Hugh Grant’s stage fright battle: Why he quit acting for years

Hugh Grant’s stage fright battle: Why he quit acting for years

HUGH Grant has opened up about a
crippling battle with stage fright that’s dogged him throughout his
career, revealing that, at its worst, his anxiety attacks forced him to
quit acting.

After 1999’s mammoth worldwide hit Notting Hill, Grant found himself getting “absurd stage fright attacks” with alarming frequency.

“I
really don’t know where it suddenly came from. They would just hit me
in the middle of a film and they would only last a morning or something,
but it was devastating,” he tells The Hollywood Reporter.

Toxic employees confidently pump out the work while obeying the rules, study finds - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Toxic employees confidently pump out the work while obeying the rules, study finds - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By Kellie Scott

Posted
Wed at 5:01pm

Photo:
James Calder says toxic workers were most common in workplaces with a competitive culture. (Flickr: Kompania Piwowarska)

Your boss might love an over-achieving, confident,
suck-up employee, but a new study has found they are the most toxic in
the workplace — and they are costing businesses money.

Harvard Business School researchers have profiled toxic workers, analysing data from 50,000 employees at 11 companies.

The study found that toxic workers range from those who are simply annoying through to bullies.

There are four main traits identifying a toxic worker according to the findings — including high productivity.

"We find that toxic workers are much more productive than the average worker," the authors wrote.

Traits of a toxic worker:

• More productive than average worker
• Overconfident
• Self-regarding
• Claims rules should be followed

They were also pigeon-holed as selfish and overconfident.

"With
such a conceptualisation of overconfidence — believing that the
probability of the better outcome is higher than one ought to believe —
we can link overconfidence to the likelihood of engaging in misconduct,"
the authors said.

"This might explain how a toxic worker can persist in an organisation."

Finally, they are strict rule followers.

"It
could also be the case that those who claim the rules should be
followed are more Machiavellian in nature, purporting to embrace
whatever rules, characteristics or beliefs that they believe are most
likely to obtain them a job," the authors wrote.

"There is strong evidence that Machiavellianism leads to deviant behaviour."

And it is not just colleagues that suffer; businesses are paying big bucks for toxic employees.

"Even
relatively modest levels of toxic behaviour can cause major
organisational cost, including customer loss, loss of employee morale,
increased turnover, and loss of legitimacy among important external
stakeholders," the authors wrote.

The research found an induced
turnover cost, capturing the expense of replacing additional workers
lost in response to the presence of a toxic worker on a team, was
$17,330 and did not include other potential costs, such as litigation,
regulatory penalty, and reduced employee morale.

'Competition breeds toxicity'

Calder
Consultants managing director James Calder said in his experience the
toxic worker was most common in workplaces with a competitive culture.

"In cultures where you have a very strong bonus reward culture they can get away with it," Mr Calder told the ABC.

Going to HR and people and cultlure is not usually the way to
go, because to be honest there is a fair few toxic people in those
groups too — they’re not immune from it.

James Calder, Calder Consultants

"The reason I can tell is when you work for an
organisation with opposite culture, those types of [toxic] personalities
are not around."

He said avoiding toxic workers rested with how a business established itself in the beginning.

"It
lies with the leadership and the culture they have created from the
beginning — which is why it's hard in big banks [for example] because
the culture has encouraged that [competiveness] in the past."

The
study's authors say the best way to deal with these toxic workers is to
avoid them. For example, human resources departments should be trained
to screen them out.

But for colleagues, Mr Calder said the only way to cope was to leave.

He
said a lot of good companies had "a 'no dickhead' policy", but others
had "a degree of bullshit where they say they have got this great
culture, but toxic people are allowed to continue their behaviour".

"Going
to HR and people and culture is not usually the way to go, because to
be honest there is a fair few toxic people in those groups too — they're
not immune from it.

"A lot of good people are leaving organisations and setting up on their own because they are sick of dealing with it."

