these painful instincts blindly. They become especially unpleasant when they conflict with our rational choices — that is, when we experience them as anxiety and depressive disorders. So, in our modern context, these social instincts can become so intense that they backfire, certainly not providing just the socially adaptive benefits that evolution had in mind.

In Angst Kahn draws from the work of Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud along with scientific studies and theories from fields such as psychology and evolutionary biology.

Here’s a closer look at ancient instincts and two disorders: social anxiety and OCD.

Social Anxiety Disorder

People with social anxiety fear embarrassment, especially when they’re being observed. Their anxiety might heighten during speaking events, work evaluations and social situations. They might worry about everything from their appearance to their performance. They’re also self-critical.

For our ancestors, however, social anxiety might’ve been beneficial. It might’ve kept them from challenging “a ruthless hierarchy,” Kahn writes. “Our ancestors wouldn’t want to find themselves beaten down, or thrown out of the tribe – another way they’d be on their own and exposed to all sorts of dangers.”

Kahn speculates that our ancestors had a biologically based social hierarchy. Today, our society has a clear-cut structure. (Work is a good example of a hierarchy, with managers, bosses and higher-ups.) But our ancestors did not. Having a biologically determined hierarchy kept our ancestors in line and tempered competition.

“Social Anxiety today may reflect the biology of low social rank. Indeed, people with Social Anxiety may think or act as if they have a lower ranking in the hierarchy, not to mention having more submissive behavior and less closeness among their peers, friends and romantic partners.”

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

In ancient societies OCD-like traits would’ve been helpful for survival and keeping a sanitary, safe home. As Kahn writes:

The evolutionary advantage of OCD is that you don’t forget some very necessary concerns and tasks. Our ancestors wouldn’t want to find themselves living in filth (though since they didn’t know about germs, they weren’t actually germaphobes), unable to find or protect their homes, left without food or tools in an emergency, or stealing each other’s food or spouses. The instincts behind OCD help to prevent those problems.

Long ago, they also might’ve helped mothers protect their young and ensure their survival. According to Kahn, today, many women who have postpartum OCD struggle with “cleanliness and arranging behaviors, and [with] controlling harmful thoughts about the newborn.”

This is similar to what happens with other mammals. “They clean up the newborns and the afterbirth and they keep the nest tidy.” Their instincts also are to protect their kin from predators and invaders.

For some species, these predators might even include family and other adults in the same group. “Having aggressive thoughts already in mind makes for a quicker defense,” Kahn writes.

Whatever the origins, one thing is clear: These disorders disrupt the daily lives of many individuals. Social anxiety affects about seven percent of the population, and OCD affects about one to two percent.

Both disorders are debilitating. Kahn notes that, on average, people with OCD spend almost six hours a day preoccupied with their obsessive thoughts and almost five hours with compulsive behaviors. People with social anxiety disorder have lower levels of career success and may have fewer friendships.

Fortunately, both disorders — along with the other illnesses Kahn writes about — are highly treatable with psychotherapy and medication. (This website is a valuable resource for postpartum illnesses.) In other words, if you’re struggling with anxiety or depression, you can get better. The key is to get help.

Words are powerful. They can cut you, heal you, inspire you, and stop you from certain actions. Learning the language of a strong, healthy relationship or marriage takes time and diligence, but saying some words regularly may cause irreparable damage.

Here are five words that are destined to cause damage to your relationship or marriage.

1.  “Never.” 

“Never” implies a sense of hopelessness and finality. When you use “never,” you’re telling your spouse that they are no good, will never be any good and that there’s no hope for change. It’s an all-or-nothing phrase that does not lend itself to listening, compromising and creating good will.

2. ”Always.” 

“Always” implies a sense of rigidity and righteousness. When you use “always,” you’re telling your spouse that they are wrong, you are right, and that there’s nothing that can be done about it. It’s also an all-or-nothing phrase, and it does not lend itself to understanding, learning, or healing.

3. ”But.” 

