When life throws challenges our way, support from friends and loved ones can make all the difference.

Whether it’s a kind word, a reassuring hug, or a simple pat on the back, these gestures help us navigate difficult moments.

A recent study published in the Journal of Nonverbal Behavior explores the impact of supportive touch and verbal encouragement on self-esteem, self-efficacy, and emotional well-being.

Words of Comfort vs. A Hug: What Works Best?

We like to think we’re rational creatures—masters of our fate, captains of our soul, and all that.

But the truth is, most of our decisions aren’t made through cool, calculated logic.

Instead, we are heavily influenced by cognitive biases—deeply ingrained mental shortcuts that shape our choices without us even realizing it.

Some biases are helpful.

They evolved to keep us alive in a dangerous world where quick decision-making could mean the difference between life and death.

But in our modern environment, a few of these biases are exploited by Limbic Capitalism to work against us, leading us to make impulsive financial choices, avoiding personal growth, and settling for soul-crushing mediocrity.

If you’re feeling stuck, broke, or weak and ineffective, these three cognitive biases might be quietly running the show.

Let’s break them down—and more importantly, learn how to override them for a stronger, wealthier, and more resilient life (btw, I wish I learned this stuff in my profligate youth).

What Is Liminal Anxiety?

Liminal anxiety is the unease, uncertainty, and emotional turbulence that arise in transitional life phases. The term "liminal" comes from the Latin word limen, meaning "threshold"—a fitting metaphor for moments when we are no longer who we were, but not yet who we will become.

These in-between spaces—career changes, breakups, relocations, personal transformations—are often filled with self-doubt, instability, and fear of the unknown.

For most of human history, staying single for life was about as common as a unicorn sighting.

Sure, maybe a lone monk here or an eccentric aunt there, but generally, society expected you to find a mate, reproduce, and keep the species chugging along.

Fast-forward to today, and lifelong singlehood isn’t just a niche lifestyle—it’s a full-blown societal trend.

But this raises some awkward questions.

If enough people decide that relationships are more hassle than they’re worth, will humanity eventually go extinct? And, more importantly, are lifelong singles actually happier than the poor souls trudging through married life?

Let’s dig into the research and find out whether lifelong singlehood is the secret to happiness—or the first sign of civilization’s demise.

The Tree of Life is a widely used tool in Narrative Therapy, designed to help people explore their identity, strengths, and personal history using the metaphor of a tree.

Created by David Denborough and Ncazelo Ncube-Mlilo, this approach encourages individuals to reflect on their roots (past and culture), trunk (skills and values), branches (hopes and dreams), leaves (support systems), and storms (challenges)—all in a way that highlights resilience and growth.

Sounds lovely, right?

But what happens when someone feels completely disconnected from their roots?

When the past doesn’t feel like a source of strength but rather a tangled mess—or worse, a void?

Can the Tree of Life still be helpful for someone who feels placeless, adrift, or even cut off from their past?

Let’s explore both the power and the potential limitations of this intervention, with an honest look at where it shines—and where it might need a few modifications.

When Sarah and Matt Deptula walked into my office, they were in the middle of a standoff—not with each other, but with Matt’s parents.

The issue? Their 2-year-old daughter, Ella, and a Facebook-worthy meltdown over a boundary they’d set with her grandparents.

“It started with the snacks,” Sarah explained, visibly exasperated. “We asked them not to give Ella sweets before dinner. They said, ‘Of course,’ but the next thing I know, she’s scoffing down chocolate bars the size of her head.”

Matt chimed in, “When I brought it up, my mom acted like I’d accused her of a crime. She said, ‘Grandparents are supposed to spoil their grandkids! You’re too strict.’” He sighed. “Now she’s posting these vague memes on Facebook about how kids today don’t respect their elders.”

The Backlash Begins

The Martinez family is like a lot of families I see—tight-knit, fiercely loyal, and loaded with intergenerational quirks that are equal parts endearing and exhausting.

Carlos is 36, the middle child of three, is the founder of a thriving PR firmand a self-described "recovering perfectionist."

He grew up in a household where survival often trumped emotional connection. His parents, immigrants from El Salvador, had faced unimaginable hardships.

They gave their kids everything they could—except, perhaps, the tools to process feelings like guilt, fear, or joy.

