By Kristine Keller

Last Sunday I found myself at a desolate corner on the southwest edge of Greenwich Village. I was meeting a friend for brunch, who sent me a text with the proper street coordinates and a line that said “meet me inside at noon.” It was all very Murder She Wrote, if Angela Lansbury’s character could text, so naturally I was completely on board. I had no idea why said friend chose this arbitrary spot for our catch-up over eggs and bottomless coffee. It wasn’t a local treasure or on the list of any recommended restaurants. An hour in I had to ask, what gives with all the mystery? Turns out, we were there because my friend saw on Instagram that her crush had been making the regular rounds at this spot every Sunday. “Now look like you’re laughing really hard so I can Instagram a brunch picture here and he’ll see it,” she advised me.

What said friend was really doing was cultivating her brand image. It’s by no means a revolutionary argument to say that the practice of branding is powerful. Professional marketers representing juggernaut businesses to smaller-scale start-ups spend billions every year in hopes that the right tagline or compelling story will leverage their brand. The goal is to lock in consumers, hope that they’ll engage, and that ultimately, their efforts will result in a pretty penny. And while industries are pouring resources and energy into social media strategists and branding consultants, there’s a new type of branding that’s emerged from motivation of a different kind. And like business-savvy branding, this type of packaging might also add partners to your rolodex. I’m referring to, of course, to the branding of “you.” And like masters who’ve convinced us that the contents inside of a Heinz jar or Crest tube are magic on the tongue, capturing the essence of your neatly packaged “you” takes skillful craftiness in the form of witty tweets and filtered photos.

In 2013 the vast majority of us have graduated from the beginning stages of social media to wearing virtual cap and gowns and receiving honorary doctorates in the field. There’s Facebook to illustrate the breadth and depth of our friendships. I’ve got a boatload of friends, and you can count all 900 of them! There’s Instagram to demonstrate that we’re seeing concerts we wouldn’t care about if it weren’t for the pop-up notification that read “that dude you’re interested in is now following you.” Now there’s even a video platform called Vine to proclaim: See! I was really at the aforementioned concert I uploaded pictures from!

It’s remarkable that we have ways of presumably connecting with more people than ever — but on the flip side, all of these connectors can also leave us grossly disconnected. Scan a room at Saturday brunch and notice the gaggle of tables spending more time photographing their plates than actually chatting with one another. And would those denizens have even gone to said brunch place, had they not planned on uploading the salivating food photos?

In the next few years, researchers will have to pay extra close attention to the role of social media in social comparison theory. The theory says that we use others as a benchmark in order to gain “accurate” self-perceptions of ourselves. But in an age when everyone is expertly marketing their own self-brand, we may be comparing ourselves to friends’ lives that don’t actually exist. My advice is to use social media with a grain of salt – allow it to capture a piece of your day but don’t let it dictate your day. And understand that the seemingly perfect life you’re viewing through rose-tinted filters and “likes” is just the work of a brand manager and not a benchmark for the way you should spend your Sundays. Ah yes, and if only Angela Lansbury’s character could text, then she’d say: u r totes right.

Kristine received her Master’s in Psychology from New York University. You can e-mail her at StreetshrinkNYC@gmail.com for questions.

