Empathy: Is it a good thing, a bad thing, or just a thing? Does being high in empathy make you a good person and does being low in empathy make you a bad person? Good questions. We turn to research to find the answer.
Turns out, the answer is actually that empathy is not moral or immoral, rather it is amoral. It’s just a thing. It does not make you a good person to have a lot or a bad person to have little. There is no such connection.
In a 2014 paper for the Psychological Bulletin, researchers reviewed all available data on this subject in a meta-analysis and found that 1% of the variation of aggression was due to lack of empathy. There is no real correlation to low empathy making you a bad person.
Studies show that when “spotlighting” one through empathy, one is willing to disregard laws, ethics, morals, and good reasoning to make sure the one they’re empathizing with is taken care of. This clearly clouds our judgement.
Participants in one study were willing to move one subject up in the list of transplants, even if it meant there was a good chance the subject would still live and a good chance the ones she skipped would die. It didn’t matter. Participants had empathy.
Another study took it another step and participants were willing to inflict pain that could result in hospitalization on a math contest participant that was opposing the one they were empathizing with. Didn’t matter. Gotta empathize.
You can only empathize with one person at a time. You can sympathize with many and have compassion for many. But you can only empathize with one at a time. This is why it is so dangerous.
Is it all bad? No. Cognitive empathy, theory of mind, and effective altruism are all ways in which empathy can be a good thing. We can allow it to drive us in a good direction but empathy must be met with analytic and altruistic reasoning that calibrates the possible upcoming action for effectiveness and realistic achievement. Understanding where someone is and how they are feeling is a good thing. When it propels us into unfettered, unbridled, blind action is when it becomes a problem.
Compassion is the best emotion to feel for those suffering. It is a true feeling that keeps bad decisions at bay long enough for your prefrontal cortex to get involved and make a rational decision. Rational compassion.
So, please remember this when you begin hearing people claiming empathy is the one all encompassing path to morality and goodness. It is FAR from that. On a good day.
I’ll start walking your way, you start walking mine…
I heard the story of girls in college who were roommates. The four of them were eating dinner and the conversation turned to politics. One girl said to one other girl, “You can’t be part of this discussion because the three of us are not on your side. We are on the other side.” This was brought to my attention because I know some of them. My immediate response was, “Why is there a ‘side’?” But really, why does there have to be a side? This isn’t a new problem.
There we were, people were willingly losing lifelong friends in the name of “Their team.” The entire first term of Trump and the entire time Biden was in office, this permeated throughout society. Biden and his team were making claims that no one consciously believed to be true. Men were not having babies. But this was being said by very important people that were believed to be smart. But this is what one “side” was saying. The more the conspiracy theories became true, people began questioning what a conspiracy theory really was.
Then comes Trump for a second term. Trump could announce that he will dedicate a state park and include outstanding black men and women in American history and someone would still find a way to hate him. In fact, he did just that! Notable black people in American history, like MLK Jr., Fredrick Douglas, Muhammed Ali, Harriet Tubman, and many more, will be honored by this new park. But it will somehow become a bad thing. Why? Because we can’t find the middle.
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner speaks as President Donald Trump and Tiger Woods listen during a reception for Black History Month in the East Room of the White House Thursday, Feb. 20, 2025. AP/PTI(AP02_21_2025_000007B)
What does the middle look like?
It probably looks like a place where I get to think for myself. If I like Trump more than Harris, and I vote for Trump, then he renames the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, I can think for myself and come to the conclusion that this was one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen a president do. The middle is also a place where I can acknowledge that one the best moments of the Biden administration was when they began making steady moves towards bringing mental health to a place where it is recognized similarly to physical health, in the way of insurance coverage and medical recognition. It is being normalized by the medical society and subsequently helping save lives every day. This was because of the Biden administration.
