from the world's big
Why it’s so hard to stop obsessing about things — and what to do about it
Try not to think about your hands. Now enjoy a few minutes of not being able to stop thinking about them.
- The "white bear problem" describes that situation in which we can't stop thinking about something no matter how hard we try.
- Your mental process at such times pits two parts of your brain against each other.
- Research support a few ways to exit this maddening hamster wheel.
It's four hours before you need to get up, and the dog barks at a squirrel outside the window. Down goes the blind, back to sleep goes the dog, but there you lie, sleepless, your wheels spinning madly, obsessing over that thing. You simply can't stop thinking about it, and you need to sleep.
How can you ever get back to the sleep you so badly need? You could try to work out why your brain won't cut you a break here — you could think about the "white bear problem" or "ironic processing theory."
The white bear problem
Just an innocent child, staring you down. Image source: Eric Isselee / Shutterstock
It can be really hard to deliberately not think about something. Back in 1863, in his essay "Winter Notes on Summer Impressions," Dostoevsky first posed a challenge: Try not to think of a white polar bear. Go ahead. Try it if you like.
Harvard psychologist Daniel Wegner later came across the passage and became intrigued by how hard it was to block out his own white-bear thoughts. Speaking at the 2011 American Psychological Association's (APA) annual convention he recalled, "I was really taken with it. It seemed so true." In 1987, Dr. Wegner published the results of his scientific investigation into the problem in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 53, No. 1). His experiment was pretty simple, and the outcome odd.
Wegner asked one group of subjects to continuously describe their stream of consciousness out loud while thinking of a white polar bear over a period of five minutes. Each time they succeeded, they were instructed to ring a bell.
With a second group, the instructions were the same, but with one key difference: They were instructed not to think of a white polar bear. They couldn't help themselves, and they rang their bells on an average of more than once each minute.
Finally, Wegner asked that second group to repeat the experiment while deliberately thinking of the polar bear. It turns out they rang their bells even more than the first group who had been told to think about the bear right from the start.
Wegner's takeaway was that trying not to think of a white polar bear ironically made it only more likely that you couldn't get one out of your mind.
The ironic process theory
Over the next decade Wegner conducted additional research regarding why this phenomenon occurs. He saw evidence that while one part of the brain is obediently shutting out thoughts of a white bear, another part, "helpfully" checks in periodically to make sure you're being successful, reminding you of the white bear all over again. Wegner wryly named this the "ironic process," and it's certainly not an example of our brain at its finest.
Banishing your white bear
Image source: Robert Mcgillivray / Shutterstock
There are a few different methods that have been proposed for getting an obsessive thought out of your head.
At his APA talk, Wegner suggested:
- Re-aim your mental focus on something else that interests you to take your mind off the white bear. Wegner found this even worked when subjects simply replaced the bear with a red Volkswagen. Of course, getting the car out of their heads…
- Assign another time to think about the topic. Wegner said that some people find it useful to set aside specific times, maybe an hour each day, for thinking through their personal white bears. The idea is to allow yourself to defer the obsession to a more convenient time and get it out of your way for now.
- Cut back on multitasking. Apparently people whose brains are regularly overtaxed tend to drift to thoughts of death more often, one of the classic and most insidious white bears.
- Exposure. Taking a cue from Wegner's' first study, allot yourself a little bit of time to obsess to keep the topic from popping back into your head even more frequently. Basically, you're letting a little steam out of that mental pressure cooker you feel like you're stuck in.
- Meditation and mindfulness. Both of these practices can enhance your mental-control abilities and may strengthen your ability to stop that wheel spinning when you need to.
- Engage in an activity on a different emotional frequency. Try doing or thinking of something that changes your mood in a positive way to essentially change the emotional channel.
- Write down all the reasons why what you fear will not happen. So many of our obsessive thoughts are worries, and yet, most of the things we worry about never end up happening. It may help to remind yourself that just because you can realistically imagine something bad happening doesn't mean that it will. A list like this can help you talk yourself back down off the ledge.
- Write down all the reasons why even if the worst-case scenario did happen, you would still be okay. Odds are you've gotten through plenty of tough situations already and are more skilled at surviving or overcoming them than you give yourself credit for. This could be a good time to remind yourself of how you'd deal with that outcome you fear, to make it less overwhelming.
- Create an action-oriented, solution-focused re-frame. Vilhauer suggests constructing a new internal description of your white bear that's structured as a problem/solution puzzle. This can defuse the anxiety that's got your mind racing. Three steps can get you there:
- What do I believe this situation means for me? Catalogue specifically those things that are actually at risk as a result of that thing you're obsessing about.
- What do I want to happen? Imagine yourself coming out the other side of this problem. If you view the problem as an opportunity, where would you like to find yourself?
- What can I do that is likely to bring that about? Okay, what would it take to get to your desired outcome? Time to make a plan.
Join Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and best-selling author Charles Duhigg as he interviews Victoria Montgomery Brown, co-founder and CEO of Big Think, live at 1pm EDT tomorrow.
A physics paper proposes neither you nor the world around you are real.
- A new hypothesis says the universe self-simulates itself in a "strange loop".
- A paper from the Quantum Gravity Research institute proposes there is an underlying panconsciousness.