Just last week I was strolling down the F train platform, iPod earphones tucked firmly in my ears, grooving to the latest Miguel jam, when I heard a scream. I looked across the platform and saw a pepper-haired woman who had clearly tripped, clutching her knee in pain. After a few moments a couple in their early 20s sat beside the woman, consoling her, and ensuring her safety.
What’s interesting about this scenario is the pair were not the first to notice the injured woman, yet they were the only ones to lend a hand. It’s not necessarily that the first handful of people were malevolent, they were merely exhibiting one of the most common psychological processes to date: bystander apathy.
This phenomenon occurs in times of emergency when people in groups fail to intervene, instead thinking that someone else will react to the situation. This process is compounded by the more people there are present. When you alone witness a problem, you feel the weight of responsibility on your shoulders, but as the number of people in a group increases, that feeling of sole responsibility is lessened. If everyone in a group assumes the person to their right is calling an ambulance or searching for help, it inevitably means no one reacts or provides help.
Another contributing factor to the bystander effect is pluralistic ignorance—when people look to another’s cues to inform their own behavior. Surely it’s easy to continue to your train if no one else appears to be concerned about the injured woman.
The most famous example of this phenomenon is the case of Kitty Genovese, a New York City inhabitant who was repeatedly stabbed outside of her apartment in 1964, while a surfeit of neighbors watched from their homes. It is said that each neighbor assumed another watcher had already intervened. The neighbors’ lack of action contributed to Genovese’s death. This phenomenon has been studied most frequently in similar emergency situations.
It’s fair to say that this inactive behavior is New York City’s reputation from Genovese’s days to the present. Take a walk down Broadway on any given day and this is easily justifiable. But if my years here have taught me anything, it is that New Yorkers can be kind, good, and perhaps most notably, present. Yes, for every altruistic couple there may be tens of ignorant passersby, but the good news is that this problem can be solved just by knowing it exists.
Social psychologists over the years have worked to demonstrate how bystander apathy can become bystander action just by making people aware of the phenomenon in the first place. Psychologists also recommend signaling one individual and asking that person to call for help, rather than allowing people to let responsibility diffuse from one to another.
I believe New Yorkers will answer a call to action; they just need to be able to hear it, or in some cases, see it. If someone is screaming after a hooded runner, or clutching an ankle, or passed out on the sidewalk, we’re programmed to overlook this, assuming someone closer to the problem or closer to the person will aid in their recovery. Instead, let’s see this as a personal call, a direct line to you as the witness. Offer a phone, a band aid, a dollar or at the very least an “are you okay?” Don’t wait for that other guy, be the other guy. Because if Ryan Gosling isn’t around, you’ve got to become your own hero.
Kristine Keller received her Master’s degree in psychology from New York University. E-mail her at StreetshrinkNYC@gmail.com for questions.

By Kristine Keller

The time has come. After four years of living in the same home, my home, I’m leaving. I don’t know where to just yet, maybe across the river, maybe across the bridge, maybe just across the block, but I do know I’m leaving. And for some time, this has inevitability frightened me. What’s going to happen to my neighbors, and grocers, and the flower guy on Prince Street? The familiarity of it all has been my safe box amidst the chaos of NYC.
Change can come swiftly at the other end of a phone call or it can creep up on us slowly, only noticed in magnified mirrors. Sometimes change is thrust upon us and sometimes we seek it out. In this case, I’m the seeker. And I’m seeking it because I’ve realized that change is good; hell, it’s even healthy.
For so long I’ve lived on the precipice of fear, afraid to jump, fearing that my world would turn on itself. But after taking baby steps as minor as changing my pizza place of choice from Rubirosa on Mulberry to Emporio on Mott, something has happened. My thoughts have more clarity, my creative wheelhouse has been spinning faster than ever, and I can say I’ve felt happier. Those small steps have even dovetailed into monumental changes. I’ve changed jobs, made time for friends I never see, started dating people completely different than those I’ve deemed my “type,” and started walking new routes and uncovering unknown streets beneath my feet.
And all of these positive changes make sense given the brain’s intricately formed architecture, which includes a built-in novelty detector. Our brains need novelty and challenges like we need food. In fact, romantic researches implore couples to constantly interweave novelty into relationships since boredom is deemed one reason couples grow unhappy with each other. We’re hardwired to crave and grow from change, which means we may be stifling our brain’s capacity to burgeon by living an inveterate life of the same food and same Friday nights out. Our frontal lobes, the part of the brain responsible for decision-making, planning, and problem solving, don’t fully mature until our 20s and 30s which also makes nurturing that area of growth essential for development.
Change is also what precipitates inspiration. Geniuses like Mozart and Einstein weren’t afraid of change and went against the grain in pursuit of new ideas and discoveries. We can’t develop new technology, write the treaty that will find peace in the Middle East, or cure chronic illnesses when we’re comfortable. We also can’t form new memories when we don’t change. And what a shame to live in the greatest city in the world and not be able to remember the night your heart skipped a beat when you found love in a hopeless bar on Spring Street or the winter mornings you spent running along the Hudson, feeling the icy breath of the river on your face. Those were different times, different seasons, different years, deserving of distinct time stamps.
So, how do you make the deep dive and start changing? Start at the shallow end and commit to one small change per week. If you run the same path every morning through Washington Square Park, change it. Shop at a different grocery store, volunteer at a different children’s school, change the subway car you ride in every morning. Though I’m shaking my safety box by moving from the apartment I’ve known for years, I’m not afraid anymore. I’ll find a new flower guy, a different pizza parlor, and when ideas and creativity begin flooding as a result, I’ll get to work on that peace treaty.
Kristine Keller received her masters in Psychology from New York University. E-mail her at StreetshrinkNYC@Gmail.com for questions.