“But” implies a sense of manipulation and a lack of integrity. When you use “but,” you negate whatever was said before. It invalidates your message and turns a positive statement into a negative one. It’s a conjunction that does not lend itself to building trust, credibility and intimacy. Similar words to avoid include “however” and “although.”

4. ”*#%&.” 

Use your imagination and fill in the blanks and what you’re left with is a vulgar, obscenity-laced attack. Any way you look at it, attacking your spouse by name-calling will cause irreparable damage. Doing this regularly will surely destroy your spouse’s soul and kill the marriage. Outright contempt has no place in a marriage.

5. ”Divorce” or “Breakup.” 

Threatening to divorce or break-up, suggesting divorce as an option, or accusing your spouse of destroying the marriage will lead to just that. A divorce is a very serious decision, and using it as a weapon or method of control creates anxiety and despair. It’s not conducive for effective communication, conflict resolution, problem solving, or intimacy.

Take the time to think about the impact of your words before you speak to your spouse. Consider what you want to create with the communication. Create a powerful and loving intention rather than one that is meant to hurt, control, scare or push away the person youlove.

Find words that are conducive to creating intimacy. These might include phrases like, “I notice that when I [blank], you react by [blank]. When you do [blank], I feel [blank]. It would mean a lot to me if you would [blank], because when you do, I feel [blank].” And: “I want our marriage to feel good to both of us. How can we approach things in a way that makes us both feel heard, appreciated, accepted, and loved?”

Learning new ways of communicating and relating to each other is not easy. Couples get trapped into certain ways of relating that have been established early on in the relationship.

The quick, easy answer, of course, is the nation’s health insurance portability and accountability act (HIPAA). Physicians are able to share only certain information with the family unless the patient agrees to more. The problem is that the patient might be too elderly, addicted or mentally ill to cooperate or even understand what they are agreeing to (or simply stubborn).

Certainly individual civil liberties must be taken into consideration. This writer, in fact, is more than moderately liberal.

But there is a blurry but significant line that puts human wisdom to the test, as we evaluate true need for family assistance.

Beyond HIPAA’s ramifications, there are doctors who frankly don’t care to communicate with anyone other than the patient, no matter who they are allowed to talk to.  As well, many estranged families may not be interested in the health of their kin.

But for those families of the mentally ill, alcoholic or addicted who want to help their loved one, they need to be able to communicate with clinicians, doctors, and therapists.  Rather than just informing the treatment team of a loved one’s behaviors at home and not receiving a treatment team response, the family must be brought into the fold of treatment teams. In the wake of the school shooting in Newtown, Conn. in December 2012, nothing less is required.

HIPAA needs to be reworked. There needs to be an out clause granted to family members who obviously 1) are intelligently trying to work on their own coping strategies in a troubled family dynamic; 2) care about their ill family member; and 3) can offer the most significant information about the patient because of a shared living situation or close interaction.

Lloyd Sederer, MD, medical director of the New York State Office of Mental Health and adjunct professor at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, wrote a few weeks after the Newtown tragedy of families being the true first responders of psychiatric illness.  How very true.  And yet how shabbily they have been treated.

Anyone who has been around the block with a relative suffering from mental illness or related concerns — even those empowered with the great help of the National Alliance on Mental Illness and other advocacy organizations — knows how hard it still is dealing with treatment providers.

Who, after all, knows a patient’s symptoms better than the family who lives with someone exhibiting psychosis, neurosis, manipulative behaviors, or obsessive-compulsive mannerisms?  Who directly witnesses what the patient may cleverly hide in a therapeutic session?

Should not symptoms drive treatment more than diagnosis? Symptoms, after all, are what delineate an individual as being functional, or not, in various scenarios.  And should not families be given information on how to respond in ways that may actually help the patient?

Though there are so many more, these alone are perhaps the two most critical, simple means of understanding that families must demand to be brought into the fold, respected as harbingers of the most significant information about mentally ill and addicted loved ones who are suffering, for the most part, needlessly.

You’re probably able to let go of a bad day in the morning and an argument with a friend in a few day’s time. But the decisions you made that just didn’t work out, those could potentially negatively direct your life.

