Members of Oakland’s bohemian rap scene, including Mike Melero, second from right in the back row, and Antwon Williams, center

In our weekly Hustlin’ series, we go beyond the pitying articles about recession-era youth and illuminate ways our generation is coping. The last few years may have been a rude awakening, but we’re surviving. Here’s how.


At San Pablo and 32nd, at Myth Lab’s chained-up back fence, a dog named Jolene comes out to bark at me while someone grabs the key for the padlock. The building, a big white box, was probably a single-unit storefront at some point in Oakland’s history. Now, Mike Melero and two friends split the $1,100 rent, sleeping in lofts in the back and recording bands and shooting videos in the front.

A few months ago, I fell in love with Sick Sad World, the Tumblr Melero runs with a few friends to promote their monthly party of the same name. The no-budget rap videos they post are fascinating: rappers ranging from unsigned veterans to hammy tweens filming with whatever camera is handy, showing off their neighborhoods, making cuts on a home computer, then tweeting it out. Scrolling through the blog’s archives feels like witnessing the highest-tech democratized art yet, like running your fingers along a growing crack in a very old wall. I’m about to get a peek behind the scenes of the scene.

I’ve arrived right after a shoot. In Myth Lab’s hybrid kitchen-living room-recording booth, a banana suit is crumpled on the floor. Some dudes are breaking down a makeshift TV studio, packing the two borrowed DSLRs and the audio recorders into a punk-patch backpack. Some other dudes are drinking hard liquor out of plastic cups and eating a huge cold pizza.

The recording bay is a sort of pantry in a hallway stuffed with half a dozen keyboards, a mixing board, a working reel-to-reel, a USB mixer, and an old MacBook Pro playing an iTunes mix through an amp. The MacBook cost $300 on Craigslist, which is where most everything else came from; the only new-with-tags purchase was the $200 Ableton mixer, which fits in Mike’s backpack when he bikes to gigs. I ask if he paid for the software. “No, I had to crack it,” he says. “The mixer came with two free software installs, but I gave them both away to friends.”

Melero is in a rare position. At this point, he says, he “works” three days a month, while the rest of his income comes from DJing, booking shows, and recording bands. He’s a full-time self-employed creative professional, despite having dropped out of school two credits from graduation to follow some friends on tour. Does he have student loans to worry about? “Nah,” he says, then clarifies, “I mean, I should be worrying about them at some point, but I’m not.” In the tradition of Saul Alinsky, Melero offsets his expenses with an EBT card; in the tradition of ODB, he live-tweeted his trip to the welfare office.

I chat with Zach Romero, the party photographer for Sick Sad World and a cameraman at tonight’s shoot. Photography is clearly the light of his life, and he’s working two part-time jobs at age 33 to make it happen; he tells me, smiling, about saving up for 18 months to buy a new lens. Sick Sad World will start paying him for his services with next month’s party. Romero is excited, but less about the money than the knowledge that his work is helping his friends. “I just love being able to capture a moment,” he says. “I’d do it for free.”

This anti-Jeezyesque financial agnosticism is a common sentiment in the room, and perhaps a necessary one, too. In Oakland’s scene, nobody sees real income from music releases, physical or digital, and nobody’s even bothering to get signed to a label. Live shows and parties are a relatively reliable source of income, but Melero and his crew do a lot of free shows, too, just to ensure that people will come out. The recording studio brings in money, but chasing down outstanding invoices becomes a full-time job when the rent is due. The old chestnut that “art isn’t about money” exists for a reason: to provide a sense of normalcy for artists living on old pizza.

But money isn’t the only issue. Making art into a full-time job—indie or industry—can require years of scraping with no guaranteed payoff. It becomes a much smoother path if you’ve got a phone full of friends from whatever art school, enough spare time to hone and promote your work, and family who can support you and who don’t need to be supported. Social capital is still capital, and in our economic system, an art career is a luxury purchase. Art has always been a means for a city’s disenfranchised neighborhoods to have a voice, but any given gallery, any writer’s room, any grants foundation will be stocked with other neighborhoods’ success stories.

