The Energy of Relationships

By Garet Bedrosian, LCSW, CIRT, CBT, CET

This article can be found in the May/June, 2013 issue of Awareness Magazine. 

The nonverbal energetics between partners is akin to a siren song; alluring, irresistible, yet destructive. They become compelled to engage with one another as if they are fighting for their deepest desires or maybe even their lives.

Imago Relationship Therapy and Bioenergetic Analysis offer a structure as well as communication tools to help couples navigate those turbulent waters and ignore the siren call to respond to triggering events. Each modality is developmentally based and correlates the connection between childhood experiences with adult character traits and relationship styles.

Imago Theory states that individuals develop unconscious templates of love in their families of origin. All the positive and negative characteristics of their parents or primary caretakers form their energetic love-map. Not only do they possess those traits but they will only choose and fall in love with people who also possess those same traits. They will not fall in love with anyone else. They choose their Imago or mirror image. The Imago partner with whom they fall in love cannot give them what they need. In their most recent book, “Marriage Made Simple”, Imago Relationship founders Harville Hendrix and Helen LaKelly Hunt say, “Incompatibility is grounds for marriage.” I add… for any romantic relationship.

To heal childhood mis-attunements and wounds people need to be with someone who is willing to grow into their ability to provide what the other needs to heal. Each partner possesses what the other needs to grow into their fullest, most alive self. They will not be interested in someone who meets their needs too easily. To protect themselves from the inevitable disappointments they engage the protective barriers adapted at an early age in the form of beliefs, behaviors and bodily contractions.

Bioenergetic Analysis as a field of study addresses the issue of bodily contractions. One of the premises of bioenergetics is that people protect themselves from their childhood wounds on a bodily level as well as on a mental/emotional level. Since these wounds are embedded in the cells of the body, the age and chronicity of the wounding determines the characteristics of those contractions and resulting adaptations. Mis-attunement occurs in a wide spectrum of possible woundings. The synapses that are enforced correlate to a higher degree of mental, emotional and physical protection, lowers levels of self worth, self hatred or possibly sociopathy. The will to live conflicts with the need to be safe resulting in restricted life energy on multiple dimensions.

Neuroscientific research reveals that loving attunement in childhood strengthens the neurons and synapses in the brain that correlate to higher levels of self esteem or self worth as well as to the ability to be compassionate and empathic to others.

To be healthy and happy, the individual must release the mental, emotional and somatic holding to allow energy to flow freely through them as well as between them and others.  Living in a defended body attracts others who are equally guarded. In contrast, when the ability to give and receive love flows easily, the individual attracts others with similar dispositions.

Returning to Imago theory, it addresses another facet of developmental defensives. The theory discloses that partners are wounded at the same developmental level but defended in an opposite way. In other words one might attempt to get their needs met by pursuing while the other withdraws when needs are not met. Neither defense is better than the other. They are both restrictive and reactive postures adapted as protection. The attraction to someone possessing the opposite stance is an attempt to reclaim some fluidity in response and a less defended style of need gratification.

When unable to trust the relationships with childhood caregivers, individuals characteristically defend their expressions of love as well as their receptivity to love. However, defending against authentic expression creates a multitude of physical, emotional and relational problems. Humans are born fully alive, joyful, and connected and want to reclaim that birthright. Individuals long for the give and take of love yet unconsciously defend against it or the possibility of heartbreak. It is the unconscious, energetic expression that stirs the siren’s call.

Energetic transformation happens in the ‘Getting the Love You Want’ couples’ workshop, the ‘Recovering Our Connection’ workshop for couples with addictions and the ‘Keeping the Love You Find’ workshop for individuals interested in having more successful relationships. Each participant learns how and why they chose their partner and how the relational struggles are opportunities to heal and grow into a deeper love.

I heard Oxford ethicist Brian Earp speak about a ‘love drug’ on NPR the other evening and had to know more about this trend in research. As someone who has made a career of relationship therapy I felt both intrigued and disturbed by the idea that relationship issues would be addressed through pharmacuticals. I agree with the author, Ross Andersen that there are many questions to be asked and answered as to the ‘good versus ill’ uses of this medication.

What do you think?

Originally posted on The Atlantic

by Ross Andersen

A philosopher argues that taking love-altering substances might not just be a good idea, but a moral obligation.