Because we seldom have control over what happens in our life, the desire to make the “right” decisions feel like a heavy weight on our shoulders. We can’t get away from them. And we can harbor guilt from as insignificant a problem as choosing the wrong paint color to partnering with an ill-fitted mate.

The hardest yet best way to deal with the decisions we wish we could undo is to learn to forgive ourselves. We do this by realizing that we don’t have a crystal ball to know what is the right thing to do in any moment. We do our best. Part of our growth and healing involves learning to move on by accepting what is and finding the lessons in the mistakes we’ve made. It’s also about changing our focus from what’s not working to what is working.

To make peace with whatever you’re regretting, scroll down to read our top posts this week. You’ll discover tips for savoring your life regardless of what you’re going through (chronic pain, difficult relationships, stressed and coping with mental illness) and learn new ways of understanding yourself. It might just change your perspective on things. And what you once deemed a bad decision, may turn into the best decision you ever made.

{Flickr photo by Hammonton Photography}

Why Pain Affects the Perception of our Future
(Living With Chronic Pain) – Is chronic pain clouding your vision for a hopeful future? You’re not alone. Read how this blogger attempts to make peace with her present and future when filled with the day-to-day realities of chronic pain.

This Weekend Create A To-Notice List
(Weightless) – Switch out your routine to-do list for a to-notice list and watch your life open up. Need help on how to get started savoring the small things? Go here for sweet inspiration.

9 Steps to a Happy Marriage
(Relationships in Balance) – Happy partnerships take work and tending to. If you’re in need a relationship refresher, check out these nine tips to better your marriage right now.

NIMH’s Thomas Insel on a New Understanding of the Brain
(Channel N) – Watch this TED video to learn about the most recent news concerning the relationship between physical and mental illness. Most notable is hearing the Director of the National Institute for Mental Health’s take on reframing mental illness as a brain disorder.

Eric Maisel on Dealing With Stress To Be More Creative
(The Creative Mind) – Got stress? Stress can exacerbate the creative life. But here’s one way of dealing with it that takes a simple change in perspective.

As a therapist, I’m always interested in human behavior, especially when it comes to inequality. I understand that humans often act irrationally, and I think discrimination is often based on learned thinking which can be overcome with time and education.

So I’ve been following the latest debate on whether the Washington Redskins American football team should change its name. This question has been going on for at least the last 30 years and last week, owner Daniel Snyder, publicly came out and proclaimed: ”We’ll never change the name, it’s that simple. NEVER — you can use caps.”

What I’m curious about is why, in 2013, we’re even arguing whether the name should be changed.

It seems clear that the Native American population feels strongly that the use of the name Redskins, coupled with the team logo of a red-skinned Indian, is derogatory and offensive (with which I tend to agree). If that’s how the Native American population thinks and feels, surely the organization has a duty to address their concerns and seriously consider changing the team name, or at the very least hold discussions to understand their concerns?

But to hear Daniel Snyder exclaim “NEVER” seems highly insensitive — and offensive.

I understand there’s history in the name Redskins as it’s been used since 1933, but society has moved on since then. Attitudes toward minorities have changed, and we’re more educated and aware of what constitutes discrimination toward people of all creeds and colors.

So why does the owner of one of the most popular NFL franchises seem to have little empathy or understanding of why the name Redskins is offensive to a section of the population? Unfortunately, my guess is it all comes down to money, and we’re talking big money.

Forbes rates the Washington Redskins as one of the top five sports franchises in the world, worth around $1.6 billion, and my personal guess is Mr. Snyder is worried that a name change will cost him a lot of money in fan recognition around the world.

Interestingly, the Washington Redskins are no stranger in being tardy when it comes to changing with the times. In 1961, the federal government planned to bring a civil suit against the Redskins because they refused to hire black athletes. With the threat of not being able to compete (and make money) with a segregated team, they began hiring black athletes.

Now, 52 years later, they still don’t seem to understand that what they are doing and, more important, what they are saying is offensive to a whole race of people.