By Kristine Keller

New York City is chock-a-block with evanescent fads. While quinoa is the reining queen of menus from Canal Street to Meatpacking, it could be replaced tomorrow by another obscure South American grain-like substance. And though trampoline jumping was dominating gyms a few months ago, now classes like “Animal Flow” at Equinox gyms are devoted to unearthing our inner primal animals. And to match the current workout craze devoted to our primal past, dinner menus and cookbooks have caught wind of the trend and have implored us to eat like a Paleolithic caveman.
So while we’re on a current primal-instinct binge we might as well embrace the fact that several of our emotions are derived from our ancestral past too. And like hunting and gathering wild animals, some of these emotions are dangerous, ugly, and at times unpalatable. Romantic jealousy in particular is a phenomenon that that can be observed anywhere in a city where competitiveness is virtually carved into the sidewalks. If it’s true as Darwin ascertained, that advantageous traits are passed on to generations because they contain evolutionary value, then jealousy as it’s seen today should serve some purpose.
Evolutionary psychologists maintain that there are two types of jealousy: emotional and sexual. Psychological research demonstrates that while women are more inclined to feel jealous and betrayed when their significant other flirts emotionally with another, men are more prone to jealous outbursts at the threat of a sexual affair. The fact that jealousy might be different for both genders has been attributed to the differing evolutionary pressures faced in our ancestral past.
Evolutionary theorists argue that back then, in order to prolong one’s genetic line, men had to shack up with as many ladies as possible in order to maximize their chances at producing offspring. Conversely, women were most concerned with a partner who could invest time, energy, and resources in their offspring. This might be one reason today that some women are more attracted to successful and powerful men—people who possess the “provider” quality for their children.
So, while men inherited the desire for spreading their seed, they also inherited the unwanted consequence of possibly fathering several children from different women. And if a man is going to invest all he’s got in his children, he wants to be sure as hell that they belong to him. Paternity uncertainty is the prime reason attributed to the evolution of sexual jealousy—and might also be one reason a guy goes off the rails when he thinks you’ve crossed a physical boundary with your cheetah-teaching fitness instructor. And while paternity uncertainty isn’t something people are consciously concerned about, it may be a subconscious thought left over from a time when our ancestors had to worry about it most. Raising another’s child is the kiss of death to one’s genetic line and research has actually demonstrated that nearly two percent of men in the United States today are unknowingly raising another man’s child.
But while men are concerned about physical swindles, evolutionary theorists argue that women’s jealousy stems from emotional cheating. In line with the aforementioned theories, women are attracted to men who can provide for their children and provide a consistent foundation for a stable upbringing. A man who cheats emotionally with another might neglect in his commitment duties for his child and possibly put the child’s successful upbringing at risk. This is why studies maintain that women are more likely to forgive and forget a sexual affair before they would an emotional affair. You might have been fine with your boyfriend eyeing the waitress at lunch, but both feet were out the door the second he put those looks into words and started sexting her under the table.
While paleo-fad diets and ancient animalistic high-jumps might be beneficial to our health, jealousy can take its toll. Darwin might have his reasons for why you experience jealous rage, but if you can help it, check yourself before you wreck yourself. Channel your energy into examining why you’re jealous and assessing what you can do to combat the green-eyed monster. Maybe then you can improve your strength, resilience, and health without ever even signing up for an “Animal Flow” class.