“Everything was about ‘working harder,’” Carlos told me. “If I got a B on a test, my mom would say, ‘Why not an A?’ And if I got an A, she’d say, ‘Why not A+?’ I didn’t even know that was a thing!”

His older sister, Sofia, coped by becoming the family comedian, using humor to defuse tension. His younger brother, Mateo, became the “golden child,” showered with praise but burdened by high expectations.

And Carlos? Carlos learned to keep his head down, excel in school, and never, ever make waves.

But now, Carlos was here in therapy, armed with a Bingo card, and a deep desire to rewrite the narrative.

When Charlotte Carter first walked into my office, she had the calm, confident demeanor of someone who had been "handling things" her entire life.

At 35, she was the kind of person everyone relied on—her colleagues called her a born leader, her friends joked she was their "therapist," and her younger sister, Rachel, often referred to her as "second mom."

But as she sat down, a different side of Charlotte emerged. “I should be proud of how far I’ve come,” she said, a tremor in her voice. “But I feel...empty. Like I skipped a whole part of life I can’t get back.”

Her words weren’t unusual for someone who had grown up parentified, taking on adult responsibilities long before she should have.

Charlotte had spent her childhood caring for her younger siblings, managing the household, and emotionally supporting her mother through a turbulent divorce—all before her 16th birthday.

She had achieved a remarkable "glow-up," as social media calls it, thriving despite her early struggles. But the pride of her resilience was always tinged with sadness for the childhood she had lost.

A Childhood Spent Parenting

When Emma Reynolds walked into my office for her first session, she carried more than a notebook and an anxious smile—she carried her entire family.

Not literally, of course, but in the way that cycle-breakers do: as though she had been assigned the role of family historian, emotional janitor, and reluctant warrior, all at once.

“I’m just so tired,” she said, her voice breaking as she sank into the chair. “I’m trying to fix everything—my mom, my dad, even my brother—and it feels like I’m failing. But I can’t stop. If I don’t do it, who will?”

That’s the thing about people like Emma: they’ve appointed themselves the saviors of their families, often before anyone else even realizes there’s a problem to be saved from.

A groundbreaking 60-year study has revealed a troubling reality: men lose half their emotional support networks between the ages of 30 and 90.

Published in Psychology & Aging, this research offers a sobering look at how aging, cultural norms, and life transitions contribute to an emotional isolation crisis.

What’s more alarming is that this decline reflects more than just the passage of time. At its core lies an interplay of two powerful forces: excessive self-reliance and Cultural Narcissism.

These deeply ingrained societal narratives not only discourage men from seeking emotional connection but actively undermine their ability to build and sustain meaningful relationships.

This issue is not simply about men losing their connections—it’s about a cultural crisis that profoundly shapes how we view emotional intimacy, dependence, and human connection. Let’s explore the research and dive deeper into how these forces play out across the lifespan.

Once upon a time, postmodernism was the rebellious philosopher at the intellectual party. When I was getting my second degree at Antioch, postmodernism was all the rage.

It questioned objective truths, smashed oppressive structures, and declared that everything—from science to art—was shaped by subjective experiences.

Fast-forward to today, and postmodernism, once the darling of radical thought, is being implicated in something few could have foreseen: the rise of left-wing authoritarianism (LWA).

A new study published in Applied Cognitive Psychology found that folks with strong liberal postmodern beliefs—those who reject universal truths in favor of subjective perspectives—are more likely to support authoritarian measures, such as censorship and revolutionary justice.

Even more surprising, these authoritarian tendencies flourish when psychological distress is low.

Yes, you read that right: happy, stable people can sometimes make the most rigid ideologues. What’s going on here? Let’s dive in.

When we think about ancient history, it’s easy to imagine crumbling ruins and dusty relics—distant echoes of a world long gone.

But what if ancient civilizations left more than artifacts? What if their influence still shaped the way we live, think, and even feel today?

A recent study suggests that the Roman Empire’s legacy is doing just that in parts of Germany.

Regions in Germany that fell under Roman rule 2,000 years ago show higher levels of psychological well-being, better health, and more adaptive personality traits compared to areas that remained beyond the empire’s reach.

Published in Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology, this groundbreaking study reveals how Roman infrastructure, institutions, and cultural advancements have left a lasting psychological and socio-economic imprint.