Thinking Clearly About Religion & Politics

When it comes to hot topics that are emotionally volatile, it is almost impossible to think clearly about them. We are prone to so many biases that I have come to think that the more certain someone is about their position, the more likely it is that they don’t know what they are talking about. I am not the first to make this observation though, Bertrand Russell said “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” Charles Darwin also observed that “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”

I first realized this several years ago when I was asked to be the “token skeptic” on an evangelical Christian radio show out of San Diego. Very quickly, it became quite clear to me that the host knew one side of an argument, and had absolutely no idea what he was talking about regarding the other side. What bothered me so much about this was his certainty. He was absolutely 100% convinced he was right, and completely closed off to reconsidering that he might not be familiar enough with the relevant topics to make an informed decision.

Of course, I was convinced of the truth of other side of the argument. However, I couldn’t even imagine being so certain. In my mind, when thinking about my positions, I used words such as “likely”, “probable” and “suggested” and I would always try to have an example of something that, if true, could disprove my position. The host, on the other hand, spoke in terms of absolute certainty, and acted as if the fact that nothing could change his mind was evidence of how true his position was. It was then that I decided to NEVER let myself be so certain about something.

The theory of cognitive dissonance says that when there are contradicting ideas in our head, or if our behavior disagrees with our actions, we will rationalize it away as to no longer experience the dissonance. For example, the more work you put into something, the harder it is to admit that you might have made a mistake. “I have devoted my life to this… there is no way I could be wrong! My colleagues are just idiots.” Science is aware of this problem, and that is the reason there are things such as peer review, and the emphasis on independent replication of studies. Even movies do this to a small extent. The editor of a movie doesn't (ideally) have ANY part of the production aspect of the movie. He needs to be completely removed from the work that went into filming, in order to make the best decisions while editing. If the director is editing, he might see a shot and say “Ah! We spent 10 hours setting up that shot… we HAVE to use it”, even if it isn’t the best available option. The editor won’t be prone to those biases.

Now, you might be thinking “Sure, Zak. Some people are like that. But I know both sides of political/religious/etc. debates, and my opinions are firmly planted in reality.” Well, maybe. Let’s look at a relevant study:

A study by Geoffrey Cohen found that people would agree with a political policy, as long as they thought that it was their political party proposing it. For example, Cohen took a policy regarding welfare that was proposed by a republican, and presented it to a group of democrats. He told the democrats that the policy was proposed by a democratic leader, and asked if they agreed with it. Yep, they did. He then took a welfare policy proposed by a democrat, and presented it to a group of republicans, telling them it was from a republican leader. Did they agree with it? Absolutely.

But it gets better. Both groups stated that they would NEVER be influenced to agree with a policy, simply because their party was proposing it. Of course, they didn’t realize it at the time, but they had done just that. They did agree, however, that the OTHER party surely would be influenced by such tricks.

What this study (as well as others like it) shows us, is that our opinions of political policies have very little to do with the actual policy, but are mostly just a result of social identity. You are part of party X, so you agree with whatever they say… unless of course that same thing was said party Y. THEN you are against it.

Here is a real life example. Democrats agree with Obama, no surprise. However when Reagan says the same thing, with Republicans agree with him. There is little doubt that those same Republicans disagree with the Obama's similar statements, simply because he is Obama. How is this possible? Social identity.

Lastly, a 2004 study placed “strong democrats" and “strong republicans" in a brain scanner while they listened to speeches by president Bush and presidential candidate John Kerry. Both groups listened to instances where the candidates clearly contradicted themselves. The democrats would blame Bush for the contradictions, but let Kerry off the hook with some mental gymnastics. The republicans did the same thing. What was most interesting though, were the processes going on in the brain at the time. The researcher concluded, “We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning. What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts. Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones.”

Do you hold the positions you hold because you have thought them through, or because they feel good? According to the study, the answer is the later. You agree with a position for emotional reasons and THEN come up with reasons to support your stance.

So what now? Are we just to fall back into a sea of postmodern relativism where there is no truth, and there is no way to go about making decisions, since we are too overwhelmed with bias? Absolutely not. What needs to happen is for people to be aware of these biases and act accordingly to try and circumvent them. Here are some tips on how I think one should go about it.

1. Whenever you hear a politician from the other party say something that you don’t like, stop for a second. Imagine your reaction to it if it had been stated by your favorite politician, and think about how you would feel about it (and vice versa-- do this if your favorite politician says something you like). I have used this tactic for several years, and it is amazing to see just how biased I really am when it comes to who says what. But this technique has also helped me define where exactly I stand on what issues.
   