By Kristine Keller

Sigmund Freud is a pervasive figure in popular culture and psychology. And although some believe his methods are antiquated or unable to be measured scientifically, there’s no denying his theories’ predominant influence on human interactions and behavior. Several years later one of Freud’s greatest contributions to the human experience has been his exploration of defense mechanisms. You can find these protective processes firing from all sidewalks in New York City, which is why they deserve an in-depth look at now.

1. Denial: Ah yes, it’s not just a body of water in Egypt. Denial is perhaps the most popular of the bunch and is used as a strategy for coping and delaying sad thoughts until you’re ready to face reality. I use this mollifying mechanism whenever one of my favorite restaurants closes up shop downtown. I still haven’t come to terms with the fact that my favorite coffee shop on Grand Street closed in November so I’ll be showing up there today.
2. Reaction formation: This is when you exhibit behavior completely opposite from the values and beliefs you actually uphold. Years ago U.S. Congressman Gary Condit vehemently advocated family values and chastised President Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky. It was later learned that Condit had been conducting an illicit affair of his own with an intern in Washington. People use this defense mechanism in order to conceal their own true desires and beliefs. Condit used reaction formation as a way of distracting others from learning about his own indiscretions. So, if you express extreme hatred towards The Vampire Diaries on the CW, I’m on to you. Chances are you’ve seen every episode.
3. Rationalization: This is where you make excuses to protect yourself from behavior deemed unacceptable. You might justify taking cabs home past 9 p.m. at night by telling yourself that the “subway is unsafe” when really you’re just too lazy to walk the extra two blocks to the F train.
4. Repression: Placing undesirable or forbidden thoughts entirely in one’s unconscious instead of confronting them. This mechanism has received the most amount of scrutiny over the years, especially in courtrooms where witnesses recount memories of a crime that they repressed or forgot, only to uncover years later. If only Freud could serve as an expert witness on this topic.
5. Regression: Reverting to earlier stages of development rather than handling misfortune or unpredictable situations like an adult. These people find it easier to reject responsibility and use childish behavior as a Peter Pan escape from reality. I’m pretty sure I saw Lindsey Lohan on Prince Street last weekend having a tantrum and sucking on a lollipop. Freud would have loved it.
6. Displacement: I witnessed this mechanism on Bowery Street last weekend. In displacement you transfer your anger or unhappiness from your original subject to someone more acceptable. I saw a dude try and cut the long line into a new night lounge only to be turned away by the brawny bouncer. Looking noticeably irate, the guy turned to his girlfriend and boiled over, erupting like Mount Vesuvius over Pompeii. His aspersions towards her were evidently his way of releasing his frustration and anger. Careful guys, unconditional love only goes so far!
7. Projection: This is when you project your own unacceptable or undesirable thoughts onto someone else. If you’ve flirted with the idea of having an affair but realize it’s wrong, you might wrongfully accuse your significant other of cheating instead. Labeling your own illicit thoughts as someone else’s, don’t you feel better now?
8. Intellectualization: When reasoning and logic are used to block out emotional or depressing thoughts. If your boyfriend has just moved out of the apartment you once shared, instead of melting into a weeping mess, you might conduct a financial analysis to prove that this is better monetarily for you in the end. You favor pragmatics in lieu of hysteria and tell yourself that you’ll actually save money since he won’t be using all of your toothpaste and Bumble & Bumble surf spray.
9. Sublimation: Turning a less acceptable pursuit into something more mainstream. If you like to cut things it might be in your best interest to become a surgeon. Just make sure you stay in the lines.
If only Freud could witness these defense mechanisms working their way through the streets of downtown New York City today.
Kristine received her Master’s in Psychology from NYU. She currently works at Vanity Fair. E-mail her at StreetshrinkNYC@gmail.com.

By Kristine Keller

Sigmund Freud is a pervasive figure in popular culture and psychology. And although some believe his methods are antiquated or unable to be measured scientifically, there’s no denying his theories’ predominant influence on human interactions and behavior. Several years later one of Freud’s greatest contributions to the human experience has been his exploration of defense mechanisms. You can find these protective processes firing from all sidewalks in New York City, which is why they deserve an in-depth look at now.