If I loved Biden/Harris and despised Trump, the middle would look like a place where I could acknowledge that the insanity of claiming men can have babies and that anything non-white is good must cease if we are to move forward as a country. In the middle, I could despise the things that Trump says, enjoy the things that Biden or Harris say, and still recognize that both Trump and Biden gained the most financially from the production of covid vaccines. In the middle, I could see that while Biden was my choice for president, He changed the catch and release program from release back to Mexico awaiting trial to release into America while awaiting trial, causing there to be less actual trials for asylum seekers than ever before. I could recognize that the First Step Act enacted during Trump’s first term released over 1000 black men on day one of the implementation, and that this is a great thing. I could acknowledge that one is my president but call him out when he makes a bad decision. Because in the middle, I am my own person.
We have this terrible tendency to look at politics in much the same way we do sports. There is a binary way of thinking. Me against you. One way or the other way. Good verse bad. In sports, it is my team against your team. The problem with this analogy is that, in sports, when the Eagles beat the Chiefs in the Super Bowl, America still won. When one part of America defeats another part, nobody wins. We become the divided states of America.
We find ourselves looking at the middle as if it is a severe compromise that denigrates our own conceptualization of what is right and wrong, causing us to combat such cognitive dissonance with blind fervor in an effort to retain what’s left of being right, regardless of whether we are right or not. This perception of the middle is a very nihilistic and produces nothing good. We would rather hang on to wrong information than accept that fact that we could be wrong and welcome new correct information. James Baldwin once said,
“I imagine one of the reasons people cling to hate so stubbornly is because they sense, once the hate is gone, they will be forced to deal with the pain.”
So what happened to the middle?
Well, it moved. If you found yourself just slightly to the left of the middle 10 years ago, it is now moved to your left. You are now slightly right of the middle. How did that happen? Each group pulled to the outer realms of their beliefs. The right pulled towards the far right and the left pulled to the far left. The results were that the left pulled stronger. How did that happen? Negative emotions. Studies show that when an emotion is tied to an event, you are far more likely to remember it, especially if it is a negative emotion (Kensinger, 2009). This is because during episodic encoding and retrieval, neurologically encoding negative emotions involves the sensory systems of process and positive emotions involve conceptual processes. So when something good happens, we see it from a conceptual framing, as if it contributes to the overall existential congruence we hoped for. But when something negative happens, it catches all of our senses, particularly sight, feeling, and hearing, which is directly involved in the release of cortisol.
Why is this relevant to the left pulling stronger?
Because the left are typically the ones responsible for suggesting new ideas to replace old broken ones. This is vital to our country’s success. However, this usually involves being emotionally tied to a negative situation where there needs to be a new policy or a changed policy. So they feel strongly about a situation and begin acting on this negative emotion. This activates the sensory system and gets emotions directly involved, which studies show can severely cloud good judgment. That’s where conservatives come in. Conservatives’ job is to address the new suggestions from a more analytical approach. So when the pulling began, the emotional ties to policies were stronger than the conceptual ties to policy. Thus, the left pulled stronger.
Why are feelings bad when making policy?
It has been shown that empathy can cloud judgement beyond the scope of morality or even legality. Studies have shown that juries are more likely to find one guilty based on the emotional display of the victim regardless of facts, laws, or evidence (Prinz, 2011). Studies also show that people are willing to inflict pain on an innocent person if that person is in competition with the person one is empathizing with (Buffone & Poulin, 2014). Lastly, studies show that people are willing to be unfair and unjust to someone if they are in the way of the person we are empathizing with getting the help they need, even if it means someone else, or a group of people all dying as a result of the person you’re empathizing with getting help (Batson et al., 1995). It is a terrible idea to make policy based on emotions.
So how should this work?
The ideal situation goes like this: A liberal sees a flaw in a policy or a lack of a policy and suggest, “This is broken (or missing) and we need to do something about it. I think we should do_(xyz)__!” The conservative says, “Ok, let’s look at history. Has it been done before? Has it worked? What do we think will happen if we implement this policy? How will it affect the overall population?” Then the liberal and the conservative reach a compromise, and a policy is enhanced or created that is better for society as a whole. Emotions drive it, analytics define it, and reason implements it.
Why is this not happening now?
Algorithms. If you are not paying for the product, you are the product. The algorithms of social media are designed to only show you more of what you say you like. So the amount of opposing views you now see is minimal, on purpose. If you only see what you like, it only pours gas on the fire of fury you have over perceived atrocities. If we can remember this, we can understand that the real world looks nothing like the online world. Then and only then we may be able to meet in the middle… beneath that ole Georgia pine (please tell me you’ve heard of Diamond Rio!).