2. Realize where the biases in the media are. Research has shown that the most left of center news outlet is the CBS Evening News, while the most right of center is Fox. The three most neutral outlets were PBS’s NewsHour, CNN’s NewsNight and ABC’s Good Morning America. However, the most politically central news source of all was found to be USA Today. If watching the news, try and find a balance and take everything from the CBS Evening News and Fox with a grain of salt. Or, do as I do, and don’t even bother with them to begin with!
3. Make an effort to understand and fairly represent the other side’s position. The mathematical psychologist, Anatol Rapoport, said that when it comes to criticizing your opponent, you need to be able to restate their position so clearly, vividly and fairly, that your opponent would absolutely agree with it, and would even thank you for stating the position so well. Once you have done this, only then will your criticisms be valid. So when thinking about how foolish the other side's position is, ask yourself "if I were to describe my understanding of the other groups position to them, would they agree with my assessment?" If the answer is no, you are biased, and need to rethink your position more carefully.
   
4. Avoid organizations, clubs or groups that are solely dedicated to a political or religious idea. Nothing breeds biases more than being surrounded by people who already agree with you, will pat you on the back for slamming the other side, who won’t offer you any criticisms, and will reward you for continuing to believe what everyone else already believes. Of course, I realize that this is basically saying “if you want to be an unbiased religious believer, stop going to church.” And I stand by that. Likewise, I avoid any atheist or skeptic groups, since I have learned that they don’t help me think better, but only serve to reinforce beliefs I already have-- even if they are wrong. Ask yourself, “What is more important, fooling yourself into thinking you are right, or actually being right?” Being objective is hard, and very few people care much about it.
5. Have friends on the other side of the fence, be it political or religious. It is easy to get caught up and think that “all democrats are idiots” or “all republicans are greedy.” We slip into these “us versus them” mindsets extremely easily, and it’s important to realize that people on the other side are just as convinced of their position that you are. It is also important to have an actual face with the position you are against, as not to make the other side out into some abstract villain.

Of course, I don’t mean to come across as some perfectly rational machine. I surely am not. However, I am very interested in learning what biases effect people, and I realize that I am just as susceptible to them as everyone else. Though, knowing these biases exist absolutely helps me fight against them, in an attempt to be just a little more rational. To quote GI Joe, “knowing is half the battle.” The other half is putting that knowledge into practice.

Good luck!

A History of Ridiculous Ideas: Aliens!

People often tease me because I always seem to come up with ridiculous theories to explain all sorts of random stuff (like why guys are jerks and girls are stupid). However, this tendency is not new. Ever since I was a little kid, I would always think of crazy ways to explain the world, or come up with ideas that seemed quite logical at the time, only to be quite absurd. This is one of those ideas...

---

For the majority of my life, I was terrified of being abducted by aliens. It seems that when people have a fear about something, they tend to either obsess over it, or make every effort to avoid anything associated with it. As for myself, I fell into the former group—I was basically obsessed. All I would read were books about aliens, UFOs and the paranormal. I would watch everything I could find about aliens, and the best thing about staying in a hotel was that I could watch the Discovery Channel, which always had something about aliens and UFOs.

Sometime in middle school, I came up with a theory of what aliens were all about and what was going on. Basically, aliens were just humans from the future, coming back to study us. They were probably anthropologists or something. Anyway, the reason that the aliens had overly large heads, and huge eyes was because that was not the actual head of the alien, but was their helmet. And their large eyes were not actually eyes, but were just the eye lenses in the helmet. They were large to help accommodate peripheral vision. And aliens dressed all the same simply because that was their space suit.

As for the idea of aliens not being able to visit earth because the vast distances of space were too large, I agree that that was probably true. But if these aliens were actually just humans from the future, they weren’t traveling and large distances—they were only traveling through time. This also explained why the alien space ships seemed to shoot off and then disappear. It was just like on Back to the Future, the time machine would hit 88 mph, then BAM, it vanishes!

As for why they were coming and abducting people… well, whenever we study any animal, we don’t really tend to sympathize with it too much. Think of apes, we just snatch them from the jungle, put them in a box and ship them away. Likewise with the future humans, they are so far removed from us, that they don’t feel any kinship with us, so they treat us like we treat animals.