Not actual love drugs (Alexis Madrigal)

George Bernard Shaw once satirized marriage as “two people under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, who are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do them part.”

“Our relationships come equipped with a set of invisible biochemical handrails”

What is the current thinking among evolutionary biologists as to how love—or adult pair bonding—evolved?

From the perspective of evolutionary biology, love is a complex neurobiological phenomenon that has been wired into us by the forces of evolution. It makes heavy use of the brain’s reward systems, and its ability to bring together (and keep together) human beings–from prehistoric times until the present day–has played a major role in the survival of our species.

In terms of natural selection, the working consensus among evolutionary biologists is that the human adult pair bond probably developed out of earlier structures involved in creating and sustaining feelings of attachment between mothers and their infants. Evolution likes to make use of existing systems for new purposes. In this case, the shift might have been driven by the heightened importance of paternal care for offspring with bigger and bigger brains over generations of human evolution. These burgeoning baby brains took longer to reach maturity than their more ancestral counterparts, leaving the infant vulnerable and underdeveloped for extended periods of time. The idea is that if parents fell in love and remained together during this fragile period for their offspring, their own genetic fitness would be enhanced.

The anthropologist Helen Fisher has famously argued that “love” is not a single straightforward emotion, but an emergent suite of motivational states that stem from underlying systems for lust, attraction, and attachment. In her theory–one of a number of “biological” theories of love with quite a bit of overlap between them–the lust system promotes mating with a range of promising partners; the attraction system guides us to choose and prefer a particular partner; and the attachment system fosters long-term bonding, encouraging couples to cooperate and stay together until their parental duties have been discharged. These universal systems are then hypothesized to form a biological foundation on which the cultural and individual variants of sexual, romantic, and longer-term love are built.

What scientific evidence do we have that the difficulties people face in modern relationships can be successfully addressed with pharmaceuticals?

Modern relationships are challenging for a whole range of reasons, and these reasons might be very different from one couple to the next. Drug-based treatments aren’t always going to be the best approach, and sometimes they should even be avoided. Putting a chemical band-aid on a violent or abusive relationship, for example, would be an extremely bad idea. But we do know that in at least some cases, states of the brain that are susceptible to being pharmacologically altered may have something to do with the interpersonal difficulties couples face.

To give an obvious example, just think of a marriage in which one partner suffers from severe depression. As anyone who’s been in that situation can tell you, chronic depression in one or both members of a committed partnership can drag the whole relationship down. Addressing the root of the problem, in this case through the use of anti-depressant pharmaceuticals if necessary, could make a big difference for some couples.

For another example, consider the widespread use of Viagra to treat male impotence, a problem that prevents some couples, especially older couples, from having sex. Lack of sex reduces oxytocin levels, and reduced oxytocin levels can degrade a couple’s romantic bond. If a drug-based treatment could help the couple restore a healthy sex life, this could improve their chances of sustaining a well-functioning relationship.

Beate Ditzen and her colleagues at the University of Zurich have shown that oxytocin nasal spray can facilitate positive communication–and reduce stress levels–in romantic couples engaged in an argument. Oxytocin, sometimes called the “love hormone” for its role in sustaining mother-infant and romantic attachment bonds, increased the ratio of positive to negative communication behaviors and facilitated a drop in cortisol levels after the conflict. These factors have been shown to play a major role in predicting long-term relationship survival. While commentators like Ed Yong have recently emphasized that oxytocin can have a “dark side” as well–for example, by promoting in-group favoritism–the key is to figure out which people, which situations, and which ways of administering the hormone will maximize its effectiveness and minimize any troubling side-effects. We’re working on some research right now to sort these conditions out.

In earlier decades, MDMA (ecstasy) was sometimes used in couple’s therapy to boost empathy and improve emotional communication skills. While this sort of use would be illegal today, there has been a recentresurgence of scientific interest in possible therapeutic uses of MDMA, for example to treat Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. More research is needed, of course, but there is no reason why it should not be carried out, carefully and ethically, with proper social, procedural, and legal safeguards in place.

You argue that “love drugs” can help us address the tension between our moral values and our evolved psychobiological natures. Where does that tension manifest itself most obviously in relationships today? How have things changed since our basic sexual and relational drives evolved?