Topics:

community-and-society,



work,



australia,



united-states

Contact Kellie Scott

Social Isolation and Mental Illness | Brain Blogger

Social Isolation and Mental Illness | Brain Blogger



by Elise Stobbe | May 15, 2006

Think about what it would be like to spend
most of your time alone because being around other people is just too
difficult. You feel that others are judging you for your mental illness,
and so you are scared to face the world. You withdraw to avoid this
stigmatization. This social withdrawal is emotionally very costly. But
this is a two-way street — the mentally ill withdraw from
society–society withdraws from them.


An Australian survey reported that two-thirds of people affected by a
mental illness feel lonely “often” or “all of the time”. The research
says in contrast, just 10 per cent of the general population reported
feelings of loneliness. (1)


Social relationships are important for anyone in maintaining health,
but for the mentally ill it is especially important. People with mental
illness value contact with family. But families may be unwilling to
interact with their mentally ill family member. Social isolation is also
sometimes due to the unwillingness of others to befriend the mentally
ill. The public may avoid them altogether. The stigma associated with
mental illness creates huge barriers to socialization.


People with severe mental illness are probably the most isolated
social group of all. They are judged, disrespected and made into
pariahs. They fear rejection from others, who may be afraid of the
mentally ill, so the mentally ill person may feel overwhelmed by the
thought of attempting to form new friendships. Just avoiding any contact
is often the choice. Or, they may make a great effort to conceal their
condition from others, which results in additional stress from worrying
about their true condition being discovered.


It is sometimes the case that the severely mentally ill person
becomes homeless. This in itself is isolating, and they then must suffer
the double stigmatization of being homeless as well as mentally ill.


Another reason the person with mental illness may experience social
isolation is the nature of their mental illness. Social phobias like
agoraphobia, or severe anxiety or depression often cause the suffering
person to be afraid to venture out into society.


When anyone, mentally ill or not, does not have enough social
contact, it affects them mentally and even physically. Loneliness
creates stress, taking a toll on health. Other things affected can be
the ability to learn and memory function. High blood pressure is also
seen. It can be the trigger of depression and alcoholism. (2) Imagine
the consequences, then, if you are already depressed or have other
mental illnesses? Loneliness can make you worse. Loneliness and loss of
self-worth lead many mentally ill to believe that they are useless, and
so they live with a sense of hopelessness and low self-esteem.


Social isolation is both a cause and an effect of mental distress.
When the person isolates more, they face more mental distress. With more
mental distress, they want to isolate. This vicious cycle relegates
many people with severe mental illness to a life of social segregation
and isolation.


Many people with severe psychiatric disabilities say that the stigma
associated with their illness is as distressing as the symptoms
themselves. This stigmatization not only prevents them from interacting
with others, but may prevent them from seeking treatment, which in turn
exposes them to a greater risk of suicide.


Too often the public does not understand the challenges of the
mentally ill and doesn’t want to try. It is therefore necessary to
confront biased social attitudes in order to reduce the discrimination
and stigma of people who are living with mental illness.


References


1. Mentally Ill ‘neglected by communities’. (05/08/2002). Yahoo. AU.

Phobias Part II, New Social Anxiety Treatments — MDMA, Testosterone & Less Serotonin | Brain Blogger

Phobias Part II, New Social Anxiety Treatments — MDMA, Testosterone & Less Serotonin | Brain Blogger



by Carla Clark, PhD | November 4, 2015

Radical new research is not only giving cause
to stop prescribing currently popular medications for social anxiety
disorder (also known as social phobia), it’s pointing to new treatments,
from sex hormones to popular street drugs, with the potential to
rapidly speed up and ensure successful recovery.


Some of you may have a specific social phobia, such as the all too
common fear of public speaking, which may involve gelotophobia, the fear
of laughter discussed in Phobias Part I. Yet for millions around the globe this fear is a generalized social phobia, also known as social anxiety disorder, where even a simple wedding invitation, never mind the big day itself, could spark severe anxiety and panic attacks.


Research suggests that in America at least, social anxiety is on the
rise, with current estimates of prevalence in the US range from a
staggering 20 to 40 million. It certainly seems like living in the age
of social networking
isn’t helping. Yet, with a mixed-bag of research results, we aren’t
exactly sure if social sites like Facebook are actually more of a help
or a hindrance to those with social phobia.


