Why can't I + a negative statement:

What all these polls confirm is that a critical mass of people all over the planet now know about and are also worried about climate change. This is an astonishing accomplishment. The effort required to focus global attention on a single issue is beyond challenging, especially for a problem as complex and difficult to communicate as climate change. This mass demonstration of collective worry is driving political will toward change. Half of the world's population is younger than thirty years old. According to a 2019 World Economic Forum survey of thirty thousand individuals under the age of thirty across 186 countries, climate change and the destruction of nature is the biggest global concern for young people around the world. We're beginning to see the results. For the first time ever, in 2019, climate change was a top issue in Canada's federal election. They will view anxiety as a symptom of some deeper underlying issues and work to help you achieve insight into how those issues are playing out in your life. That is a small sampling of the different types of therapeutic approaches that are utilized currently in the field. There are many more. The other thing to consider is that not all therapists are created equal. I mean it when I say that there are some shrinks that really just suck at their job. It's okay, we are people too. Some people are not good at their job. Maybe they are burnt out from years of clinical work and they know it, or maybe they think they are the best ever and can't see that they are just too awkward to ever help you open up. Don't feel bad if you have a bad experience with therapy. You are allowed to shop around. If the audience members are already leaning toward agreement with the message, they will be more persuaded by a one-sided message that ignores opposing arguments. If, however, the audience is initially leaning toward disagreement with the message, then they will be more persuaded by a two-sided message that addresses opposing arguments (Hovland et al.

Why is this the case? If audience members are initially leaning toward disagreement, they are probably aware of at least a few arguments opposing the position advocated in the message. For example, if your parents are already inclined to oppose the semester abroad, they probably have some reasons (eg, it is too dangerous). Thus, if the message ignores the audience's opposing arguments, the audience will likely conclude that the communicator is biased, uninformed, or manipulative, and they will call into question the validity of anything he or she says. When trying to convince those who might disagree with you, is it better to provide a one- or two-sided argument? It depends on how the audience is initially leaning. If, however, the audience is already leaning toward agreement with the message, it is less likely to be aware of opposing arguments. Therefore, simply mentioning those opposing arguments may confuse audience members or lead them to conclude that the issue is more controversial than they initially thought. As I write this, the world's youngest prime minister, Sanna Marin, has set an ambitious target to make Finland the first carbon-neutral welfare state in the world. Bhutan and Suriname have already won the net-zero-greenhouse-gas-emissions race, with Norway and Sweden coming up close behind. Meanwhile, in Australia, climate politics is burning as hot as the devastating bushfires. Fear, guilt, and shame are powerful levers in political movements. However, fear tactics are a double-edged sword. On an individual level, fear is a good indicator that something is broken or has gone wrong. But, when it becomes entrenched, as it has in the doom-and-gloom narrative, it is demotivating. When we are afraid, we become less creative, less collaborative, and less capable of perseverance. And that's where the paradox comes in. As a global community, with climate concern at a record high, we are better positioned than ever before to take urgently needed action, yet the collateral damage on individual people of being constantly bombarded with environmental catastrophe is inhibiting our capacity to tackle the climate crisis. Don't forget that you are a consumer. No one wants you to be wasting time and money on something that isn't going to work for you.

Don't let a single awkward or negative experience prevent you from trying other therapy in the future. The first time I tried Thai food, I thought I hated it. I thought that it was just something that other people could like but it wasn't for me. I realized later on, after shopping around a bit and sampling some other restaurants, that it was just a bad chef that gave me that impression. Thai food kicks ass. So hungry right now. The length of treatment can vary quite a bit. Some issues can be resolved in just a few weeks and others might take a lifetime to unearth. Need for Cognition and Self-Monitoring Think back to the study we discussed in this article looking at attitudes toward Edge razor blades (Petty et al. That study showed that a person's motivation to think about a message varies depending on whether that message pertains to his or her current goals and interests (eg, anticipating a choice between razors or toothpastes). But you may have noticed that, across different situations, some people are generally more interested in thinking deeply about issues, whereas others are not. According to Cacioppo and Petty (1982), individuals high in need for cognition tend to think about things critically and analytically and enjoy solving problems. They tend to agree strongly with statements such as I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems. Individuals low in need for cognition are less interested in effortful cognitive activity and agree with statements such as I think only as hard as I have to. With your knowledge of the elaboration likelihood model (ELM), do you suspect that individuals with high need for cognition would tend to take the central route or the peripheral route to persuasion? Need for cognition Differences between people in their need to think about things critically and analytically. New words to express profound feelings The emotions people feel around the planetary crisis can be intense, life-changing, and overwhelming.