1. Denial: Ah yes, it’s not just a body of water in Egypt. Denial is perhaps the most popular of the bunch and is used as a strategy for coping and delaying sad thoughts until you’re ready to face reality. I use this mollifying mechanism whenever one of my favorite restaurants closes up shop downtown. I still haven’t come to terms with the fact that my favorite coffee shop on Grand Street closed in November so I’ll be showing up there today.
2. Reaction formation: This is when you exhibit behavior completely opposite from the values and beliefs you actually uphold. Years ago U.S. Congressman Gary Condit vehemently advocated family values and chastised President Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky. It was later learned that Condit had been conducting an illicit affair of his own with an intern in Washington. People use this defense mechanism in order to conceal their own true desires and beliefs. Condit used reaction formation as a way of distracting others from learning about his own indiscretions. So, if you express extreme hatred towards The Vampire Diaries on the CW, I’m on to you. Chances are you’ve seen every episode.
3. Rationalization: This is where you make excuses to protect yourself from behavior deemed unacceptable. You might justify taking cabs home past 9 p.m. at night by telling yourself that the “subway is unsafe” when really you’re just too lazy to walk the extra two blocks to the F train.
4. Repression: Placing undesirable or forbidden thoughts entirely in one’s unconscious instead of confronting them. This mechanism has received the most amount of scrutiny over the years, especially in courtrooms where witnesses recount memories of a crime that they repressed or forgot, only to uncover years later. If only Freud could serve as an expert witness on this topic.
5. Regression: Reverting to earlier stages of development rather than handling misfortune or unpredictable situations like an adult. These people find it easier to reject responsibility and use childish behavior as a Peter Pan escape from reality. I’m pretty sure I saw Lindsey Lohan on Prince Street last weekend having a tantrum and sucking on a lollipop. Freud would have loved it.
6. Displacement: I witnessed this mechanism on Bowery Street last weekend. In displacement you transfer your anger or unhappiness from your original subject to someone more acceptable. I saw a dude try and cut the long line into a new night lounge only to be turned away by the brawny bouncer. Looking noticeably irate, the guy turned to his girlfriend and boiled over, erupting like Mount Vesuvius over Pompeii. His aspersions towards her were evidently his way of releasing his frustration and anger. Careful guys, unconditional love only goes so far!
7. Projection: This is when you project your own unacceptable or undesirable thoughts onto someone else. If you’ve flirted with the idea of having an affair but realize it’s wrong, you might wrongfully accuse your significant other of cheating instead. Labeling your own illicit thoughts as someone else’s, don’t you feel better now?
8. Intellectualization: When reasoning and logic are used to block out emotional or depressing thoughts. If your boyfriend has just moved out of the apartment you once shared, instead of melting into a weeping mess, you might conduct a financial analysis to prove that this is better monetarily for you in the end. You favor pragmatics in lieu of hysteria and tell yourself that you’ll actually save money since he won’t be using all of your toothpaste and Bumble & Bumble surf spray.
9. Sublimation: Turning a less acceptable pursuit into something more mainstream. If you like to cut things it might be in your best interest to become a surgeon. Just make sure you stay in the lines.
If only Freud could witness these defense mechanisms working their way through the streets of downtown New York City today.
Kristine received her Master’s in Psychology from NYU. She currently works at Vanity Fair. E-mail her at StreetshrinkNYC@gmail.com.

By Kristine Keller

Downtown dating is like the root canal process—painful while you’re going through it but the end result leaves your sensory nerves feelin’ good. And sadly, there’s no quickie fix for that painful pearly white procedure. There is, on the other hand, a fast way to land suitors in the date-o-sphere, which is why a bevy of singletons have discovered the allure of speed dating. Like most first conversations, speed daters might ask “so, what do you value most in a relationship?” to which a secure person might respond “honesty and loyalty.” There are those who take a different approach in their answer: “I value a partner who calls and texts 20 times a day, Instagrams a picture of me and my dog in the morning, faxes me at night, and pins my face all over his Pinterest in the afternoon.” Reeling from that, the person sitting across might then snap fast and yell “NEXT!”