It’s not like people can’t change how they think and act towards different races of people, and it’s not as if sports franchises can’t change the team name.

Take the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, a Major League Baseball team. In 2008 they changed their name to Tampa Bay Rays. The New Orleans Hornets, a National Basketball Association team (NBA), will be changing their name to New Orleans Pelicans in 2014. And let’s not forget the Washington Bullets (NBA), who changed their name to Washington Wizards in 1997 because of the negative connotation of the word “bullet” in Washington, which had a high murder rate.

People often find it hard to empathize with something unless it affects them personally, and it’s also difficult to understand the intensity of the hurt that’s caused by using certain words for objectifying a race of people unless you’ve experienced being a victim of hate, abuse and discrimination.

To think words are just words is naive. Words are powerful and have a direct influence on how we think, feel and behave. As George Orwell wrote in his outstanding book 1984, “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

My hope for the end of this story is that Daniel Snyder will reflect on his comments and realize that even though the name’s important to him and many sports fans, in 2013 it’s not appropriate and it’s time to change.

In the book Vanderkam outlines seven of these disciplines: mind your hours; plan; make success possible; know what is work; practice; pay in; and pursue pleasure. For each one she shares stories and interviews with successful people who use these disciplines in their own daily lives.

Here are several lessons from Vanderkam’s book on boosting your productivity and being successful at work.

 1. You need to know how you use your time.

For the most part, we tend to be unreliable reporters of our work hours. According to one study, people who estimated that they worked over 75 hours a week were actually off by about 25 hours. People who estimated they worked 55 to 64 hours were still off by 10 hours. Naturally, if you think you work more, you’ll use your time differently.

That’s why successful people know how many hours a week they work. In order to use your time more effectively, you have to know how you’re using it in the first place.

Vanderkam suggests thinking of yourself as an attorney who charges by the hour. Track your time for an entire week and consider how long you spend on email, projects, meetings, planning and other tasks. (Vanderkam created a simple spreadsheet to help track your hours.) Then take a close look at how you’re spending your time.

According to Vanderkam, the most important lesson in keeping a time log is learning how long it takes you to accomplish each task. This gives you insight for creating meaningful changes. For instance, Vanderkam tries not to schedule phone calls before 11 a.m. because the morning is when she’s better able “to turn an idea into words.”

2. Don’t underestimate the power of planning.

In addition to being a writer, Vanderkam also is a speaker. When she asks audiences what they’d like to spend more time on, they say planning. The problem? They also say they’re too busy to plan.

And that is a problem. Vanderkam thinks this is a backward approach.

As she writes, “You hope whoever built your house wasn’t so busy hammering and sawing that he couldn’t look at the blueprint.”

In other words, planning gives you a path. How can you arrive at your destination without directions? “Knowing where you’re going vastly increases the chances that you’ll get there,” she writes.

Successful people build planning into their days, according to Vanderkam, also author of the excellent books All The Money In The World: What The Happiest People Know About Getting and Spending and 168 Hours: You Have More Time Than You Think.

For instance, her personal planning strategy consists of three levels: Every December, she comes up with questions she’d ask in her “performance review” at the end of the year.

Every Sunday she creates a list of what she’d like to accomplish that week, keeping in mind her annual goals. Her to-do list includes tasks toward these goals along with immediate assignments she needs to accomplish.

Come Monday night, she evaluates what she accomplished that day and what needs to be done, and then schedules Tuesday. She does the same on Tuesday night, and so on for the rest of the week. Friday, she might spend planning and wrapping up the week.

3. Many things masquerade as work and can stifle your productivity (and vice versa).

Some tasks may look like work. But “if they’re not advancing you or your organization toward your goals,” they’re not, Vanderkam writes. The key is to figure out what those things are. Vanderkam names email and meetings as two examples.

What successful people do is to calculate the opportunity cost of various tasks. For instance, Traci Bild, of Bild & Company, leaves work at 3 p.m. to take care of her kids. She tells Vanderkam that her number one strategy as a leader is “constantly trying to replace myself…If I give my duties away, it frees me up to go to the next level.”