It is very early explorative days for the new social anxiety
treatments described below. However, with current evidence-based
treatments failing to provide any benefit for 40-50% of those diagnosed
with social anxiety disorder, exploring these new treatments avenues
further is not only imperative, they may lead to revolutionizing the
treatment of social phobias.


Serotonin overload: SSRIs a problem, not a solution


Science seems to have got it all backwards.


Research in the past promoted the idea that social phobia is related to low levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin. This view has been turned on its head by a new study published in JAMA Psychiatry
that shows the exact opposite; individuals with social phobia make too
much serotonin. The more serotonin they produce, the more anxious they
are in social situations.


Seeing as the most popular social anxiety treatment protocols involve
a combination of psychological counseling and antidepressants, the most
popular being serotonin reuptake inhibitors, this is cause for concern
and psychiatrists should take heed.


Further research is undoubtedly underway and drugs that lower levels of serotonin are likely to be of interest.


Testosterone injection: A study in women


Common submissive behavior in social phobia, such as avoidance of eye
contact (gaze avoidance) is thought to play a crucial role in the
persistence of social anxiety disorder by hindering the extinction of
fear in social situations.


In a double-blind, within-subject design, medication-free women
diagnosed with social anxiety disorder where administered with a single
dose of testosterone and their eye-movement was monitored as they viewed angry, happy or neutral faces.


They found that testosterone specifically enhances the number of
first fixations toward the eyes, and decreases the amount of eye-area
avoiding, even for the most avoided type, angry eyes. This is in line
with research suggesting that testosterone influences early automatic
social mechanisms whereby it biases the brain toward social dominance.


These results are promising and researchers suggest investigating
whether testosterone can act as an adjunct in exposure therapies by
boosting prosocial behavior in the first few sessions.


MDMA (ecstasy): A study in adults with autism


As discussed in a recent BrainBlogger article, Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy – The Mental Health Trip of the Future?,
the use of psychedelic drugs as a tool for mental health therapy has
the potential to revolutionize the future of psychiatry and
pharmacotherapy.


The first ever study of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine
(MDMA/Ecstasy)-assisted therapy for the treatment of social anxiety in
autistic adults began in the spring of 2014 using a placebo-controlled,
double-blind methodology, and is still underway.


Regarding social anxiety treatment in general, researchers and therapists alike hope to cash in on MDMA catalyzing
a profound shift toward openness and introspection that will not
require ongoing administration to achieve lasting therapeutic benefits.
Hopes are that by administrating MDMA on only one to several occasions
within the context of a supportive and integrative psychotherapy
protocol will side-line the higher frequency of adverse events and
side-effects that come with daily dosing, as in most psychiatric drugs.


Along with ongoing Phase II pilot studies of MDMA-assisted
psychotherapy for treatment of chronic PTSD (following pilot studies
whose benefits were maintained an average of 3.8 years later), the
potentially game-changing results of the pilot study for social anxiety
in autistic adults are eagerly anticipated.


References


Danforth,
A., Struble, C., Yazar-Klosinski, B., & Grob, C. (2016).
MDMA-assisted therapy: A new treatment model for social anxiety in
autistic adults Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 64, 237-249 DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2015.03.011


Enter,
D., Terburg, D., Harrewijn, A., Spinhoven, P., & Roelofs, K.
(2016). Single dose testosterone administration alleviates gaze
avoidance in women with Social Anxiety Disorder Psychoneuroendocrinology, 63, 26-33 DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.09.008


Frick,
A., Åhs, F., Engman, J., Jonasson, M., Alaie, I., Björkstrand, J.,
Frans, ?., Faria, V., Linnman, C., Appel, L., Wahlstedt, K., Lubberink,
M., Fredrikson, M., & Furmark, T. (2015). Serotonin Synthesis and
Reuptake in Social Anxiety Disorder JAMA Psychiatry, 72 (8) DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.0125