Sitting in Myth Lab, I get a glimpse of how the East Bay no-budget rap scene could flip this. There’s a model here to counter a millennia-old art-economic class system—if everyone can access the means to make a music video, maybe everyone can access the means to make a living on art, like Melero is doing.

There are also some familiar patterns at work. It’s an unscientific sampling, but at the moment, I’m in a room with five of the scene’s movers and shakers, and none of them has to worry about supporting their parents. They’re also all dudes, and disproportionately white, especially for West Oakland. And there’s thousands of dollars of audio and video equipment lying in the hallway. What’s to stop this crew from cashing out for desk jobs in a few years, being satisfied with their cool-dad stories, and leaving the next generation of disenfranchised artists with nothing to build on?

The room is skeptical of my concern about access and money; the new system, they say, has arrived, and anyone can succeed on their own terms. Don’t have a camera? Use your phone. Don’t have a computer? Use the ones at the library. Don’t know people? Get on Twitter already. “There is no secret Internet that people with cell phones can’t access,” says Lucas Noah, the owner of the abandoned banana suit. “Look, nobody gets into art to make money!” Noah argues that economic considerations don’t really factor in until you’re 40—and this scene isn’t 40-year-olds.

He’s right, of course. But these guys have a lot of say in how much money the scene makes, and everyone here can afford to be poor. I came to talk to some underdogs, but I might actually be interviewing the 1 percent of the no-budget rap game.

I catch Chippy Nanda, aka Chippy Nonstop, on the phone with 35 hours left in her bus ride from Oakland to South by Southwest. Nanda is a former journalist and social media manager who’s now enrolled in art school. Like Melero, she has no day job. She’s a 20-year-old professional partier with a knack for meeting people, an “Imaflirt.com” tattoo, and impeccable gif sense. Nanda’s Soundcloud is full of party raps about her vagina and her immigration status; she’d be rare in any arts scene, but she’s got surprisingly little company in Oakland’s. Women still have a hard time breaking in, she says: “Girls are always beefing, but part of the reason for that is that girl rappers are only ever compared to each other.” Melero saw her dancing on a table at a party one night, then found her on Twitter the next day, which led to her hosting Sick Sad World.

She has mixed feelings about working in Oakland. On one hand, everyone’s down to help out with whatever for free. On the other hand, nobody wants to pay for anything. “Nights that are jumping in L.A. are just totally dead in Oakland,” she says. “People won’t come into a show if it’s five dollars! They’ll just sit on the curb and drink a forty. Seriously, I’ve hosted shows in Oakland that I got paid $50 for. They’re fun… but they’d pay $300 in another city.” She keeps her expenses low while bouncing from music festival to music festival, eating free food and crashing with friends. But she’s also never not on Twitter. She’s paying her bills with homegrown social capital.

* * *

Marty Aranaydo, aka DJ Willie Maze, comes by Myth Lab with fresh-printed STAY HATIN stickers for the crew. The group resolves to head to a backyard party in the neighborhood. Noah and Aranaydo ride in my car so we can buy beer; everyone else takes bikes.

Aranaydo is something of an elder statesman, having seen the Bay Area’s mid-’90s warehouse rave scene rise up and get smashed back down once it was big enough to be noticed. “If you need to make art, and you’ve got five jobs and a kid and one leg, you’re going to find a way to make art. You don’t need a million dollars to make a music video. If you don’t have time, shoot it over five days,” he grins at Melero, who’s wandered over, “and make sure Mike wears the same outfit five days in a row for continuity. That’s not hard.” But Aranaydo also knows artists who’ve quit—people who had to get “real jobs” to support families, well-respected graffiti artists who’d jump at a sponsorship in a heartbeat but whose nights are just nights now. Artists who can no longer opt into art.