Other activities that don’t look like work can actually contribute to your success. LeUyen Pham, a prolific illustrator with two small kids, gets up from her desk and stretches every hour. She also peruses bookstores and art blogs.

“Successful people know that astonishing productivity – particularly in creative fields – requires filling the pot,” Vanderkam notes. To fill your pot, she suggests everything from getting a library card and browsing the stacks to visiting art museums to reading journals in a related field.

In her last chapter, Vanderkam talks about the importance of pleasure. She writes, “Successful people constantly look at their days to evaluate what brings them pleasure and what does not, and they figure out how they can spend more hours pursuing pleasure and fewer hours doing what they don’t care about.”

In fact, maybe that’s the biggest secret to productivity: Try to maximize the joyful parts of your work and minimize the miserable.

Learn more about Laura Vanderkam’s work and read her informative blog at her website.

I start by saying something poignant like “It’s being aware and in the present moment” or “It’s about allowing each experience to wash over us like a cool spring rain, without attachment or judgments.” I love these answers and they generally tend to spawn a lively conversation about experiences, judgment and simply allowing ourselves to be present.

Mindfulness, though, is also about perception and reaction. Here’s what I mean…

I love Viktor Frankl, the Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist who survived a World War II concentration camp. He is a genuine hero of mine. While he never labeled it “mindfulness,” he practiced it daily while a prisoner of the Nazis. He spoke eloquently in his book, Man’s Search for Meaning, about gaining control over our reactions and our perceptions of reality. What you think or perceive, you then become or behave.

Frankl talked about times when all those around him gave up the notion of ever being rescued or reunited with their families. In doing so, their spirit began to give way to the daily horrors they endured. Frankl, however, spent his days knowing that if he gave into his anger and rage for what his captors were perpetrating against him and countless others, it would eat him alive, and then they truly would have taken over his soul. Their mission certainly would have been accomplished.

He spoke about sitting silently, staring at the sunset, capturing glimpses of the past in memories and long-lost laughter, even telling jokes or stories of the old days with fellow inmates. It was a trying time, to put it mildly. Frankl knew, though that his captors could do anything they wanted to his physical body, they could never capture his perceptions or reactions.

His mind and spirit were his own. He chose to tend to this part of his character by seeing the good in his horrendous situation, seeing the hope that others had lost and feeling optimistic for the good in humanity.

This is a rather extreme example of finding the good in an otherwise awful situation, but it is meant to evoke a sense of ownership.

I believe that we all have ownership over our perceptions and our reactions. If you feel that you continually get a raw deal in life, then you are probably accurate in your assumption — not because life is out to get you, but because you “perceive” it to be. Your reaction to anything good in life, if you believe that you are truly getting the short end of the stick, will likely be one of anxiety for the bad that must be just around the corner.

I see this in action daily basis with clients and family members. Sadly, my father has spent his entire life waiting for the other shoe to drop, as they say. His accomplishments, which I view as many, he merely sees as catalysts for the next awful dose of reality.

My father came to live with my husband and me almost five years ago because of illness and financial hardship. To him, his life lost all meaning, but to me it seemed like an amazing do-over. To my father, his presence in our home is a burden and an embarrassment for a man who has been self-sufficient since his early teens, but to me it’s been a gift.

Sure, I would have loved to at least have more than 900 square feet of space for three adults and three four-legged children, but to be able to take my father from a situation of struggle and strife to one of ease and unconditional love has been a wonderful present from life.

My father’s perception and mine are vastly different — precisely my point. One man’s trash is definitely another man’s treasure. That is the essence of mindfulness: living mindfully, fully aware, fully present and actively knowing that whatever your situation is, it is merely that, a situation. It does not define you, unless you allow it to.

It may be hard. It may be a struggle. Life is hard and life can be a struggle. Suffering is completely optional. Perceiving and reacting out of love and mindful awareness can mean the difference in seeing the glass half full or half empty. What power we wield! Now what will you do with it? How will you choose to see your life and your presence on this planet?