Stay Classy GP!
Grainger
References
Buffone, A. E. K., & Poulin, M. J. (2014). Empathy, Target Distress, and Neurohormone Genes Interact to Predict Aggression for Others–Even Without Provocation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(11), 1406; 1406–1422; 1422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214549320
Are bunny rabbits cute? Sure they are. So let’s talk about them. One group of researchers took babies between the ages of 3 months and 7 months old and conducted an experiment. They put on a puppet show with little stuffed bunnies. They were wearing various colored shirts. The primary bunny had a gray shirt on. He was trying to get an item into a box and needed help. Along came a bunny with a blue shirt and helped the gray bunny get the item in the box. Nice thing to do. They did the scenario again, but this time a bunny with an orange shirt came and closed the box so the gray bunny could not get the item in. Not so nice. Afterwards, they presented the blue and orange bunnies to the baby and allowed them to choose which one to pick. Over 80% of the babies chose the blue bunny. They instinctively knew the blue bunny was good and the orange bunny was mean.
Next, they had a yellow bunny and a green bunny involved. First, the baby was to choose a food item, a golden graham or a cheerio. Let’s use the cheerio for this scenario. The baby chose a cheerio. Then the yellow bunny chose a cheerio. Next, the green bunny chose the golden graham saying the cheerio was bad. Again, they presented the bunnies to the baby and over 70% of the babies picked the bunny that chose the same food they selected.
This last experiment is where it gets interesting. They used the bunnies who chose the food items, yellow and green, and conducted the first experiment. For instance, the baby chose the cheerio, and the yellow bunny had also chosen the cheerio. The yellow bunny approached the gray bunny and slammed the box shut so that the gray bunny could not get the item into the box. While the green bunny helped the gray bunny get the item into the box. This produced an internal dilemma for the babies. They liked the good bunny in the first experiment. They liked the bunny that chose the same food they liked. But what happens when the bunny that chose the food they liked is the bad bunny in the next experiment? When presented with the yellow and green bunny in the situation I just presented, the baby still chose the yellow bunny who selected the same food as the baby, even though the yellow bunny had been mean to the gray bunny.
What does this mean? The baby chose what was familiar over what was good. In fact, most babies in this experiment chose what was familiar over what was good. This indicates a natural tendency in humans to choose the familiar over the moral or ethical. The implication for human behavior is that when we encounter adversity in our lives, we quickly return to whatever is familiar. We like, and ultimately choose, whatever is familiar because there is safety in this. We recognize this. It shields us from the unknown. If abuse is familiar, this is what we will return to. We are quicker to return to abuse if we a) don’t know our worth and b) possess too much empathy for our abuser, also known as identification with aggressor (IWA).
Setting the tone for our children to learn and fully understand who they are and their worth is vital to adequate development. They must be taught what their actual value is. If they are not taught by parents, someone else will teach them, and it will likely be wrong. When we believe we have more worth than we actually do, this causes problems, as we overestimate our abilities, as seen in the Dunning-Kruger effect. When we believe that we have less worth than we do, this causes problems in assertiveness, standing up for ourselves, and allowing others to take advantage of us personally and professionally. The solution is simple. Who is God in you? That is the question. If we truly understand that we are nothing without God, but we are everything with Him, this gives us proper perspective. I have accepted this perspective, and subsequently, I do not allow someone to offer me less than what I deserve, but I simultaneously do not believe I am owed more than I deserve either. When you do not understand your worth, you allow things to happen to you that you would never normally allow if a) you knew your actual worth and b) it wasn’t previously familiar.