Mithoefer,
M., Wagner, M., Mithoefer, A., Jerome, L., & Doblin, R. (2010). The
safety and efficacy of  3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine-assisted
psychotherapy in subjects with chronic, treatment-resistant
posttraumatic stress disorder: the first randomized controlled pilot
study Journal of Psychopharmacology, 25 (4), 439-452 DOI: 10.1177/0269881110378371


Mithoefer,
M., Wagner, M., Mithoefer, A., Jerome, L., Martin, S., Yazar-Klosinski,
B., Michel, Y., Brewerton, T., & Doblin, R. (2012). Durability of
improvement in post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and absence of
harmful effects or drug dependency after
3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine-assisted psychotherapy: a prospective
long-term follow-up study Journal of Psychopharmacology, 27 (1), 28-39 DOI: 10.1177/0269881112456611


Terburg,
D., Aarts, H., & van Honk, J. (2012). Testosterone Affects Gaze
Aversion From Angry Faces Outside of Conscious Awareness Psychological Science, 23 (5), 459-463 DOI: 10.1177/0956797611433336

Is Placebo More Powerful Than Antidepressants and Psychotherapy? | Brain Blogger

Is Placebo More Powerful Than Antidepressants and Psychotherapy? | Brain Blogger



by Carla Clark, PhD | November 7, 2015

This might be a hard pill to swallow for both
those in treatment for depression and those giving treatment to
clients: both psychotherapy and antidepressant medications are beginning
to be considered to have rather limited contributions to the
effectiveness of treating depression. Some researchers and clinicians
alike are considering that for some, the placebo effect might be the
most powerful treatment of all.

A series of both research and opinion-based articles are suggesting
that we may have been focussing on the wrong thing all along. Research
into the placebo effect
and spontaneous recovery from depression, and indeed other mental
health problems, may be the way forward for both pharmacotherapy and
psychotherapy.

Hot in the news at the moment is a position emission tomography (PET)
study suggesting that some people are indeed more responsive to the intention to treat their depression, as opposed to the treatment itself.

The results indicate that those who can muster their brain’s own chemical forces against depression when
receiving a placebo, also appear to have a head start in overcoming its
symptoms with help from an approved antidepressant.

But those whose brain chemistry didn’t react as much to the placebo
pill given in the study, struggle even after getting an official antidepressant.
Although unexplored this could involve internal positive or negative
beliefs about treatment, either promoting or inhibiting the placebo
effect respectively.

The findings support scientific perspectives and opinions discussed in a series of placebo effect articles published in World Psychiatry,
including highly acclaimed scientists such as the President of the
European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, Dr. Stuart Montgomery, who
authored the article “Antidepressants or antidepressants plus placebo?”

While public opinion is certainly suspicious about the ability of
antidepressants to treat depression, as well as the pharmaceutical
industry’s intentions in finding rewarding outcomes in efficacy studies,
researchers have also grown increasingly skeptical regarding treatment
efficacy studies over the years.

There is a realization that the we need even greater accuracy in
distinguishing treatment effects from placebo in order to determine the
true efficacy of the treatment. Our current general standard of
randomized, placebo-controlled trials just doesn’t quite cut it.

In one article entitled, “What if a placebo effect explained all the
activity of depression treatments?” the key problem is posed:

“Due to the discrepancy between the relatively high rate
of spontaneous remission and the low additional value of specific
(pharmacological and psychological ) treatments, several important
issues arise. One question is whether these treatments do in fact have
any effects.”

This may initially sound absurd to some, but there are sound
arguments behind this line of thinking, only some of which are mentioned
in this article.

Some of the most recent meta-analyses reveal relatively small effect sizes of 0.30 for antidepressants and 0.25 for psychotherapies,
with only the highest quality of studies being able to show these small
effects. This roughly equates to only 15% of the variance in treatment
outcome being a result of the treatment itself, which is in the same
range as many accepted treatments in general medicine.

Dr. Montgomery suggests that even though these studies aim to remove
all biases, many may still remain. He used an example supported by a
recent article exploring differences between active placebos (those that
produce side-effects) and antidepressants for depression. A placebo
pill that does not produce noticeable side-effects may make the test
subject aware that they are indeed receiving placebo and reduce their
expectations of success, thus biasing results in favor of the treatment
being assessed.