If you look at this in the context of evolutionary biology, you realize that in order to maximize the survival of their genes, parents need to have emotional systems that keep them together until their children are sufficiently grown–but, what happens after that is of no concern to natural selection. As Donald Symons has written, “in analyzing the psychological underpinnings of marriage [we should] keep in mind that Homo sapiens is the product of evolution … we are designed to promote gene [survival], not individual survival, and reproductive [success], not marital success.” Since we now outlive our ancestors by decades, the evolved pair-bonding instincts upon which modern relationships are built often break down or dissolve long before “death do us part.”

“Since we now outlive our ancestors by decades, the evolved pair-bonding instincts upon which modern relationships are built often break down or dissolve long before ‘death do us part.’”

We see this in the high divorce rates and long term relationship break up rates in countries where both partners enjoy freedom–especially economic freedom. We are simply not built to pull off decades-long relationships in the modern world. Nature designed us to be together for a while, but not forever–and once we push beyond the natural childrearing boundary, we are, in a sense, living on borrowed time.

Another major tension comes from our non-monogamous impulses. Humans are rare among mammals in that we practice at least some form of social monogamy. But there is a mountain of evidence suggesting that sex outside of the primary parenting bond was common throughout our evolutionary history, and would have been to the reproductive advantage of both males and females of our species. Jealousy seems to have deep roots as well, so there is nothing particularly new about feelings of sexual possessiveness–but the conscious, socially enshrined value-expectation that both husbands and wives should remain 100% sexually exclusive to one another for decades in a row, and that failure to meet this goal should entail the end of the relationship, is certainly a more recent invention. Adultery is one of the leading causes of marriage failure.

You point out that married couples should have the freedom to use love-enhancing drugs if they so wish, but you also go a step further, arguing that there are circumstances where married couples ought to take them. What are the most compelling of those circumstances?

Imagine a couple that is thinking about breaking up or getting a divorce, but they have young children who would likely be harmed by their parents’ separation. In this situation, there are vulnerable third parties involved, and we have argued that parents have a responsibility–all else being equal–to preserve and enhance their relationships for the sake of their children, at least until the children have matured and can take care of themselves. One way to do this, of course, would be to attend couple’s therapy and see if the relationship problems could be meaningfully resolved through “traditional” methods. But what if this strategy isn’t working? If love drugs ever become safely and cheaply available; if they could be shown to improve love, commitment, and marital well-being–and thereby lessen the chance (or the need) for divorce; if other interventions had been tried and failed; and if side-effects or other complications could be minimized, then we think that some couples might have an obligation to give them a try. Of course, we aren’t suggesting that anyone should be forced to take love drugs–or any drugs–against their will. But we do think that when children are involved, the stakes become higher for finding a workable solution to relationship difficulties between the parents.

What if “love drugs” only serve to prop up fading cultural institutions? Some might argue that monogamy is outdated, or a bad fit with human nature, and that rather than pharmacologically altering ourselves to accommodate it, we should jettison the whole thing instead. What would you say to them?

Whenever individuals–or societies–experience a mismatch between their values and human nature, they face a choice. They can give up or amend their values, accept a contradiction between their values and their impulses or behaviors, or they can try to modify or manage human nature.

This “management” can happen in different ways. It might involve shaping the physical, social, and legal environment to incentivize value-consistent behavior and disincentivize value-inconsistent behavior.  Or it might involve the use of biotechnology (such as love drugs in the case of monogamy) to modify the source of the behavior directly–or some combination of the above. Which course to take for any given mismatch depends upon a huge range of factors, and there are often good arguments for different approaches depending on the details of the given case.

As a baseline, we have argued for something called the “principle of default natural ethics.” This just means that, given the choice, we should try to adopt values that are as consistent as possible with human nature, so that we can avoid troubling side-effects that come from unnatural suppression and heavy-handed regulation of basic instincts: just think of the recent sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church, and consider some obvious reasons why that tragedy might have come about. Sometimes, following the principle of default natural ethics means that we should jettison our social institutions–especially when they are so far out of synch with our human dispositions as to be totally unworkable, or when they end up creating bigger problems than they were designed to solve in the first place. This is probably part of the reason why we’ve moved past communism as a model for social and political organization: it seemed, at least to many people, to make a lot of sense on paper, but in the real world it ran up against too many deep facts about the way that people actually work.