Another aspect of this conversation is empathy. Too much empathy can be absolutely poisonous. Empathy has a dark side to it that discriminates against anything or anyone not in perfect alignment with the individual you are currently showing empathy for, even in the face of moral or even legal dilemmas. This happens in the context of this subject as women try to show empathy to their abuser, believing there are good parts of them and they choose to focus on those aspects of the person they are in a relationship with. In this case, empathy drives IWA and blinds them to the reality of the boundaries this person has obliterated, in the name of empathetic dysfunction. A pre-covid study was done on this subject. Victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) were surveyed, and it was discovered that over 66% of women had reported to have left and returned to an abusive relationship once and 97% reported to have left and returned multiple times. There are many reasons for this, but the primary reason is not knowing your worth. It is fair to suspect these numbers are even higher post-covid.
This only highlights the need for parents to instill in our children good habits and good interpersonal perspectives. My parents forced me to go to church when I was younger. Then later, when life became very difficult, I returned to what I knew, church. Whatever you instill in them as a child, they will return to when things get tough. My parents made sure that I knew that I could accomplish great things, while understanding my place in the home and in the world, all while putting me in the position to return to healthy practices when life did what life does. Set your children up for success by instilling a balance of knowing who they are and who they are not. This will take care of the self-esteem issue and knowing their worth will help them avoid many obstacles in life.
Was 2024 different from 2023? Better or worse? The answer to that will be drastically different for those who experienced severe tragedy in 2023 or 2024. For those that didn’t, what was different about 2024? And the real question, what are you going to do differently in 2025 to make it better than 2024? The real answer is a very uncomfortable one. We have work to do.
Anytime something is better than before, it goes through an arduous process prior to the improvement of status. When making glass, it goes through extreme heat. For muscles to get bigger, they first tear. If you obtained a degree, license, or certification, you first took some very difficult tests.
There is no workaround. There are no cliff notes for actual progress. There’s no “swipe right” or “door dash me a degree please.” It’s the hard process that makes it real, adds value, makes it better, provides a sense of accomplishment.
What does that mean for you? For most, we could start with opening our minds. If I type, “Liberals are..” and you immediately finish that sentence with something negative, you have work to do. Because my first instinct is to finish the sentence with the word “needed.” I said this on the first page of my book, America’s Greatest Threat: America, “Without both liberals and conservatives, we don’t have a thriving country.” The same can be said on the other side. No “side” is any better than the other. They have work to do.
A recent example of this was the tragedy of the man driving the truck through a New Orleans crowd. Conservatives ran immediately to border policies, which was disrespectful of the deceased, if nothing else. They ran without all the facts. Just like liberals did with the last 5 mass shootings. They just ran headlines to push an agenda without waiting for the facts.
The facts came out that he was an American. Border policies had nothing to do with this. If you can’t see the problem with that, just because they appear to be on your “team”, you have work to do.
This thinking only comes about from limiting our informational intake to resounding echo chambers of negative outrage that captivates our attention and merely stokes previously held beliefs, that on the surface appear to be axiomatic, regardless of whether they are actually right, wrong, good, or bad. There was a paper recently released that showed that most Americans believe that if someone disagrees with them, it was because they did not listen properly. They must not have actually heard them. That is a big problem. They may just disagree because people have varying perspectives. Perspectives that you don’t have. And it is likely that you may benefit from other perspectives. Actually, it isn’t likely, it is a guarantee. We all have work to do.
If 2025 brings us anything, may it bring us the instantiation of diverse conversation, leading to and from diversity of thought, completely irrespective of nonmalleable identity characteristics. May it bring difficult, yet civil, discourse, with a central goal to make the immediate world around us better, often beginning with understanding others better, especially those we don’t align with optimally. May it produce conversations that have a central aim, and may we not be so rigid in our thinking that we can’t see that there may be a better way of thinking than the mode we currently employ.
If you want to see 2025 as being better than 2024, start with reshaping how you view those you don’t often agree with. Jesus did. So can we. Clearly, we have work to do.
Why is polarization so bad? I mean, I like what I like. And what I dislike, I don’t want any part of it. There are people who like pineapple on pizza and there are those who are right. You either hate pineapple on pizza or you’re wrong! There are only two options. So far, polarization sounds pretty good. There is group polarization. This type of polarization is when there is a group of people that consistently reinforce previously held beliefs or opinions. The more the group opinions are discussed, the more extreme they become. To understand the impact, we must break it down a bit. Binary thinking and beneficial opposition are two good places to start.