With further advancements in the tweaking of methodologies to remove
remaining biases, perhaps there is almost no effect from the actual
treatment itself.

Indeed, there has been a constant increase in placebo response to
fake antidepressants in efficacy trials over the last decade, especially
in the US. This is thought to be due to many combinatorial factors,
such as more effective and intensified marketing of antidepressants and
the increased contact between study participants and clinical staff in
more modern and rigorous studies where participants are closely
monitored. This enhanced placebo effect may in fact be making it hard to
differentiate placebo from drug responses, and make antidepressants
appear to have a small effect size when they may be greater.

While research has been fervently focusing on the neurological and
psychological changes in response to various therapies, perhaps research
into spontaneous remission and the placebo effect should at least be of
equal importance.

As put by Dr. Marta Pecina, lead author of the PET study and research assistant professor in the U-M Department of Psychiatry:

“We can envision that by enhancing placebo effects, we might be able to develop faster-acting or better antidepressants.”

The same can be said for psychotherapy treatments, were aspects of
interventions that facilitate the placebo effect, on top of any true
treatment effects, may be more effective than current treatments.

References

Cuijpers P, & Cristea IA (2015). What if a placebo effect explained all the activity of depression treatments? World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 14 (3), 310-1 PMID: 26407786

Cuijpers
P, Turner EH, Mohr DC, Hofmann SG, Andersson G, Berking M, & Coyne J
(2014). Comparison of psychotherapies for adult depression to pill
placebo control groups: a meta-analysis. Psychological medicine, 44 (4), 685-95 PMID: 23552610

Khan A, & Brown WA (2015). Antidepressants versus placebo in major depression: an overview. World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 14 (3), 294-300 PMID: 26407778

Montgomery SA (2015). Antidepressant or antidepressant plus placebo effect? World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 14 (3), 303-4 PMID: 26407781

Peciña,
M., Bohnert, A., Sikora, M., Avery, E., Langenecker, S., Mickey, B.,
& Zubieta, J. (2015). Association Between Placebo-Activated Neural
Systems and Antidepressant Responses JAMA Psychiatry DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.1335

Walsh
BT, Seidman SN, Sysko R, & Gould M (2002). Placebo response in
studies of major depression: variable, substantial, and growing. JAMA, 287 (14), 1840-7 PMID: 11939870

How To Avoid Your Own Brain's Biases | Big Think

How To Avoid Your Own Brain's Biases | Big Think

Thinking, like seeing, has built-in blind spots. An
old parable and Husserl’s matchbox can illuminate these geometric,
biological, and cognitive limits. We can't evade their unseen dangers
unaided.

In the parable six blind men try to describe an elephant
they’re standing beside. Feeling what’s in front of him, each has
“direct” evidence that it’s a snake, spear, fan, tree, wall, or rope (details vary). But only combining perspectives gives the whole picture.

Perspective also constrains the sighted, as Edmund Husserl demonstrated using a matchbox:
geometry ensures only three sides are visible at a time. In Husserl’s
philosophy, all experience is embodied, and knowledge is prone to bodily
perspective limits. Assumptions also limit and frame thinking, they’re
the mental version of line of sight, and can cause “theory-induced blindness.”

While reading this, you are actively ignoring another optical limitation Evolution gave our eyes blind spots
(there are no light receptors where the optic nerve connects to the
retina). These blind spots are invisible because our brains evolved to
concoct a continuous visual field.

The brain has its own blind spots, but “cognitive biases” are often misunderstood. Take Ezra Klein’s article on “identity-protective cognition” research which he says “tells us we can’t trust our own reason."
He seems surprised that our thinking is biased to protect our
self-image and peer-image. Isn’t the brain’s primary mission protecting
its owner? We all have that bias, and we’re all prone to others.

Here’s the needed logic: Since all human brains have biases
that they’re unaware of, mine must also. However certain I feel about
an issue, it’s irrational to ignore the potential influence of my own
biases. Reason dictates using assisted thinking. This is old wisdom, as
the Bible asks, “Who can discern their own errors?” Shakespeare laments,
“O that you could turn your eyes toward the napes of your necks, and make but an interior survey.”