And with that, my “theory” explained everything (as far as I could tell) and solved all the problems with the idea of beings from another galaxy coming to visit us. However, as it turns out, these ideas turned out not to be all that original. I watched “Fire in the Sky” while in college, and saw that the idea of the stereotypical alien “look” (big heads, big eyes) being a result of their space suits had already been thought of. And I am sure the whole “time traveling human from the future” isn’t original idea. But hey, I was only a middle schooler. Gimme a break!

Emotional Cues and Subconscious Memories

For about three years in a row, whenever February 20^th would approach, I would get depressed. The first year it was for an obvious reason—it had been a year since Amy and I broke up. The second year I got depressed, not as much, but knew exactly why. By the third year, I had totally forgotten about the date. However, part of my brain still remembered. At the time, I was living in Putney, and I had driven up to Poultney to hang out with my friend Jenny Lee. I remember driving up there, and just feeling bummed. I was like “wtf is wrong with me?” I had no idea, but I just couldn’t shake it.

Later in the evening, it hit me. It was Feb 20^th! I had forgotten, but somewhere deep in my brain, some part of me remembered, and got bummed out about it. So crazy that that can happen!

Likewise, the past week or so, I have been craving Papa Franks (a BOMB Italian place near my house in Burlington). I didn’t really put any thought into why I was thinking about it though. As far as I was concerned, it was just a random thought, missing amazing food. However, I was thinking about it the other night, and having VERY vivid memories of what it felt like in the restaurant: warm, humid, cozy. I remembered what the bread tasted like with a lot of detail. The only thought I gave this was “wow, interesting how strong that memory is!”

However, about this time last year, I had some very emotionally sharp events take place. After just starting to get settled in and feel good about living in Burlington, having a job I liked, and a few good friends, I got laid off. Devastation! That same day, I met Jacquie. Elation! All the while, I continued to go to Papa Franks probably once a week.

The past week or so, I have been thinking about how it is amazing that it has almost been a year since I left Vermont. It’s amazing how time flies! I remember the details of my house so clearly: what it was like to lie in my bed, what the window sills felt like, what it sounded like walking down the stairs, etc. I have also been thinking about how it’s so odd that I have only known Jacquie for a year. I remember after just hanging out for a week or so, thinking that I felt like I had known her forever-- A very odd feeling to feel.

Anyway, with all these strong emotional events taking place, the experience of Papa Franks got added to the mix. And so, while I remembered these emotional events quite clearly, since they were important aspects to my life, I didn’t consider that other aspects of my life at that time could have gotten caught up in the mix. They did, and here they are.

Apparently, the reason that I have been thinking so much about Papa Franks chicken parm and French bread is because its memory is so closely tied with other emotionally salient events of the time.

The lesson here seems to be that when you are going through something emotional, your brain will often also grab onto other somewhat insignificant events. Those insignificant events then get laced with that same emotional charge, and will bubble up with all the other stuff. Pretty crazy! Though, it’s not surprising, since your brain does things like this all the time, grouping a strong experience with something often insignificant (learned taste aversion, for example). So I have been thinking about Papa Franks for the same reason that I was depressed on the anniversary of my break up with Amy—it was connected with the memory of relevant events a year prior.

*I realize that this isn’t all that impressive or insightful, but I find it interesting, regardless. I also should point out that this is based on complete speculation!

How To Ask A Girl On A Date

Both guys and girls complain about the opposite sex. If you are a girl, guys are dumb jerks. If you are a guy, girls are heartless and confusing. Both sides have valid reasons for thinking such things, and I am sure we have all done something that the opposite sex considered mean, etc.

These problems, I believe, stem from both a lack of communication, as well as a lack of understanding about how the opposite sex thinks. I have touched on this before, and I think it is a result of what I call the Different Minds Fallacy and Motivation Attribution Bias. These fallacies pop up even from the very beginning, when a guy asks a girl on a date. And that is what I want to discuss: what both sexes are going through and thinking when asking/getting asked out on a date.

Here is the classic problem: A guy meets a cute girl, asks her out, the girl says that sounds great, they go out and then the girl doesn’t seem interested at all. The guy is very confused, and the girl feels a little mislead. Why?

Here is why. Guys are often sissies. It is scary to ask a girl out on a date. So, in order to make it not as scary, the guy won’t ask the girl on a date. Instead he asks her if she wants to “hang out” sometime. This is a less scary thing to ask, since it doesn’t imply romance. The girl, however, hears just what the guy says. “Sure” she says, “I would love to hang out.” And she would--she would love to HANG out.