Binary thinking is the process of thinking in terms of two. It is either this way or that way. There are no other ways. This has roots as old as time. But as it pertains to the U.S., we can go to the Revolutionary War. It is us, the new British, against them, the old British. It is the unrepresented against the negligent representatives. It is the oppressed against the oppressor. Karl Marx capitalized (ironic word to use here) on this weakness of the mind when he wrote the Communist Manifesto. He highlighted the oppressor (Bourgeois) and the oppressed (proletariat). Marx realized that if he could accomplish the task of everyone thinking in terms of two, then get the two at total odds with each other, this would open the door for someone to come in and “save the day.” This is how you take control of a group or country. As a result, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao attempted just that. Even Hitler knew to get people within Germany at odds with themselves. He also set out to divide the country into groups so that they fought with each other, allowing him to do whatever he pleased because they were so preoccupied with the fight at hand.
So what does binary thinking have to do with polarization? When we are in a binary mode of thinking, one against the other, it turns the argument into being polarized one way or the other. If we could get our thinking out of binary and into multivariate thinking, it would begin to eliminate polarization because there are many different ways of viewing something or someone. For instance, politics is the easiest mechanism to use for this conversation. People often think we are either republicans or democrats. But what if we’re neither? We feel ostracized. What if I believe in liberal ideals in some areas and conservative ideals in other areas? What if there aren’t only two ways of viewing a problem or a solution? If we open our eyes, we will see that there are many reasons why someone would want the government out of their business. There are many different ways to view a problem and even more ways to view a solution. If you limit your thinking to bi-directional, you miss out on so many other vantage points that are very plausible.
.
Another part of the problem with this polarized way of thinking is that it only stokes existing fires and begins to remove anything beneficial to you coming from such sources. For example, you believe orange man is bad for our country. So everything you will see on social media and everyone you talk to will echo this sentiment. You will never be able to digest him doing anything good, if indeed he does something good. Polarization exacerbates negative emotion… “Get your pitchforks and your torches!” they said, when they were running to lynch Shrek. They knew only what they had been told by their echo chambers and never heard another perspective that may challenge theirs. As the story goes, we learn that Shrek was actually a very kind gentleman.
Beneficial opposition is maybe the most interesting concept, and yet a quite simple one also. Opposition, in the way I’m using it here, can be explained in terms of working out. When you lift weights, you cause opposition, or resistance. You tear the muscle to make it heal stronger. You put force against it so that in the final analysis, it benefits the muscle. We require beneficial opposition to keep us calibrated in life.
Another interesting version of beneficial opposition is marriage. In the Bible, God says that it isn’t good for Adam to be alone and that He is creating a “helpmate” for Adam. That term helpmate is made of two Hebrew words, ezer and kenegdo. The term ezer means to rescue, save, to be strong. Kenegdo means to oppose, compliment, counter. This term is used 21 times in the bible; 3 for military, 2 for women, and the other 16 times it was the term used to describe God as a stabilizing helper. This is how important women are to society and to us. So God said (paraphrased), “I’m going to give you someone who will help you on one hand, and oppose and counter you on the other.” This is a principle that is used in neurophysiology when they want to stabilize something. Applying opposing force to something causes it to become more steady, less shaky, and more capable of direct linear movement. If you have recently changed a car battery, there is usually a block that is bolted down that helps stabilize the battery so that it doesn’t move around and cause harm to the engine. That is a beneficially stabilizing force. So God Himself knew that we needed beneficial opposition and created just that for us. In common vernacular, God gave us someone to keep us in check, because as men, we need it!
Back to polarization. If we now know that we need multiple viewpoints to avoid binary thinking that leads to inevitable polarization, the only way this is possible is through beneficial opposition, hearing something we haven’t heard before. We must open our ears to viewpoints we don’t typically share in order to hear a perspective we haven’t thought of. The problem is that listening to viewpoints that may conflict with our previously held presuppositions causes internal conflict. This internal conflict is uncomfortable. We are presented with an idea that, if accepted by us, means we have been wrong the whole time about the previously held idea. And this goes against our very nature to seek proper understanding. Now we’re faced with the possibility of being wrong, which could cause us to second-guess everything else in our lives. What all have I been wrong about if I was wrong about that? For some, this causes them to rethink their entire existence, which is detrimental to their health. Hopefully, at some point, we get more and more comfortable being wrong about something in order to become more knowledgeable and closer to the ultimate aspiration in proper understanding. It’s ok to be wrong. Let the old idea go. Accept the new idea and let it propel you forward.