Pittsburgh heard the news a little before it went national in 2002.

Webster died at the young age of 50 after a few years of suddenly erratic behavior occasionally reported upon in local papers. His life had unraveled inexplicably, not due to drugs or alcohol but some strange other force. He seemed sidelined by debilitating depression, disjointed thinking in public, and bouts of anger previously foreign to his easy nature off the field.

There were murmurings but nothing made fully public until after Webster’s death. The diagnosis was a first for the National Football League (NFL), but one that slowly made its way into the banner headlines of the game over the next decade: Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE).

Indeed, the diagnosis was becoming intrinsically connected to America’s most popular sport. Doctors surmised that what happened to Webster’s brain happened because of the hits he took to the head as a football player. Now such hits, even at the junior and high school level of playing all across our country, are being critically examined and debated, and the NFL is scrambling to defend itself against unprecedented legal action by former players and their families.

Webster’s family felt like he had been disappearing before their eyes. And the city of Pittsburgh sighed and seemed to collectively look away upon hearing of his confused state and eventual death — saddened and ashamed that a sports hero and gentle man could be so reduced by ill mental health.  

But no one forgot Mike Webster as a Steeler, a man who had to compete against mental illness or this brain disease.

At the Brain Injury Research Institute in Pittsburgh, Webster’s son Garrett approaches families about brain donations. With in-depth study, more is being learned about just how debilitating continual hits to the head are to athletes and soldiers. Such work seems to have had an effect over the 10 years since Webster made an even bigger impact off the field.

David Duerson and Ray Easterling were two NFL players also likely suffering from brain injury. They committed suicide in ensuing years after after Webster’s bout with brain disease, and both left notes to donate their brains for research. They and their families and, it seems, society had begun to see all the hits more clearly.

The NFL currently is fighting a lawsuit led by former players or their families. It doesn’t matter if either the league or the players knew the dangers. Generous compensation for hits to the head resulting in disability or death is called for.

For instance, Why is it so hard to make myself go to bed? and “How can we stick to our resolutions?

I realize now that a big challenge for me is simply finding clarity.

Often, if there’s something that I want to do, but somehow can’t get myself to do, it’s because I don’t have clarity. This lack of clarity often arises from a feeling of ambivalence — I want to do something, but I don’t want to do it; or I want one thing, but I also want something else that conflicts with it.

Here’s a conflict: It’s nice when my older daughter is around while she does her homework; on the other hand, it’s good for her to be in her room without the distractions of family noise. So do I nudge her to go to her room, or do I let her stay in the kitchen? I can never decide.

These days, when I’m trying to get myself to pursue some course of action, I work hard to make sure I know exactly what I expect from myself, and why, and what value I’m choosing to serve.

I don’t think I’m the only one who struggles with this problem. Lack of clarity, and the paralysis that ensues, seems to be common. Here’s a list of aims in conflict that I’ve heard. Do any ring a bell for you?

I want to eat healthfully. It’s wrong to waste any food.

I want to give 110% to work. I want to give 110% to my family.

I want to work on my novel. I want to exercise.

I want to get more sleep. I want some time each day to talk to my sweetheart, watch TV, and goof around.

I want to spend less time in the car. I want my children to participate in many after-school activities.

Making money is not important. Making money is important.

I want to be very accessible to other people. I want time alone to think and work.

I want to be a polite guest. I want to avoid sugar.

I want to be frugal. I want to join a gym.

I want leisure time when I come home from work. I want to live in a house that’s clean and well-run.

I want to meet new people and see my friends. I want more solitude.

I want to stop nagging you. I want you to help me.

Have you experienced this–a paralysis that comes from conflicting values?

Check out this 1-minute video about 10 ways to be happier at home. One tip proved controversial; I almost tweaked it but then decided to leave it. Can you guess which one? Of course, the book Happier at Home is more thoughtful — but it was fun to come up with a list of ten.

I was astounded that this creature was capable of the empathy that I so craved in my closest friends and relatives. It was like she could read the pathetic and sad thoughts that disabled me and wanted me to know I was lovable in the midst of my suffering.