- The work looks to unify insight from quantum mechanics with a non-materialistic perspective.
More on the hypothesis and the backstory of the Quantum Gravity Research institute —<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3d6209cb3564afd37b078404e383a2a2"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xWEErQ_LNXY?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Reaching beyond the stereotypes of meditation and embracing the science of mindfulness.
- There are a lot of misconceptions when it comes to what mindfulness is and what meditation can do for those who practice it. In this video, professors, neuroscientists, psychologists, composers, authors, and a former Buddhist monk share their experiences, explain the science behind meditation, and discuss the benefits of learning to be in the moment.
- "Mindfulness allows us to shift our relationship to our experience," explains psychologist Daniel Goleman. The science shows that long-term meditators have higher levels of gamma waves in their brains even when they are not meditating. The effect of this altered response is yet unknown, though it shows that there are lasting cognitive effects.
- "I think we're looking at meditation as the next big public health revolution," says ABC News anchor Dan Harris. "Meditation is going to join the pantheon of no-brainers like exercise, brushing your teeth and taking the meds that your doctor prescribes to you." Closing out the video is a guided meditation experience led by author Damien Echols that can be practiced anywhere and repeated as many times as you'd like.
A study looks at the performance benefits delivered by asthma drugs when they're taken by athletes who don't have asthma.
- One on hand, the most common health condition among Olympic athletes is asthma. On the other, asthmatic athletes regularly outperform their non-asthmatic counterparts.
- A new study assesses the performance-enhancement effects of asthma medication for non-asthmatics.
- The analysis looks at the effects of both allowed and banned asthma medications.
WADA uncertainty<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUzNzU0OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMDc4NjUwN30.fFTvRR0yJDLtFhaYiixh5Fa7NK1t1T4CzUM0Yh6KYiA/img.jpg?width=980" id="01b1b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2fd91a47d91e4d5083449b258a2fd63f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="urine sample for drug test" />
Image source: joel bubble ben/Shutterstock<p>When inhaled β-agonists first came out just before the 1972 Olympics, they were immediately banned altogether by the WADA as possible doping substances. Over the years, the WADA has reexamined their use and refined the organization's stance, evidence of the thorniness of finding an equitable position regarding their use. As of January 2020, only three β-agonists are allowed — salbutamol, formoterol, and salmeterol —and only in inhaled form. Oral consumption appears to have a greater effect on performance.</p>
The study<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUzNzU0Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MTIzMDQyMX0.Gk4v-7PCA7NohvJjw12L15p7SumPCY0tLdsSlMrLlGs/img.jpg?width=980" id="d3141" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ebe7b30a315aeffcb4fe739095cf0767" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="runner at starting position on track" />
Image source: MinDof/Shutterstock<p>Of primary interest to the authors of the study is confirming and measuring the performance improvement to be gained from β-agonists when they're ingested by athletes who don't have asthma.</p><p>The researchers performed a meta-analysis of 34 existing studies documenting 44 randomized trials reporting on 472 participants. The pool of individuals included was broad, encompassing both untrained and elite athletes. In addition, lab tests, as opposed to actual competitions, tracked performance. The authors of the study therefore recommend taking its conclusions with just a grain of salt.</p><p>The effects of both WADA-banned and approved β-agonists were assessed.</p>
Approved β-agonists and non-asthmatic athletes<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUzNzU1MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMzkxODk0M30.3RssFwk_tWkHRkEl_tIee02rdq2tLuAePifnngqcIr8/img.jpg?width=980" id="39a99" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b1fe4a580c6d4f8a0fd021d7d6570e2a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="vaulter clearing pole" />
Image source: Andrey Yurlov/Shutterstock<p>What the meta-analysis showed is that the currently approved β-agonists didn't significantly improve athletic performance among those without asthma — what very slight benefit they <em>may</em> produce is just enough to prompt the study's authors to write that "it is still uncertain whether approved doses improve anaerobic performance." They note that the tiny effect did increase slightly over multiple weeks of β-agonist intake.</p>
Banned β-agonist and non-asthmatic athletes<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUzNzU1Mi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNjI3ODU5Mn0.vyoxSE5EYjPGc2ZEbBN8d5F79nSEIiC6TUzTt0ycVqc/img.jpg?width=980" id="de095" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="02fdd42dfda8e3665a7b547bb88007ef" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="swimmer mid stroke" />
Image source: Nejron Photo/Shutterstock<p>The study found that for athletes without asthma, however, the use of currently banned β-agonists did indeed result in enhanced performance. The authors write, "Our meta-analysis shows that β2-agonists improve anaerobic performance by 5%, an improvement that would change the outcome of most athletic competitions."</p><p>That 5 percent is an average: 70-meter sprint performance was improved by 3 percent, while strength performance, MVC (maximal voluntary contraction), was improved by 6 percent.</p><p>The analysis also revealed that different results were produced by different methods of ingestion. The percentages cited above were seen when a β-agonist was ingested orally. The effect was less pronounced when the banned substances were inhaled.</p><p>Given the difference between the results for allowed and banned β-agonists, the study's conclusions suggest that the WADA has it about right, at least in terms of selection of allowable β-agonists, as well as the allowable dosage method.</p>