The way to avoid polarization is to open your mind to multiple ideas and be willing to hear opposition to a previously held idea with the possibility that you were already correct or maybe you were not and now that you have accepted this new idea, you are now correct in your thinking on that subject. It’s possible. Having said all that, don’t expect me to start putting pineapple on my pizza. I have to draw the line somewhere.
Ah, Thanksgiving! That glorious time of year when you can’t decide to bake or fry your turkey. You have the choice of having your potatoes with little lumps, with peas and onions, or the everlasting standby: tater tots. Your choice of 5 different desserts…oh the dessert! It’s a meal that’s been in the works for days, sometimes even weeks, and it’s finally here. The moment has arrived for you to gather around the table with friends, family, and a serious amount of stuffing. But wait—before you start mentally calculating how many calories are on your plate, take a deep breath and repeat after me: No regrets.
Let’s get real for a second. We all know that Thanksgiving is an indulgent holiday. It’s not about measuring out your portions or calculating macros; it’s about eating for joy, not for judgment. And you know what? You DON’T have to feel guilty about it.
*SN If you are boycotting all pilgrim holidays, this still applies for your grilled cheese or your trip to Ruby Tuesday.
Balance is Key—Not Guilt
Here’s the thing: You won’t get skinny from one salad, and you won’t get fat from one Thanksgiving meal. Balance is the magic word. It’s all about perspective. Let’s say you devour an extra slice of pumpkin pie (guiltyyyy). Sure, in the moment, you might feel a little bit like you’ve just made a questionable life choice. But in the grand scheme of things, that slice of pie is not going to singlehandedly derail your fitness and health goals or send you into an emotional tailspin.
Instead of stressing over every bite, try focusing on the bigger picture: you’re enjoying food that’s been carefully prepared with love and tradition. And if that means going a little overboard on the different potato options, so be it. The meal is temporary, but the memories of laughing with your loved ones over a shared table last a lifetime.
Let’s Talk About That Salad
You know what’s great? Eating healthy most of the time. That’s the true key to balance. But do we need to turn a salad into a shrine of holiness just because it’s the “healthier” choice? Not really. Yes, the salad is a lovely gesture, but it’s not going to cancel out your second helping of gravy-drenched turkey. One salad doesn’t make you a health guru, and one Thanksgiving meal doesn’t make you a turkey-stuffing monster.
Just eat the danged ole salad if you’re craving it, and then go for the stuffing, mashed potatoes, and whatever else your heart desires. Food is meant to be savored, not tortured by guilt.
The Real Secret: Mindful Eating
The real trick to enjoying Thanksgiving (or any indulgent meal, really) is mindfulness. Savor your bites. Pay attention to the flavors and textures. Listen to the crunch of the stuffing and the smoothness of the gravy. Be present in the moment, not thinking about whether you should have skipped the extra roll or if you’re going to have to do 500 burpees to make up for that extra scoop of cranberry sauce.
You know why? Because this holiday only comes around once a year. It’s a chance to celebrate abundance, connection, and joy. Focus on the fun, the family, the laughs, and the fact that the pie you’re about to devour is really freaking delicious. You’ll feel fuller with joy than with regret.
It’s Not a Day of Sin
Let’s get one thing straight: Thanksgiving is not the day you “fall off the wagon.” There’s no wagon to fall off of—there’s only a table, filled with glorious, comforting food. It’s one meal. One day. Not a week, not a month, not a lifestyle choice. So, embrace it.
The next morning, if you’re feeling sluggish, take a walk. Drink some water. But don’t punish yourself for enjoying yourself the day before. You didn’t ruin anything. You didn’t undo all your hard work. You just had a really good meal. And that’s something worth celebrating.