During a recent speed dating exercise, psychologists noted that a process known as attachment could explain interactions of this sort. Attachment theory maintains that a relationship with one’s caregiver early on in life largely determines one’s social and developmental upbringing. Those raised in reliably nurturing environments with caregivers who responded to their every need grow up “securely attached.” When these infants were hungry, they were fed; when they cried, they were shown consistent care and attention. As a byproduct, these infants grew into secure and trusting adults. The kind of adult you want sitting across from you during a lighting fire round of “How many times do you expect your boyfriend or girlfriend to call you in a day?”

Those raised under the roof of unpredictable caregivers who exhibited inconsistent care might become “anxious-ambivalent attached” adults. These children came from caregivers who were at times interested and warm, but then unavailable and distant. We have these unpredictable caregivers to blame for the stage-five clinger. Anxious-ambivalent adults are excessively needy, clingy, and constantly need validation and approval from others. They also demand constant communication with their honey for fear of abandonment—and aren’t afraid to be upfront about it during first rounds of speed dating.

Lastly, there’s the “avoidant attached” person, whose caregiver rarely responded to their distressed calls and ignored their needs entirely as infants. It’s the avoidant adult who eschews intimacy entirely due to failing to form an emotional bond with one’s caregiver early in life. It’s also the avoidant-attached person who is at risk for developing severe interpersonal problems, like lack of empathy, callous, unemotional responses and other psychopathic symptoms. A caregiver’s sensitive and responsive nature towards children serves as a model for empathy in a healthy reciprocal relationship. Without this model, children who didn’t form a secure attachment with their caregiver fail to develop the skills for a healthy functioning relationship. This person might be cold and aloof at a speed-dating jaunt having only shown up at the coercive prodding of pushy friends.

When it comes to these speed-dating soirees, NYC daters are quite savvy and intuitive when making judgment calls. Those deemed “securely” attached adults by psychologists were more favorably rated by potential suitors. Unsurprisingly, those categorized as insecurely attached were given poorer marks. The good news is that these styles of attachment can change depending on our interpersonal experiences in life. Just as a bad breakup might make a securely attached dater turn anxious-ambivalent, a positive experience could turn an avoidant-adult into a diehard romantic. And lucky for us—it’s easier to change an insecure style into one that’s secure than vice-versa. So daters of every attached-type, take heart—we’re never done evolving and changing. And eventually one of these quickie-dating episodes will blossom into a longer-term affair and if anything, that’s something everyone can feel security from.

Kristine received her master’s in psychology from NYU. She currently works at Vanity Fair. E-mail her at StreetShrinkNYC@gmail.com for questions.

By Kristine Keller

There are times when you’re playing back a situation in your mind and a split screen appears. On one side of the screen there’s reality—the version of events that actually happened. But it’s the second screen we zero in on in high-definition, with surround sound and unequivocal certainty— the twisted version of reality. When the aloof waitress pours your coffee only halfway and then throws your check on the table with steely eyes, you’re convinced she’s a moody person all the time. Or when your loved one comes home and offers a curt “hi” before shutting himself away, you think he’s mad at you.

It’s easy to delve into the muddled inner corridors of our minds and jump to irrational conclusions. Our brains have innumerable associations to make every day at extraordinary energetic costs. We find ways to maximize our cerebral energy, and sometimes the result is making hasty judgments and associations. Sometimes these quick associations are helpful—there’s no need to re-evaluate your stance on Chris Brown (blech) or Beyoncé (goddess)—but when doing so, we must aim for being a truthful and insightful observer of others’ behaviors, rather than misrepresenting actions that falsify reality.

The most prominent exaggerated thoughts can make us irrational, illogical creatures, one snapchat away from sending our best friend a selfie sad face. This past weekend, these fallacious thoughts took the cerebral stage when I offered to dispense advice to a friend trapped in text banter purgatory. “She doesn’t like me anymore,” he moaned. “Her replies went from sexy paragraphs to the equivalent of a verbal lobotomy.” I rolled up my sleeves and consoled him: “Maybe she lost her job this week. Maybe she’s got a thorny family problem. You don’t know what kind of cross she’s bearing right now.”