The guy then says he will pick her up and they can go get dinner. “Great” says the girl. So the guy picks her up, and things then seem odd. He opens the car door, he pays for dinner, etc. Meanwhile, the girl is thinking “WTF? Is this a date!?” At the end of the night, when the guy is hoping to kiss her, she just says thanks and hops out of the car. The guy is confused. “We had such a nice time. Why would she agree to go out with me if she wasn’t interested?” The girl is also confused, “Why did he try to make this into a date when he just wanted to hang out?”

It is ironic that girls are so often accused of reading into things, and making guys interpret what they say. Yet, when it comes to dates, guys will expect girls to know that “hang out” actually means “go on a date.”

This comes back to the motivation attribution bias. Guys generally can’t imagine hanging out with a girl just as friends. If there is any hanging out, it will be with a romantic undertone. Girls, on the other hand, don’t think like that. But guys don’t realize that girls don’t think like that, so there is this miscommunication. To guys, “hanging out” with a girl means something like a date, but to a girl, hanging out means exactly that.

Amid all this confusion, what can we do to help people out? Well, first of all, guys need to grow a pair, resist the urge to ask girls to “hang out” and ask them on a proper date. I know, it’s scary, but it is way better to have a girl say “no thanks” to going out on an actual date, than to have her say yes to what you think is a date, and then get disappointed.

Likewise, girls need to realize something. GUYS DO NOT WANT TO BE YOUR FRIEND!! I cannot emphasize this enough. If a guy wants to hang out with you in any capacity, it is because he is interested in you! ZERO EXCEPTIONS!! A guy who asks you to hang out does not want to just hang out and be buddies. He is just too nervous to ask you on a date. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard “there is this guy that always wants to hang out… do you think he likes me?” The answer is, and always is YES. It has NEVER been the case that the guy just wanted to be friends. Never.

If you are a girl and find yourself in this position (a guy asks you to hang out), you have two options. You can essentially say yes or no. If you say yes, he thinks it’s a date, so you better act appropriately. If you think the guy is nice, but you aren’t interested in going on a date with him, you have the option of saying no. Of course, girls often feel like this is mean and don’t like doing it. I will cover more on that in a minute, but in the meantime, here is some advice to help you out. This works well if the guy asks you to hang out, or even if he actually asks you out on a date. When a guy asks you to do something… all you have to say is “Sure! I love friend dates.” Done. It’s over. This guy doesn’t want a friend date. He wants a date date. He will probably feign his excitement at this point, saying he will get in contact with you later to set up said friend-date, but he won’t. You are now safe, and have avoided having to shoot him down (which many girls are too nice to do. Bless your hearts, but it ends up being mean and hurting the guy more, since he gets his hopes up).

So this is what I propose: Guys, if you are interested in a girl, you ASK HER ON A DATE! You say “I would like to take you out to dinner” or something along those lines. None of this “wanna hang out sometime?” nonsense. It really isn’t that scary, and think about how much easier it will be if you both realize it is a date?

As for you girls, if guys are going to be brave and ask you on a date, you have to also be brave! If you don’t want to go on a date, DO NOT SAY OK! Don’t think you are sparing his feelings by saying ok and giving him your number when you have zero intentions of actually going out with him. Just pull the friends date line, or even better, say no thanks. I know it seems mean, but I promise you, it is much better that way. Girls are such sissies about this that it blows my mind. Why should guys be brave if you won’t be?

In conclusion, both guys and girls are sissies and need to get over it. Guys need to actually ask girls on dates, and girls need to actually say no if they aren’t interested. If everyone did this, there would be a lot less confusion and annoyance towards the opposite sex. Of course, you won’t do this, because you are a sissy.

Prove me wrong.

A History of Ridiculous Ideas: Zak's Egocentric Universe

People often tease me because I always seem to come up with ridiculous theories to explain all sorts of random stuff (like why guys are jerks and girls are stupid). However, this tendency is not new. Ever since I was a little kid, I would always think of crazy ways to explain the world, or come up with ideas that seemed quite logical at the time, only to be quite absurd. This is one of those ideas...

---

When I was very young, I remember driving into town with my parents. I would always look out the window, staring at the telephone poles that we would drive by. I knew that we were in the car, but it seemed odd that it was the telephone poles that appeared to be moving. So I came to the conclusion that in fact, they WERE moving. The car was stationary, and the telephone poles were moving by us.