The party turns out to be in the backyard of a North Oakland mansion. There’s a fire pit, a chicken coop, about 40 community-art-college punks, and a woman hula-hooping fire. Someone explains seapunk to me as “wearing seafoam and wanting to fuck a dolphin! It’s fucking sick!” Is the scene in a renaissance? I ask. “Fuck no! Everyone’s a DJ!”

Aranaydo tells me about his long involvement with Bay Area activism through art. He tells me about how his parents met at the Native American occupation of Alcatraz, and how he booked dead prez for a massive rally against racist gang injunctions in the late ’90s. “We lost that fight,” he says. “But we recruited a lot of new people and got them trained for the next fight.”

We talk about the Oakland Arts scene, with a capital “A”—the projects the city bestows funding and legitimacy upon, to “improve” low-income neighborhoods that neither the city nor the artist will ever spend money in. I mention my skepticism about the true agenda of the meme that art isn’t about money, that maybe the noble “starving artist” is a way to keep already-starving people out of art.

“Well, I saw an interview just this week with [graffiti artist] Barry McGee, who came up graf writing like the rest of us—I was in a show with him in 1996, that’s my homie,” Aranaydo says. “And he said: ‘Art is a tax write-off for rich people, which allows us the room to come up with bigger and better shit.’ You know, he’d do it anyway, but if they pay him to do it, that’s great. He’s got a daughter now. That’s part of why I’m working with these guys, trying to get them to move past free warehouse shows. If the scene doesn’t support itself, it just cycles back out again. We’ve seen that happen in the Bay so many times.”

Mike teaches me the Trill Team Six handshake as I leave. I feel pretty special.

* * *

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXmo0zsG3q0&feature=youtu.be

Antwon, née Antonio Williams, is a South Bay kid whose dreams of attending art school were over before they began. The friend who got him into rapping, he says, is the same friend that introduced him to Napster. A few months ago, Williams was approached on Twitter by Brandon Tauszik, a West Oaklander-of-convenience with his own production studio and a string of free weekends. The result is the gorgeous video for the Antwon track ‘Helicopter.’ By all accounts, it’s a collaboration of creative equals; the two planned by email for months before meeting in person. And while the obvious financial benefit is Williams’—Tauszik puts the video’s weekday-client equivalent cost at “well into five figures”—the finished product benefits both portfolios, in different ways. Neither party is simply the other’s tax write-off. The dynamic of the social-capital 1 percent, if it’s present here at all, is fascinatingly garbled.

And in the three weeks since posting, rap heads have watched Williams pour Sriracha onto his waffles 30,000 times. Twitter can’t replace the social capital of four years at Julliard, but it did just make a buzz-worthy music video. “The Internet is a big help,” says Williams. “That’s number one. If it weren’t for the Internet, I’d still be stuck playing an open mic at a shitty coffee shop in Cupertino, hosted by some white afro-having douchebag and rapping to a bunch of people who don’t even like rap.”

Meanwhile, Melero has started booking an artists’ night in San Francisco. Noah is recording bands and booking shows at his own West Oakland space. Nanda has just hired a publicist. A disproportionate number of the scene’s skilled jobs—recording engineer, camera operator—are held by white dudes, but they’re sharing those skills with people who didn’t or couldn’t go to school. And parties are slowly training people to pay more for shows, so they can properly pay more people, so more people can do bigger and better things for them.

It remains to be seen if this crew will build something sustainable out of this new patronless economy of rent parties and hashtags, and who that system will sustain. But Oakland has a long history of art as a force of justice. And there’s certainly a lot of talent and energy getting posted to the Sick Sad World Tumblr at 3 a.m.—brand-new works, in a medium for which the rules aren’t totally written yet. We’ll find out soon how the Myth Lab model fills in the blanks.

Photo courtesy of Brandon Tauszik

  • How does your brain decide between the road not taken or the same old route? Resolving conflicting memories is key to navigation
    Photo credit: francescoch/iStock via Getty Images PlusWhich route should you take? The familiar or the unknown?