Many describe being terrified, floored, or swept away by grief. Global dread, eco-anxiety, environmental grief, climate rage, eco-paralysis, environmental cynicism, climate change distress--despair about the future of the planet has garnered many labels in the research literature as academics try to understand and study the emotional and psychological complexity of our feelings about the state of the planet. Glenn Albrecht, a sustainability professor in Australia, says we simply don't have enough words to express how profoundly environmental changes affect us. He has created a new lexicon of terms, including solastalgia--the feeling of homesickness we experience when we are still in the same place, but it has been irrevocably changed. Solastalgia is distress caused by the transformation and degradation of one's home environment. Worries about climate change impact our most intimate decisions. A third of Americans reportedly consider climate change in their decision not to have children or to have fewer children, according to recent polls in the New York Times and Business Insider. They worry about the harm an additional person could do to the planet, and they feel genuine anxiety about whether a child could lead a good life on the hotter, less stable world they fear is coming. In my opinion, a good shrink will start with the immediate stuff, help you find some solid ground to put under your feet, and then when you are a bit more stable, they will work to dig a little deeper to find out where all of this shit really came from. You might also engage in different forms of treatment like group therapy. Groups can be a lot of fun. Typically, they involve some educational component where someone much more eloquent but probably less funny than me will explain the topic of the day, such as managing worries or how to know when you are panicking, and then the group will discuss together about the topic. Groups are made up of people. Some people are awesome and some people suck. The quality of the group depends on the quality of the people. Again, don't be afraid to shop around. How do you shop around for therapists? Well it depends on your particular situation. If you said central, you're right. This was shown in a study by John T.

Cacioppo and his colleagues (1983). The researchers measured college students' need for cognition and then asked them to read an editorial, allegedly written by a journalism student, arguing that all seniors be required to pass a rigorous, comprehensive exam to graduate. Thus, in this experiment, the message is relevant to all the participants. But for half the participants, the editorial contained fairly strong arguments in favor of the exam (The quality of undergraduate teaching has improved at schools with the exams), whereas the other participants read fairly unconvincing arguments for the exam (The risk of failing the exam is a challenge more students would welcome). Overall, as you might expect, participants were more favorable toward the exam requirement when it was supported by strong rather than weak arguments. But participants with high need for cognition were especially likely to approve of the proposal when it was supported by strong arguments and to disapprove of the proposal when it was supported by weak arguments (see FIGURE 8. So even though the message was equally relevant to all participants, some of them were inherently motivated to pay close attention to the arguments, whereas others were content merely to skim the message. Need for Cognition Eco-anxiety is overwhelming kids It's not just adults who are suffering. In our noble zeal to emphasize the urgency and enormity of environmental issues, we appear to be inadvertently raising a generation that feels hopeless about the future of the planet. A 2018 international review of recent research on the psychological impacts of climate change on children published in Current Psychiatry Reports reveals that many kids honestly believe the world may end during their lifetime as a result of climate change or other global threats. In-depth interviews with ten-to-twelve-year-olds in the US found that 82 percent of children expressed strong feelings of fear, sadness, and anger when discussing environmental problems. I want to underscore that these are kids who have not directly experienced catastrophic floods, droughts, sea level rise, or bushfires. These findings are from researchers who specifically study the psychological impact of indirect or gradual climate change effects. The reason I think that is such a sad and important point is that children are suffering emotional and psychological anguish not from their lived experience, but as a result of their anticipation of a dystopian future they believe is inevitable. They see planetary destruction as a foregone conclusion. They are so deeply embroiled in the narrative of doom and gloom that they have no idea other futures are possible. If you are a college student at a university, chances are you're already hooked up with free access to psychotherapy with students in the training program at your school. Don't worry, they won't make things awkward if you see them elsewhere on campus.