The Bottom Line? Eat, Enjoy, Repeat
So, here’s the bottom line: Thanksgiving is about enjoying the food, not obsessing over it. It’s about balance, mindfulness, and zero guilt. Fill your plate, fill your heart, and most importantly, fill your soul. If you eat something with a sense of enjoyment and no second-guessing, your body will thank you for it.
And if you do find yourself eyeing that last slice of pie and thinking, “Can I? Should I?” The answer is yes, yes you can. And you should—because one indulgent day won’t derail anything. Just enjoy it and move on. Tomorrow’s another day, and it’s full of opportunities to find balance all over again.
Here we are, the leaves are changing colors, and the air is turning crisp. It’s that magical time of year again. Costumes, decorations, and of course, Reese’s Cups – ok there are other candies, but we all know Reese’s Cups are the best. With all those sugary temptations, it’s easy to feel a hint of guilt. Well, there’s good news: indulging in some Halloween treats is perfectly fine – just remember to keep it fun and moderate!
Debunking the Fear of Sugar
The common misconception is that sugar itself is a direct path to health issues like heart disease and diabetes. While sugar does pack a lot of calories per gram, it’s not the sugar itself that magically creates problems. Instead, it’s overindulgence that can lead to obesity, and ultimately, those scary health conditions. A little bit of sweetness can fit into a balanced diet without the looming threat of disaster. (Real quick- I’m not saying you can’t develop conditions like heart disease and diabetes unless you are obese, however obesity heavily increases the risk of development)
The Sweet Science of Balance
For those managing conditions like diabetes, Halloween can feel a bit more complicated. It’s essential to be mindful about sugar intake. According to the Healthline article Understanding Your Daily Insulin Needs, individuals with properly functioning insulin can enjoy candy without meticulously tracking every morsel, allowing for a more relaxed experience. However, diabetics and prediabetics should approach their choices with care.
Healthline highlights that understanding how much insulin to take for the carbohydrates you eat can help people with diabetes enjoy celebrations with confidence. By keeping an eye on consumption and adjusting insulin accordingly, you can enjoy your favorite treats without worry.
Tips for a Guilt-Free Candy Adventure
Select Your Favorites: Reese’s Cups are of course your favorite. Therefore, instead of sampling every candy in the bowl, focus on the Reese’s Cup (or whichever one you so wrongly chose as your favorite). This way, you can indulge without feeling overwhelmed.
Practice Portion Control: Enjoy a small serving instead of diving headfirst into the entire stash. A little treat can satisfy your cravings and keep you on track. Remember it’s not the size of the candy bar; it’s how you enjoy it!
Stay Active: Incorporate some movement into your Halloween plans! Whether it’s a family stroll after a meal or a Stomp the Yard dance competition, staying active helps balance out those extra calories.
Prioritize Balance: Make sure your meals include plenty of vegetables, proteins, and grains. A nutritious diet allows for the occasional treat without guilt. Earn that candy!
Savor Each Bite: Take your time and enjoy your candy. Mindful eating enhances the experience and helps you feel satisfied with smaller amounts. After all, why rush a good thing when you can savor that sugary blissfulness and make the moment last?
Sugar Free Options: Last but not least, there are sugar-free options in almost every type of candy. I personally don’t care for them. I like genuine processed sugars in my life, thank you very much. Besides, most sugar-free candy has me running to the Port-a-John every time. Gross. However, these can be excellent substitutions. My wife and I regularly intake sugar-free substitutes such as, sodas, ice cream, and some homemade baked desserts. *Aspartame & sucralose are not inherently bad for you. They do give some people headaches and stomach aches (like anything else in the world), but there are no links to cancer.See PMC10459792.
This Halloween let’s embrace the joy of candy without fear! With a bit of understanding and a dash of moderation, you can enjoy your favorite sweets while keeping your health in check. So go ahead, indulge in that fun-sized treat, and celebrate your excuse to eat a Reese’s Cup (or go crazy and get a Fastbreak!). Happy Halloween!
I am thrilled to unveil a new branch of Tidbits of Audacity – our brand-new monthly blog dedicated to health and wellness. As a fitness specialist passionate about holistic wellness, I’m here to serve up some insights, tips, and inspiration to help you strut your stuff on the way to a healthier lifestyle.