Barring rare geniuses, we often don’t think well
alone. But two heads are better only if, like two eyes, they have
different perspectives. Gerrymandering your mind by consulting only the
like-minded doesn't balance biases, it reinforces them. Constructive
co-thinking requires diversity.

An identity too many thinkers seek to protect is that
of the all-seeing, all-knowing intellectual gladiator. Debate is framed
as combat which distorts the objective to winning, not improving ideas.
Framing as a conversion or a building project is better. Conversations
are enriched by differences. And good building projects require the best
materials from any source.

A basic cognitive geometry applies: Unless what
you’re pondering is small or well understood, multiple vantage points
are advantageous. Truth usually has multiple paths, it’s safely
 approachable from different assumptions. The wise seek bias-balancing
heterospective (other-view-ness). It’s the only cure for known
unseeables.

If No Brain Is Free Of Bias, What Can We Trust? | Big Think

If No Brain Is Free Of Bias, What Can We Trust? | Big Think

If no brain is free of bias, what can we trust? Which field’s views can we rely on?

1. Redoing 100 psychology studies found two-thirds didn’t replicate, causing much concern.  

2. Meanwhile, Noah Smith matter-of-factly writes,
“Traditionally, economists ... put the facts in a subordinate role [to]
theory. ... Plausible-sounding theories are believed to be true unless
proven false, while empirical facts are often dismissed.” Isn’t that worse than failed replication? A recipe for data-decorated faith?

3. Smith calls economics “a rogue branch of applied math” that “evolved different scientific values.”
But can “scientific” rightly apply where empirical facts don’t rule?
Isn’t that utter non-science? Unless facts reign, what separates the
sciences from superstition?

4. Real sciences permit only shakable faiths (see Science’s Toughest Test).
Only bias-balancing processes are held sacred — not inputs or outputs,
not cherished assumptions or results. That isn’t the game Smith
describes. No one is immune to their beloved beliefs (or
“identity-protective cognition”), but the sciences organize themselves to counter such biases — they’re reality refereed.  

5. Perhaps these economic quibbles are minor? Apparently principles “are by no means universally agreed.”  And faith in free-market economics rests on incomplete logic and near-utopian assumptions — in no real case can free markets do what’s preached.
Maybe that’s OK... if in your game plausible theory-faith beats
empirical facts. But in more trustworthy games, new facts must oust old
certainties (e.g., redistribution ≠ less growth).

6. Smith hopes theory-free “Big Data” means that
empirical economics will soon “dominate.” But economic data suffers high
“causal density.” And its “gold standard” randomized clinical trials have limits. Meanwhile, key metrics like GDP don’t capture key distinctions. Plus, without changes in professional values or theory-beats-data practices, will economics be more trustworthy? Maybe economics is safer descriptively rather than prescriptively.

7. Economic historian Michael Lind says economics isn’t a natural science. However much physics-gas-like math it (ab)uses, economics can’t escape its history-like aspects.

8. How data works in history is different than in physics.
In history, innovation happens. Patterns change. Yesterday’s
impossibilities become today’s driving forces. Unlike behavior in
physics, human behavior isn’t as safely generalizable. Nothing in
physics chooses. Or changes how it chooses = in social sciences extrapolation is riskier (here’s a data journalism example). Perhaps market “laws” aren’t gravity-like.

9. Biases and flaws are like foreheads — it’s easier to see others’ than your own. Escaping our own biases requires tools.
Before trusting experts, ask if their field is organized to challenge
cherished assumptions. Is its game “reality refereed”? We should trust more in processes that rigorously balance biases, not in individuals. Confirmation bias haunts even geniuses.

10. Psychology’s ills are worrying, but economics’
beliefs are more dangerous. Markets enact our ethics, powerfully and
globally. Do we want markets to make musical toilets while some starve?

11. We’re betting the planet on economic faiths (e.g., profit before planetary health). If cherry-picked data-doting free-market dogma doesn’t pan out, what’s our fallback?

In a world full of biases and risks, the wise guard against “theory-induced blindness.” And they contingency plan.