So I told my parents this, and they disagreed. They tried to explain that while it looks like the telephone poles are moving, the fact of the matter was that the car was moving past the poles, and it just looked like they were moving.

I understood what they were saying. But I realized that they weren’t getting the BIG picture. Yes, to them and their naïve view of things, it did seem that the poles were stationary, and we were moving by them. However, they failed to understand that what was really going on, was that the cars wheels were moving, but the car was staying stationary. How was this possible? Well, the Earth was actually rolling underneath of the car. Sort of like a person on a treadmill—they are moving their legs, but it is the treadmill surface that is actually moving.

However, this posed a problem. If cars were actually stationary, and the Earth was moving underneath them, then what would happen if my brother and stood back to back, and drove cars in the opposite direction? The earth would basically just rip apart! Obviously this wasn’t the case, so how could it be resolved?

Of course, the solution was that this trick only worked for me. Wherever I went, the Earth rotated beneath me. So while my parents thought that the telephone poles were moving past us, in fact, the entire Earth was moving beneath me, and I (and everyone in the car) were completely stationary.

A History of Ridiculous Ideas: The Edge of the Universe

People often tease me because I always seem to come up with ridiculous theories to explain all sorts of random stuff (like why guys are jerks and girls are stupid). However, this tendency is not new. Ever since I was a little kid, I would always think of crazy ways to explain the world, or come up with ideas that seemed quite logical at the time, only to be quite absurd. This is one of those ideas...

---

If anyone ever spends any time thinking about the universe, the idea of “the edge” surely will pop up. Is there an edge? How could there be an edge? What is beyond the edge? Does such a concept even make sense?

As I kid, I would think about this a lot. Edge or not, I thought that either way, it was crazy! However, one day I stumbled upon what I thought was the answer.

I was thinking about Super Mario Bros, and how if you get the Game Genie, you can jump over the flag pole at the end of the level and just run forever. Unfortunately, I was never able to run very far, because the timer would run out, and I would die. But assuming I had unlimited time and was able to have Mario run far enough, I figured he would eventually hit something. I wondered what it could be! Seeing that Mario’s world is mostly made out of bricks, it seemed reasonable that he would end up running into a brick wall.

I’m not sure why I then extrapolated this logic into the real world, but I did. I figured that if I was able to get in a space ship and just shoot off into space, eventually, I would hit a brick wall, just like Mario would. It seemed perfectly reasonable at the time-- brick walls always seem to be stopping me from getting somewhere, be it in Super Mario or in real life, so a brick wall was most likely what was at the edge of the universe.

Quite proud of my “discovery”, I went and told my mom. Her reaction was simply “so what is behind the brick wall?” And with my mind blown, that put an end to my great, so-called discovery!

The Necessity of Heartbreak

Every now and then, I will meet someone who ended up marrying their first love. That is all well and good, but it makes me feel two different things: jealousy and pity. I feel jealous, because heartbreak is so unbelievably painful. If I knew that I would never experience another broken heart, or even heartache for that matter, I would be SO happy! What an amazing thing it would be to never have to go through the wretchedness of a broken heart again.

However, at the same time, I feel a little sorry for those people. If dealt with properly, much good can come from the heartbreak. I have had my heart broken several times, and the biggest one of all led to an enormous amount of thought, reflection and introspection regarding my experience and thoughts on love, as well as what I want in a relationship, a girlfriend, etc. The wisdom and clarity that I came out with was absolutely worth it. Of course, I never would have thought that at the time, but in retrospect, there is no way I could deny it.

When I was in college, I was in an RA meeting, and I remember an exercise our boss had us do. He asked everyone: “who here has gone through something tragic in their lives?” A fair amount of people raised their hand. He then said, “okay, now keep your hand up if you think you learned from the experience, and came out a better person because of it.” All of the hands stayed up.

At the time I scoffed, thinking, “Yeah right. These people just say they learned something and are better because of it, because they don’t want to admit that their tragedy was for nothing. They want to think there is some sort of silver lining.” I was very, very wrong about that.