She continues to be a supportive presence in my life, especially on the days that I grow weary of trying on — and throwing out — every mindful exercise and cognitive behavioral strategy… the hours where staying positive seems impossible. She gets it. I know she does.

Every week I hear tales of four-legged creatures becoming angels in times of terrifying darkness. Indeed, a substantial body of research indicates that pets improve our mental health.

How? Here are a few ways.

1. Pets offer a soothing presence.

Studies indicate that merely watching fish lowers blood pressure and muscle tension in people about to undergo oral surgery. That’s why all the aquariums in dentists’ offices! Think of the behavior Darla in Disney Pixar’s “Finding Nemo” would have exhibited without the fish tank.

Other research shows that pet owners have significantly lower blood pressure and heart rate both before and while performing stressful mental tasks — like, say, performing a family intervention or supervising kids’ homework. Finally, persons recovering from heart attacks recover more quickly and survive longer when there is a pet at home. It seems as though their mere presence is beneficial.

2. Pets offer unconditional love and acceptance.

As far as we know, pets are without opinions, critiques, and verdicts. Even if you smell like their poop, they will snuggle up next to you. In a Johns Hopkins Depression & Anxiety Bulletin, Karen Swartz, M.D. mentions a recent study where nursing home residents in St. Louis felt less lonely with some quiet time with a dog alone than a visit with both a dog and other residents.

The study enrolled 37 nursing home residents who scored high on a loneliness scale and who were interested in receiving weekly half-hour visits from dogs. Half of the residents had quiet time alone with the pooches. The other half shared the dog with other nursing home residents. Both groups said they felt less lonely after the visit, but the decrease in loneliness was much more significant among the residents that had the dogs all to themselves. In other words, at times we prefer our four-legged friends to our mouthy pals because we can divulge our innermost thoughts and not be judged.

3. Pets alter our behavior.

Here’s a typical scenario. I come through the door in the evening and I’m annoyed. At what, I don’t know. A million little snafus that happened throughout the day. I am dangerously close to taking it out on someone. However, before I can do that, my Lab-Chow walks up to me and pats me, wanting some attention. So I kneel down and pet her. She licks my face, and I smile. Voila! She altered my behavior. I am only agitated a little now and chances are much better that someone will not become a casualty of my frustrations. We calm down when we are with our dogs, cats, lizards, and pigs. We slow our breath, our speech, our minds. We don’t hit as many people or use as many four-lettered words.

4. Pets distract.

Pets are like riveting movies and books. They take us out of our heads and into another reality – one that only involves food, water, affection, and maybe an animal butt – for as long as we can allow. I’ve found distraction to be the only effective therapy when you’ve hit a point where there is no getting your head back. It’s tough to ruminate about how awful you feel and will feel forever when your dog is breathing in your face.

5. Pets promote touch.

The healing power of touch is undisputed. Research indicates a 45-minute massage can decrease levels of the stress hormone cortisol and optimize your immune system by building white blood cells. Hugging floods our bodies with oxytocin, a hormone that reduces stress, and lowers blood pressure and heart rates. And, according to a University of Virginia study, holding hands can reduce the stress-related activity in the hypothalamus region of the brain, part of our emotional center. The touch can actually stop certain regions of the brain from responding to threat clues. It’s not surprising, then, that stroking a dog or cat can lower blood pressure and heart rate and boost levels of serotonin and dopamine.

6. Pets make us responsible.

With pets come great responsibility, and responsibility — according to depression research — promotes mental health. Positive psychologists assert that we build our self-esteem by taking ownership of a task, by applying our skills to a job. When we succeed — i.e., the pet is still alive the next day — we reinforce to ourselves that we are capable of caring for another creature as well as ourselves. That’s why chores are so important in teaching adolescents self-mastery and independence.

Taking care of a pet also brings structure to our day. Sleeping until noon is no longer a possibility unless you want to spend an hour cleaning up the next day. Staying out all night needs some preparation and forethought.