    When was the last time you paid attention to your commute? And I don’t mean a couple of feet in front of you, at the car merging into your lane without a blinker. I mean really paid attention to the route you take.

    Did you see the landmarks in the distance that make up the city skyline? Did you drive right past the grocery store you promised to stop by at the corner of this Peachtree Street or that Peachtree Street, a struggle Atlanta locals know well?

    “Oops! Force of habit,” you might say to yourself as you miss your turn and begin to think about when and where you can turn around.

    Relying on familiarity can either facilitate or impede daily navigation. As a researcher studying memory and navigation, I aim to understand how the brain supports spatial navigation and what happens if the cognitive mechanisms for choosing the best route home begin to decline, such as during stress or with aging.

    Humans are creatures of habit – at least that’s what people tell themselves when wary of trying something new. But what if a new route is faster or safer than the one you usually take? Would you try it?

    Research from my team suggests that people balance between exploration and habit – that is, trying something new or sticking with the familiar – when deciding what route to take. Which navigation strategy someone chooses depends not only on their spatial abilities but on their network of brain regions that support navigation.

    Close-up of side view mirror reflecting city skyline and other cars on the road
    When was the last time you paid attention to the scenery of your usual commute? Boonchai Wedmakawand/Moment via Getty Images

    A spatial blueprint

    Spatial navigation refers to the cognitive ability that helps you travel from one location to another. It may sound simple, but it requires using cognitive functions such as memory, attention, decision-making and assessing potential rewards – never mind the ability to simply perceive the environment itself.

    Spatial navigation uses memories of things you consciously experienced. Two types of memory relevant to navigation are what scientists call episodic and semantic.

    For example, you might retrieve an episodic memory about a specific event: remembering a detour you took a week ago to drop a package off at the post office, including the traffic and weather that day.

    You might also retrieve a semantic memory that’s more factual and knowledge-based: remembering how many blocks away the post office is from the park and the turns you need to make to get there.

    Together, these kinds of memory inform your spatial memory, which allows you to retrieve location information. This could be where buildings are in relation to each other or where objects are situated in your house. Spatial memories help form your cognitive map, which is essential for getting around in the world.

    Often, these different ways of remembering interact, and you can use one type of memory to inform the other. For example, you’ve become accustomed to your commute to work and know it’s relatively short (semantic memory), but over the past three days you’ve been arriving late due to heavy traffic (episodic memory), so you choose to take a different route next time.

    Research from my team has found that disagreements in your brain over possible routes can happen. Different types of memory can come up with different solutions for what route you can take, and this conflict is a big factor in how hard your brain needs to work when navigating an environment.

    Responding to new and familiar memories

    Habits stem from what researchers call stimulus-response memories. These include the knee-jerk reaction you might have to familiar landmarks – when you perceive these places, your brain signals you to make a turn along your commute without needing to consciously think about it.

    Habits are rigid, but they can also be beneficial: By taking care of the navigation for you, habit frees up your brain to have a conversation with someone or plan what to make for dinner when you get home.

    When navigating less familiar routes or environments, where habit doesn’t kick in automatically, you rely on brain regions such as the hippocampus to call on detailed memories from recent experiences to help guide the way.

    Aerial view of a busy intersection in a city, crowds of people milling about and buildings lit with animated billboards
    When visiting a new city, you might rely on your existing mental map of urban environments. Francesco Riccardo Iacomino/Moment via Getty Images

    But let’s say you’re shopping at a new grocery store where most things are where you expect them to be, even though you’ve never been in this particular store before. What happens when your brain experiences both something new and something familiar about an environment?

    Researchers have shown that when something about an environment is familiar and aligns with your prior experiences, the prefrontal regions of your brain – those responsible for executive functions such as decision-making – become more active. They can bypass or even inhibit your hippocampus’s ability to form new memories about specific events.

    In other words, your brain can weave information about a new experience into your database of existing knowledge, rather than storing it as completely new information with little relation to the past. This process may help fast-track your understanding about new experiences.