When you are in love, there are all sorts of things going on in your brain. Neurotransmitters such as oxytocin, dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine are surging through your brain, giving you feelings of ecstasy, comfort and closeness. Unfortunately, your brain responds to those neurotransmitters like a drug. Your brain becomes used to them, even depends on them, and when your brain fails to get them, it FREAKS out! It will make you think that all sorts of stupid things are in fact good ideas. Just like a drug addict, you come up with the most ridiculous rationalizations, and excuses to try to get that feeling back. Your rational brain has taken the back seat, and your emotional brain is driving… like a maniac! You disregard the advice of your friends, saying “they don’t really know what it’s like.” Or, “I appreciate their concern, but I am okay, and I am gonna do what I want.”

Unfortunately, it takes an enormous amount of self awareness and self control to weather the storm, and let your brain return to its original state, in which it wasn’t hooked on relationship chemicals. How to go about that will be the topic of another blog, and for now, I want to try and explain the necessity of experiencing the heartbreak.

When you get your heart broken, or just get broken up with for that matter, you feel like crap. Your self esteem goes out the window, since you feel like you aren’t wanted. You become paranoid, and create (often crazy) theories about why your BF/GF broke up with you. “Maybe they met someone else?” If you are a girl, you might think, “Does he not find me attractive anymore?” If you are a guy, you might think “Maybe she found someone more charming?” The feeling that no one wants you, or that no one is attracted to you is not a fun feeling, and people will often resort to foolishness in order to try to regain that feeling. Your brain goes over every relevant, recent conversation, trying to find holes in their argument, almost as if you could argue the person out of their decision. It’s just a mess.

However, like with my own heartbreaks, if you weather the storm, you often come out a better person. However, this is not easy, and there are often what seem to be shortcuts, which look attractive, but just making things harder in the future. Ultimately, I think girls are more at a risk for this than guys. Let me explain.

When it comes to what the different sexes place the most emphasis on (in terms of what they find attractive), men place an enormous amount of importance on physical looks, whereas girls place an enormous amount of importance on confidence and humor. When a couple breaks up, both parties often go away feeling down, insecure and lacking confidence. The guy, lacking confidence, will probably not be able to meet anyone until he gets over his heartbreak. The reason being, girls just don’t want some mopey guy—they want a guy who is funny and confident. Basically, they want someone that is the exact opposite of what the heartbroken guy is feeling.

The girl, on the other hand, is still cute. Heartbroken or not, she still looks the same. So guys are still going to be attracted to her, and she won't have any trouble meeting someone new. However, while this might seem like a good thing—meeting someone new right away—it isn’t. When this happens, it allows you to push all those hurt feelings away, and focusing on this new, interesting person. However, those hurt feelings don’t go away, they sit there, waiting to boil up in the future. Like with any injury, unless you take the time to heal, you won’t ever be back to normal, and may end up weaker overall. Of course, this isn’t unique to girls, as guys do the same thing as well.

Unfortunately, the girl can then get caught in a vicious cycle, where she relies on the attention of guys in order to feel that she has self worth, is attractive, etc. If she isn’t involved with a guy, she feels like no one wants her, she has no confidence, etc. We all know girls like this, who go from boyfriend to boyfriend, and have since middle school. I am not judging, cause I can’t say I wouldn’t do the same thing if in that position. If I was heartbroken, and girls were constantly trying to get with me, I am pretty sure I would have gone with it. Sure, it’s not the attention of the girl I want… but at least it’s something!

So, how does one get around this? Unfortunately, it takes a fair amount of self control and understanding of why it is important to let yourself fully heal. Specifically, you have to make a contract with yourself that you won’t be involved with someone else for x amount of time. It also means recognizing that you will have to deal with a lot of pain in the meantime. It means you will have to deal with sadness, loneliness, anger, confusion, etc. It means you have to recognize that no matter how much it hurts now, the pain will go away, and there will be a day when it doesn’t hurt anymore—and you will be a much better person for it. It means you will be more emotionally stable, wiser about what you want in relationships and how to deal with them. Unfortunately, this is very hard to do in the moment, and I don’t blame people who can’t do it. A guy might do it, but only out of necessity. Unfortunately, I feel that for girls, it would be much harder, and take much more self-control.

In the end, if you are a serial dater, or are the type that ALWAYS has a boyfriend/girlfriend, ask yourself: "do I need the attention of the opposite sex to be happy? Do I get new bf/gfs quickly because I don’t want to deal with the pain of being alone?" If so, maybe it’s time to take a break, work on yourself; get to the point where you don't need the attention of others to make you happy. Being heartbroken sucks, believe me, I know. And while it will be hard at first, I promise the payoff will be well worth it.