But communism was an experiment, both radical and recent. Monogamy, on the other hand, or at least some form of it, has been a part of human societies for a much longer time, so we have to be more careful about how we deal with its problematic features–most notably the gap it creates between the ideal of sexual exclusivity and the reality of human promiscuity.

Some people think that we should give up on monogamy, and there are plausible arguments for this view. In fact, one possibility is that love drugs could be used to eliminate jealousy rather than the impulse to stray–and for individual couples, this might indeed be a worthwhile strategy. For couples who are committed to polyamory, for example, jealousy would seem to be the odd man out: it conflicts with the polyamorists’ higher-order goals for sexual openness.

We obviously cannot set the moral priorities for any given relationship. But in making a more general argument, we note that most couples as a matter of fact value sexual fidelity and make an explicit promise to hold to it.  And at least when children are involved, we think that this promise may be morally justified, since extramarital sex can lead to extramarital love that would divert time and energy directly away from existing offspring. On the other hand, when children are not an issue, when there are good arguments for non-monogamy for a particular couple, or when non-monogamous social institutions have a good chance of contributing to human welfare in a given culture or community, then we don’t see any reason why people should go out of their way to “prop up” problematic social norms through the use of pharmacology.

There are certain environmental features of modernity—like ease of travel and expanded social circles—that make monogamy more difficult. Why shouldn’t we focus on limiting the effects of those factors instead of altering ourselves biochemically?

It’s a question of trade-offs. Most people think that ease of travel and far-flung social connections are a good thing, and contribute positively to human flourishing in the modern era. On a practical level, too, these things aren’t likely to go away. So when they do become a problem–by making it easier to commit adultery, for example–we have to be creative about how we respond. Certainly there are a range of non-biochemical strategies that couples can use to stay faithful to each other despite the pressures and temptations of modern life, and they should be free to pursue these strategies to the best of their abilities. We have simply argued that it may be time to consider a wider range of possibilities, as contemporary relationships need all the help they can get. At the end of the day, anyone who fully appreciates the post-Enlightenment ideals ensconced in present-day Western cultures would be loathe to restrict travel, freedom of socializing, freedom of divorce, or gender equality in the workplace, despite their potential to undermine full-fledged monogamy. The cure would be worse than the disease.

You could see how these drugs could be used in the context of a parent-child relationship—perhaps to boost feelings of love in an otherwise apathetic mother. Are there any special ethical concerns there?

There may be some. But remember our analogy to treating depression in a romantic context, and then just extend this reasoning to a parent-child relationship. So long as it is the parent taking the drug, voluntarily and under conditions of informed consent, and so long as this drug-based treatment had a reasonable chance of improving her ability to care for her own offspring, there would seem to be little to worry about in terms of ethics. Some people might be concerned that this drug-induced “love” would be inauthentic in some way – but it depends on what you take as your baseline. Perhaps the authentic situation is the one in which feelings of love and contentment occur naturally between the parent and the child, and it is only a disordered biochemical state that brought about the apathy actually felt by the mother. Just as when a depressed person finds that a small dose of medication allows him to “be himself” again–finding joy in the old activities he used to love so much, for example–so might some mothers find that taking a love drug allows them to engage with their children in a way that feels more true to their own self-conception than they would feel without it.

It’s often said that you don’t have an obligation to love someone, usually based on the idea that it is impossible to voluntarily control our emotions. But if love drugs make such control more possible, then there might be some loves that should be felt. It’s debatable whether this is true for spouses, but it seems very hard to argue against the idea that we should love our children.

This is an actual wedding ring. It smells like anise now. (Alexis Madrigal)

You’ve also written about “anti-love drugs,” which could be used to dissolve love bonds in abusive relationships, or in cases where someone has fallen under the spell of a cult leader. Are there drugs like this that are currently under development?

“Some Orthodox Jewish groups use off label anti-depressant medication to suppress libido, so that young yeshiva students can comply with strict religious norms concerning human love and sexuality.”

How can we use new technologies for good rather than for ill, while simultaneously trying to reach a functional consensus on what sorts of things should be considered good, and what sorts of things should not be considered ill?

Loving Others Begins with Loving Me

I am often reminded, whether in my work with couples or with individuals interested in creating mutually successful relationships that we must begin with Self-Love.