    Updating cognitive maps

    Researchers know that cognitive maps of the environment depend on the hippocampus and its database of memories about specific events. However, I and other researchers argue these maps can also function as a schema – a collection of memories made up of associations between environmental details. You can add new information to these collections and use it to infer new relationships.

    Say a new pedestrian bridge is built between the park and the post office. Your brain can more easily weave this new route information into your existing memories compared with learning a new environment from scratch. Similarly, if you just moved to a new town and know very little about the spatial layout, you might rely on your past experiences of towns to infer where something is.

    Using neuroimaging techniques as well as virtual reality programs designed to test a participant’s ability to navigate different routes, my team found that there is likely an interdependent relationship between the brain areas that store memories of specific events and areas that store related information across memories when planning to navigate less familiar places.

    New routes are more difficult to follow when they differ from your prior experiences. Thus, a stronger schema helps integrate your knowledge of the spatial relationships between locations and landmarks (such as the distance between the post office and the park) with more general knowledge (such as prior route difficulty). This all informs how you choose to navigate.

    Navigating daily life

    These memory principles help explain why inconsistencies with your previous experiences can make it so difficult to navigate many aspects of daily life.

    Imagine you woke up tomorrow and the GPS on your smartphone was no longer available. How will you plan your route to get to your destination?

    You might be used to navigating north from your home to the grocery store – but have you ever tried to navigate to that grocery story from a different location? It’s much harder!

    Factors such as stressaging and general cognitive decline can affect brain function and human behavior. Imagine how much harder that new route to the grocery store is for an older adult.

    Relating new information to your prior experiences may help strengthen your schema and make navigation easier. And understanding what processes the brain needs to go through to solve these navigation problems can help you understand why getting around can be challenging.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • Most people don’t know what they don’t know, but think they do – correcting your metaknowledge can make you a better teacher and learner
    Photo credit: Nicolas-André Monsiau/Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts via Wikimedia CommonsThe ability to say ‘I know that I know nothing’ could be considered a sign of wisdom.

    Do you know what the Apple logo looks like?

    Chances are, you think you do. It’s ubiquitous and iconic. How could you not know it?

    But when tested, it turns out very few people can remember all the features of the logo. One study of 85 people found that only about half could pick the correct logo out of a lineup of similar ones. And only one person could correctly draw it.

    This isn’t an isolated example. A classic study from 1979 found that people similarly couldn’t draw a penny accurately or pick out a correctly drawn penny from incorrect ones.

    People aren’t just bad at remembering things they see all the time, but also in actually knowing how they work. In a 2006 study, many people made significant errors when drawing a bicycle, like putting the chain around the front wheel as well as the back wheel. More than just a forgotten detail, putting the chain around both wheels shows a deeper misunderstanding of how a bicycle works. A bicycle with a chain around both wheels wouldn’t be able to turn.

    Illustration of bike with different components labeled
    Do you truly know how a bicycle works? Al2/Grandiose via Wikimedia CommonsCC BY-SA

    It turns out people’s knowledge of how the world works is often fragmented and sketchy at best. They systematically overestimate their understanding of everyday devices and natural phenomena. People will tend to give themselves high ratings on how well they understand something, such as how bicycles or zippers work. But when they’re asked to actually explain the mechanics of these objects, their ratings of their understanding typically drop.

    Just like how your knowledge of the world around you is imperfect, your knowledge about your own knowledge – also called metaknowledge – is often flawed. My field of cognitive science has been uncovering various gaps in human metaknowledge for decades.

    If people are systematically overconfident about how well they understand things, why don’t they notice when they don’t understand something? And what can people do to better recognize the limits of their own knowledge?

    Why you think you know more than you do

    Researchers have identified several factors behind people’s overconfidence in their knowledge.

    One is that people confuse environmental support with understanding: The information is out in the world but not actually in your head. With a bicycle or a zipper, all of the parts are visible to you, and you may confuse this transparency for an internal understanding of how they work. But until you go to use that knowledge by attempting to explain how they work, you may not recognize that you don’t understand how those parts interact.