I’ve been on that sinking armchair before, and this propitiating advice is unsatisfying or ignored 90 percent of the time. My friend committed a common cognitive distortion known as the Fundamental Attribution Error. This is the tendency for us to attribute internal, intrinsic motivations to the behaviors of others, while minimizing the impact of external situations. These situations may be unpredictable and leave us, at best, a little snippy, and at worst, on the floor in shambles, foaming at the mouth with tequila and chipotle. In tandem, we’re prone to personalizing these situations and led to thinking their acts are a direct reflection of how other people feel about us.

After erroneously underestimating the impact of external situations, your mind might amble to a related cognitive distortion, all-or-nothing thinking, which goes something like this: He didn’t text me back, and it’s been two hours, so he’s never going to text me again and this will always happen in my life. Before you weep into your hands and curse the sky, relax. Turns out, his dad was just kidnapped on the L train by a belligerent goon on the lam. Your sometimes-boy has got bigger fish to fry, so you have to cut him some slack for his lack of emoji-cyber reciprocation. The “never” and “always” extreme labels that we generalize from one situation leave us unable to see anything in shades of gray.

When trying to decipher the veracity behind others’ actions, we only have the information presented before us, especially when evaluating the actions of strangers. But in focusing solely on internal characteristics to make sense of brusque behavior or confusing commentary, we often deceive ourselves. We can remedy this by engaging in mindful empathy, and imagining the manifold reasons that could have contributed to someone’s ill-perceived behavior. Taking a second to think about the kind of day your waitress or loved one had before personalizing actions can keep these distortions in check and our negative conclusions to a minimum. Maybe then we can merge our split screens into one and have a better viewing experience all around.

by Kristine Keller

These days, when a flame sputters and fades out, we’ve got an armful of friends ready to peel us off the floor with the margarita blender, limes and coconuts. You’ll do the proverbial dance around the blender while Jose Cuervo wafts through the air and spend the night yelling aspersions aimed at the opposite sex. Your army of comforting friends succors you with “you deserve better!” and “you do you tonight!” over the humming of the blender. You then delete said flame from your phone, take down the pictures of the two of you basking in La Esquina Park last summer and do your best to forget. But just when you think your heart can’t break into any more pieces, another memory seeps through and you grab your chest in disbelief that it’s happening again. Another perilous pang from the omnipotent organ that oxygenates us, protects us and makes us feel alive and in ruin at the same time.

For most of us, situations like this are fleeting. Most make a full recovery from those stumbles in the capricious dance of love and life, but for 5 percent of the population affected by a condition called limerence, heartbreak feels like an indefinite December night pierced by the strings of Joni Mitchell’s Blue album. Psychologists characterize this unique ailment as an involuntary and incessant state of compulsory and unrequited longing for another person. Usually both parties remain dejected for a period of time after a flame-out, but when one half of the couple moves on and the other remains in a state of constant longing and obsessive thoughts and feelings, limerence has the ability to take a serious toll on one’s already heavy heart.

During one’s initial descent into attraction, it’s healthy and quite fun to feel life’s natural euphoric high and the ascent of pleasure-activating hormones like dopamine and oxytocin. You’ll nod and smile while friends tell stories about their day, while the only thing you can think about is his mouth on yours or her bare back in your bed. You’ll shrug off the busy deadlines or running late to the subway only to find the doors shut in your face; these annoyances don’t matter when you’ve got someone waiting for you at the end of the day. Naturally, you want these honeymoon feelings to last forever, but for our productivity and sanity, we actually need these reward-seeking hormones to dissipate. And thankfully they do, after six to twenty-four months.

For those who suffer from limerence, however, these intense feelings never ebb. They say absence makes the heart grow fonder. But what these universal idioms surrounding love neglect to mention is what can happen when separation causes one’s heart to desire too much. Patients who suffer from limerence describe their thoughts and feelings as obsessive and compulsive; it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, then, that one of the only medications to treat those suffering from limerence, Lexapro, is the same one used to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder. Lexapro, a type of antidepressant, thaws the part of the brain that is responsible for the obsessive thoughts. Patients report difficulty concentrating, constant rehearsal and replay of shared interactions, and loss of control over one’s actions.