When, as children we are not adequately attuned to or empathized with we develop mental, emotional and physical ways to protect our hearts. Because of this early heartbreak we often develop beliefs such as, not being ‘good’ enough… for love, respect, appreciation, adoration.

We can decide to not open our hearts to love or we can enter into the process of self-healing and self-love.

This poem, some sources say was written by Charlie Chaplin on his 70th birthday and others say it was originally written by Kim & Alison McMillen. Whomever the author, it poignantly captures the process of self-acceptance and self-love.

As I Began to Love Myself 

                                                           Self-Love Poem by Charlie Chaplin                                                                                                       

When I loved Myself Enough

by Kim & Alison McMillen

As I began to love myself I found that anguish and emotional suffering are only warning signs that I was living against my own truth.

Today, I know, this is “AUTHENTICITY”.

As I began to love myself I understood how much it can offend somebody. As I try to force my desires on this person, even though I knew the time was not right and the person was not ready for it, and even though this person was me.

Today I call it “RESPECT”.

As I began to love myself I stopped craving for a different life,
and I could see that everything that surrounded me was inviting me to grow.

Today I call it “MATURITY”.

As I began to love myself I understood that at any circumstance,
I am in the right place at the right time, and everything happens
at the exactly right moment. So I could be calm.

Today I call it “SELF-CONFIDENCE”.

As I began to love myself I quit steeling my own time,
and I stopped designing huge projects for the future.
Today, I only do what brings me joy and happiness, things I love to do and that make my heart cheer, and I do them in my own way and in my own rhythm.

Today I call it “SIMPLICITY”.

As I began to love myself I freed myself of anything that is no good for my health – food, people, things, situations, and everything that drew me down and away from myself. At first I called this attitude
a healthy egoism.

Today I know it is “LOVE OF ONESELF”.

As I began to love myself I quit trying to always be right, and ever since I was wrong less of the time.

Today I discovered that is “MODESTY”.

As I began to love myself I refused to go on living in the past and worry about the future. Now, I only live for the moment, where EVERYTHING is happening.

Today I live each day, day by day, and I call it “FULFILLMENT”.

As I began to love myself I recognized that my mind can disturb me
and it can make me sick. But As I connected it to my heart, my
mind became a valuable ally.

Today I call this connection “WISDOM OF THE HEART”.

We no longer need to fear arguments, confrontations or any kind of problems with ourselves or others. Even stars collide, and out of their crashing new worlds are born.

Today I know THAT IS “LIFE”!

“To accomplish great things we must first dream,
then visualize,
then plan… believe… act!”
- Alfred A. Montapert

by Garet Bedrosian, LCSW, CIRT, CBT, CET

What is your New Year’s resolution?

Did that question excite you or make you cringe?

It definitely makes me cringe. I have aborted so many of my well intended declarations of change that I have resolved to never make another. I know I am not alone in my failed endeavors since only about half of us make resolutions and the percentage still on track 6 months later is only 25%. Why bother?

There are many reasons for the lack of follow through and not believing in the ability to succeed is at the top of the list. The degree of consciousness or alignment with the intention, the loftiness of the goals, not having adequate support, and my personal favorite, not setting rewards for achieving each step along the way are important factors in the demise those resolutions. Rewards are always good!

Creating a Relationship Vision is one of the most valuable exercises I teach in both the ‘Getting the Love You Want’ and the ‘Keeping the Love You Find’ Imago Relationship Workshops. This exercise is pivotal for couple’s as well as for singles. Katherine Woodward Thomas says, “Rather than needing pain to push us we grow because we are inspired by possibility… a possibility of who we could become…”

We have all heard about Olympians visualizing the gold, the finish line, perfect form and execution of their sport. They do it because it works. They spend hours imagining their achievements so their bodies and minds know exactly what to do to win. As William Arthur Ward says, ‘If you can imagine it, you can achieve it. If you can dream it, you can become it.”

Focusing on what does not work keeps you stuck in frustration while focusing on living in the feeling of your dreams as a reality propels you forward. Communicating and becoming aligned with a partner regarding the ingredients of the ideal relationship for the two of you makes the manifestation of that vision possible. Partners can see where they are using their energies to reach mutual goals or where they need to adjust for a more joyful journey.

Individuals in alignment with their desires for a satisfying life or relationship are also more likely to succeed when their daily choices and actions are in line with their visions.