    A second factor is confusing different levels of analysis. People can often describe how something works at a very high level. You know that the engine of a car makes the car go, and the brakes slow and stop the vehicle. But confidence in your high-level understanding of the car may bias you to think you also have a good grasp of the finer details, like how the engine pistons and brake pads work.

    Additionally, people can be blind to the ways their knowledge shapes their own perception. In one study, researchers had participants tap out the tune to a popular song. On average, the tappers thought listeners would be able to identify the song about 50% of the time. But when listeners had to identify the tapped song, they actually could identify it only 2.5% of the time. The tappers didn’t realize how much their knowledge was making identifying the song seem easy to them.

    A teacher talks to a student before a chalkboard wall filled with equations, chemical structures and graphs
    Intellectual humility can help you see your expert blind spot. Vitaly Gariev/UnsplashCC BY-SA

    This disconnect has consequences beyond whether someone else can understand your Morse code version of a song. When teaching people, whether in formal classroom settings or through casual mentorship, you can sometimes have an expert blind spot: the inability to recognize the difficulties beginners face when learning something you have expertise in.

    Building expertise often involves internalizing knowledge to the point where it becomes invisible to you. You draw on knowledge you don’t realize you have, making it hard to relate to learners who lack this knowledge – and, of course, hard for learners to relate to your teaching. You might have experienced this when you’ve gotten partway through explaining something, only to realize you’ve been using jargon you forgot isn’t common knowledge and lost your listener.

    How to address metaknowledge failures

    Your metaknowledge can fail in two directions: You can think you know more than you do, and you can be blind to how much you’re relying on knowledge you do have. Each calls for a different response to correct it.

    When you’re overconfident in your knowledge, the remedy is using that knowledge. You’ll quickly realize how much you actually understand and dial down your confidence. Challenging yourself to actually try to walk through how something works is a great exercise in intellectual humility – that is, recognizing that you may be wrong – and can keep you from getting out over your skis.

    Building a greater appreciation for what you know is more difficult. You can’t simply unlearn what you’ve internalized. But what this challenge shows is that, to some extent, knowing a subject and knowing how to teach it are two separate skills. Some experts are great teachers, but not simply by virtue of being experts. Recognizing that you have to approach teaching with humility, and that your expertise doesn’t automatically make you a skilled teacher, can go a long way toward making you a better teacher and mentor.

    These aren’t easy and quick fixes to failures of metaknowledge. Both require ongoing intellectual humility and a willingness to distrust your own confidence. But acknowledging the fallibility of your own metaknowledge is a good place to start.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • You can change your emotions – but it’s a 2‑step process that takes some effort
    Photo credit: RealPeopleGroup/E+ via Getty ImagesYou don’t need to be stuck on a negative feeling.

    Picture Gigi, having a chat with her boss, when the meeting takes a sharp turn. Gigi’s boss tells her that her work has been lacking recently and that maybe she needs to stay late a couple of evenings to make it up. Surprised by her boss’s remarks, she feels the rumblings of anxiety rising in her mind and body. Psychology research suggests that Gigi feels anxious because she interpreted her boss’s remarks as something threatening that perhaps she can’t handle.

    Just as Gigi starts frantically looking online for new jobs, she spies the “employee of the month” plaque on her desk from last year. She thinks to herself that maybe she can get back to her old form. She has changed her initial view of the situation (need to run away from a threat) to a new one (let’s rise to the challenge), causing her anxiety to subside. Psychologists call this process reappraisal.

    Studies show that reappraising emotional situations is a powerful way to change how you feel. When you find the silver linings in bad situations or give others and yourself the benefit of the doubt, it can help you feel better.

    I’m a psychology researcher who’s interested in how people change their emotions. Gigi may feel a little less anxious in the moment, but does she truly believe that she can make up the work on time and regain her former glory? My colleagues and I set out to investigate whether it’s possible to start the process of reappraisal without going all the way through with it. Are people getting the full benefit from trying to think differently about their emotions?