Although research on this condition is nascent, medication and cognitive behavioral therapy are providing promising results. Leading experts on limerence suggest that patients don’t ever forget the breakup entirely, but that if taken care of properly, symptoms can decrease after a few years. But, future empirical research and brain-imaging techniques are currently under way to yield a more comprehensive understanding of this evolving condition. What we do know is that a bad breakup or unrequited love can trigger the onset and that it can happen to anyone—limerent individuals can be found in all age groups, both genders and the full range of socioeconomic classes. So, if all it takes is a chant to “put the lime in the coconut” to get you over your heartbreak hump, then you’ve found your silver lining, and it’s looking more like a bubbling gold on the rocks.

Kristine received her master’s in psychology from NYU. She currently works at Vanity Fair. E-mail her at StreetshrinkNYC@gmail.com for questions.

Kristine Keller

I know life has its challenges. There’s malaria and questionable funds in the Cayman Islands—and I care about those things. I wouldn’t watch Kimmel’s opening monologues if I didn’t. But sometimes, anxiety levels skyrocket when thinking about the equipment needed for navigating the winding roads of “mid-twenties-hood.” This decade is notable. And I think it’s worthy of a hood like other respectable periods, places and people in life: childhood, neighborhood … I might be running out of … wait no … Robinhood!  I’m not the only one thinking the twentysomething phase deserves its own category; current pop culture and literature are saturated with the travails of the Millennials. We’re living at home longer, we’re needy, and we’re making HBO shows using only one gender name but targeted toward both dudes and chicks. Are you with me?

I’m only a little way into this period, yet my latest fortune cookie averred that age is only a number, and I can’t help but fall short of the optimism inscribed on the white slip of paper. And so I will use it for my gum.

But, while my gum sleeps snugly, I will also think about the meaning behind this proverb. Is age only a number? Because it feels more like a responsibility; each year brings new expectations. This includes a palate that can’t say no to fancy food like squab and becoming a polyglot without the luxury of traveling the world. Learning Spanish from Bloomberg’s speeches will have to suffice for now. What happens at the midway mark that separates us from our earlier years?

After pomp and circumstance, flocks of graduates migrate across the map and goals quickly diverge. But while it’s acceptable to dally with multiple jobs, lovers and apartments earlier, something happens in the mid-twenties. The conversations transgress into the meta questions. Where is your life headed? Don’t you want to be married soon? Circadian rhythms and biological clocks. Tick-tock, tick-tock. The barrage of questions loom over me. I keep them at bay with affirmations such as “I’m taking it day by day” or “I’m enjoying dating,” but that makes me seem like I’m a whimsical vagrant with a pixie haircut and power-bead bracelets from a Cameron Crowe film.

I’ve been spending my time thus far looking for that force to grab me like Newton’s first Law of Motion: An object will stay in motion, traveling in a straight line, forever, until something stops it. Where am I most likely to meet the force that will lead me to my fate? Do I veer right or switch gears left?

But, in the course of time I’ve pondered these questions, I’ve realized the time squandered on age dysphoria. The unnecessary worry and concern about the future. Existentialists argue that part of the human condition is a combination of exhilaration and terror. But if we can channel that terror into experiences that challenge us, we can enhance our mental equipment for the drive. And instead of trying to find meaning behind two prime numbers placed in close proximity, we should be creating meaning with the people closest to us. Part of building that significance begins with focusing on here, now and what’s in front of us. In fact, research conducted by Stanford University psychologists has found that inducing awe and living in the present can expand our perception of time. Believing that time is infinite and taking moments from each day to realize life’s beauties and wonders enhances altruism, mental health and our productivity.

If it’s true, as past philosophers like John Locke have promulgated, that we are born with a blank slate and learn by experiences, then it’s imperative we focus on living in the moment and creating those awe-inducing encounters. Jump off a cliff that isn’t fiscal. Dance at the Bowery Ballroom on a Tuesday. Believe your fortune cookies. Is there something you’ve been wanting to do? Defy Newton’s laws. Don’t wait for the force to find you.

Kristine received her master’s in
psychology from New York University.
She currently works at Vanity Fair.