The more I use these principles in my own life the happier I am. For example, some of my Relationship Visions (stated in the positive as if they are already true) are… We have adventures. We laugh often. We share time with friends and family. We are active. We spend time in nature. We communicate respectfully and kindly. We support one another’s dreams. We have fun.

To support the manifestation of those visions I needed to make some personal life adjustments. I have been on the busy track for a long time and my desire to live a more joyful, relaxed life meant I had to create room in my schedule. I hear myself lamenting about being too tired and too busy to see friends, attend events or have quality time with my partner which made me feel less patient and more easily irritated.

If you have had any experience with 12-Step programs you have heard the quote, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”I have to admit that was exactly what I was doing. Focusing on my vision has brought different results. I already feel the joy of aligning with my visions and living my dreams.

My partner and I have kayaked the bay, enjoyed dinners and laughter with friends, attended movies and plays, strolled and run the beaches, seen amazing sunsets, have travel plans to visit family and often anticipate the excitement of our next adventure…. roller coaster at Belmont Park, train ride to San Francisco, photo safari in Africa!

Having a conscious vision is similar to having a rudder on the kayak. It keeps us heading in the intended direction and conserves our energy.

What are your relationship or life visions? Please share your dreams and plans for achieving those dreams. I would thoroughly enjoy supporting your vision.

“Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit.”  e.e.cummings

Is there another time of the year that challenges our sensibilities and triggers so many conflicting emotions and reactions? I do not think so.

Of course, being in the field of psychotherapy I have the almost daily privilege of working with and associating with a population of individuals and couples who tend to express or at least attempt to understand their sensibilities and triggers. In other words, my belief that this is a universal condition may be skewed.

We all know about holiday and end of the year pressures but when we’re feeling stressed it is sometimes worth the reminder. The most obvious are the various holidays and traditions to mediate. We then have the end of another year evaluations about whether we succeeded or failed according to those resolutions and expectations set forth at the beginning of the year. Then, of course there are personal issues of finances, love and family to spice up the mix and to top it off there are the sometimes over riding National and International issues.

Foremost on our national minds is the recent shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. We each feel a combination of shock, sadness, heartbreak, grief and anger as we watch the unfolding of this tragedy. Witnessing something so horrific sometimes helps to put the rest of our lives into perspective and we can let go of less threatening irritants and feel appreciation for all that we have. For others, it intensifies existing feelings of hopelessness, helplessness and alienation.

We each react differently to crisis and stress depending upon our resiliency and resources. It seems we would need to be numb to avoid feeling something with this combination of variables but what we do with those feelings is most significant and worth our attention.

There are many experts whom have researched and advised about surviving the holidays, stress, loss, trauma, etc. There are many others whom have studied resiliency. It appears that with resiliency we can ‘bounce-back’ from most things life has to offer.

I would like to share my list of resiliency enhancing practices and hope you share it as a way of expressing care for someone you know.

1. Take good care of yourself. We all know the airline spiel. Put your mask on first before tending to anyone else. It is a metaphor for life because it really does all start with you, so… eat well, drink water, sleep enough, breathe some fresh air, move your body, take some time to regroup and get centered, moderate sugar, caffeine, alcohol, substances, carbohydrates and last but not least, connect with something higher than yourself.
2. Reach out to someone. It will feel good to both of you.
3. Talk to someone if you need support. Nothing is trivial and you are worth it.
4. Express appreciation to everyone and anyone for anything. Write an ongoing list of the things you appreciate every day. It will help you remember what is good in your world when stress causes you to forget.
5. Smile and if possible laugh. It really does elevate your mood even if you are just practicing.
6. Honor sensitivities and boundaries for yourself and others… financial, emotional, physical, social, spiritual
7. Consider homemade, home cooked, help with a project or chore, teaching a skill, time spent, shared experiences and your presence as very generous gifts.
8. Make a decision and feel good about it even if it is just which socks to wear or what to eat for breakfast.  It is a confidence building-block and will help you make decisions about something more challenging.
9. Pay more attention to the things you can change and find ways to accept the reality that you cannot change everything.
10. Remember, ‘This Too Shall Pass.’

Please contact Garet Bedrosian, LCSW if you desire help building your capacity for resilience. www.garetbedrosian.com