    Reappraisal has multiple steps

    When my colleague Kateri McRae and I first started thinking about what it means to fully reappraise emotional experiences, we were struck by something we saw in the emotion regulation research. Almost all of the studies treated reappraisal as a one-step process. Researchers would ask participants to “reappraise this to make yourself feel better” and then measure the effects.

    Man with downcast eyes sits with elbows on knees and fists to temples
    Intentionally finding a new way to think about how you’re feeling can help you start changing your emotions. Maskot via Getty Images

    However, theories about how people regulate their emotions suggest that, like any effortful psychological process, reappraisal involves multiple steps.

    When you want to change how you’re feeling, you first generate a reappraisal. You bend and stretch your mind to come up with some alternative way to look at the situation. For Gigi, seeing the employee of the month plaque helped. She could have also thought of her boss’s previous compliments or how it felt to get projects done early.

    After you generate a reappraisal, it might seem like you’re done, but you’re not. That alternative interpretation is fragile and must compete with your original take that’s driving your emotion. Somehow you need to strengthen that reappraisal so it can stick.

    We call this implementation – when you focus and elaborate on that reappraisal to really change your mind about the situation. For Gigi, she may continue to think about all the ways that she can be a great employee so that it lodges firmly in her mind and makes her anxiety truly disappear.

    We tested this idea in a study. We showed 89 undergraduate participants images of negative situations and asked them to first just generate a reappraisal of the image that could help them feel better about it. For example, they might see a picture of a frail man in a hospital bed and tell themselves that the man is getting good treatment and will be better soon. Then, we showed them the image again and asked them to focus and elaborate in their mind on their reappraisal.

    Participants felt a little better after generating a reappraisal, but they felt much better after implementing it by focusing and fleshing out the details. In a follow-up study, we showed that these emotional boosts persisted when viewing the images later.

    Choosing to commit to feeling better

    So we experimentally showed that people reappraise their feelings in two steps. So what? That’s probably what everyone does naturally, anyway, right?

    This was the next question we sought to answer. We conducted a study with 52 undergraduate participants like the earlier one, but with a twist. This time, after participants generated a reappraisal, we gave them a choice to continue the reappraisal process by implementing it or to stop the process by distracting themselves.

    Participants chose to continue reappraising their emotions only about half the time. Even though reappraisal made participants feel better about the emotional images, there were still many times when they stopped the process prematurely and did not enjoy its full benefits.

    Young woman looks out window holding tablet and pen
    Successfully reappraising your emotions calls for not giving up on the process too soon. whitebalance.space/E+ via Getty Images

    In real life

    These studies showing the benefits of fully following through on emotional reappraisals are lab experiments, but they have implications for how people try to help themselves feel better in real life.

    First, it’s hard to intentionally change how you think about something, and people tend to dislike continuing to do hard things. Indeed, in our choice study, people opted to give up on reappraising when they weren’t feeling its benefits early on. Knowing this human tendency might give you the best chance of continuing reappraisal even when it doesn’t feel like it’s working or is hard.

    Second, people often get reappraisals from others, and it’s tempting to think that hearing a new perspective is all you need. Indeed, we have unpublished data that shows that participants feel pretty good when receiving a reappraisal from someone else about their own situation. But other people cannot change your mind for you. You must do that yourself if you want to truly feel better.

    Next time you’re in an unpleasant situation like Gigi’s, don’t just cursorily think that you can rise to the challenge. Really think through the situation and let your new perspective become your only one.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Explore More Stories

Research

How couples divide chores may shape sexual desire in ways you wouldn’t expect

Public Good

Air Force graduate tears up when friend steps in to ‘tap him out’ during graduation

Well-being

59% of Americans worry about sunscreen chemicals. Only 32% understand how sunscreen works.

Everyday Economics

The salary you need to live comfortably in 100 US cities