Why Health and Fitness?
In a world that’s always on the go – like a squirrel on espresso – keeping our physical and mental health in check often takes a backseat. But let’s face it: a thriving life starts with a body and mind that are firing on all cylinders. Our mission with this new branch of Tidbits of Audacity is to empower you with knowledge and motivation to prioritize your well-being. From innovative workout routines to mindful practices, we’re here to support you every step of the way. (And we promise to keep the dad jokes to a minimum…well, mostly!)
What to Expect
Each month, you can look forward to engaging, evidence-based content to help you make informed decisions about your health and fitness. Here’s a sneak peek at what we’ll be covering:
Fitness Fundamentals: Whether you’re a gym guru or just figuring out how to use the treadmill without accidentally launching yourself, we’ll discuss effective workout strategies and tips tailored to your goals.
Nutrition Know-How: Discover the art of balanced eating, meal planning, and fueling your body with the nutrients it craves. We’ll bust myths and provide practical advice – like how to enjoy your favorite foods without feeling like you’ve committed a culinary crime. *Note* Diet is crucial, so we’ll tackle this from an evidence-based perspective while still allowing for a slice of pizza (or two…we won’t tell!).
Mental Wellness: Because fitness isn’t just about looking good in your new workout gear! We’ll explore strategies for managing stress, building mental resilience, and finding joy in your self-improvement journey.
Lifestyle Enhancements: Learn how small changes – like finally tossing that old mattress – can significantly boost your overall well-being, from sleep hygiene to time management.
Why This Matters
Embarking on a healthier lifestyle is not just about individual gains; it’s about fostering a healthier society. Investing in our well-being contributes to a ripple effect that benefits our families, workplaces, and communities. By sharing this journey with you, we hope to create a supportive network where everyone can thrive.
Join the Movement
We’re pumped to embark on this journey with you! Keep an eye out for our upcoming posts, and don’t hesitate to reach out with questions or topics you’d like us to cover. Together, let’s prioritize health and fitness and build a future where we can live our best lives.
Here’s to your health, happiness, and audacious living!
The founders were on to something when they left England. They left a situation where they knew it was wrong and couldn’t last. They left a monarchy. They had already seen what a pure democracy did. The mob rules. Two wolves and a sheep decide what’s for dinner. Every night. So pure democracy didn’t work. Monarchy didn’t work either. The rulers corrupted the church and caused an alliance between church and state so powerful that no one could stand against it. This is the reason they sought to keep it separate. To put a check on the government, the church, and ensure freedom to worship without such corruption looking over their heads. If you can’t tell me how to worship, then you can’t tell me to worship or not to worship.
This leaves them with brainstorming possible solutions. Fortunately, they eventually came to the correct solution. A republic: a representative democracy. Alexander Hamilton stated, “But a representative democracy, where the right of election is well secured and regulated & the exercise of the legislative, executive and judiciary authorities, is vested in select persons, chosen really and not nominally by the people, will in my opinion be most likely to be happy, regular and durable.”
Ronald Reagan said it best…
However, this can only come about if it truly represents the people. And the way this was ensured was to document that those governing only do so by the sovereignty of the consent of the governed. Meaning, the people being governed are those who chose the government. Those who make rules, enforce rules, and execute rules, only do so with the consent of the governed. This is what it means to be in a representative democracy. When people far away from the meeting itself needed to be at the meetings, they would send a representative to speak on their behalf. Whose behalf? The governed, who gave consent.
This representation keeps both the government and the governed in check. The first check in the constitution was consent. This checked the government. The second check in the constitution was the sovereign being excluded from government. That’s a check on the governed- us. In this manner, neither can have too much power. See, Athens didn’t last nearly as long as Sparta for one main reason, Sparta had divisions of the government and Athens did not. In Athens, the government was the governed and it was all ran by the people entirely.
Ok, enough with the history lesson. What does this have to do with the presidential candidates? Glad you asked. If you were to poll Americans, the overwhelming majority would say that Trump and Harris are NOT the best two options we have for president in this country. Most conservatives and liberals would rather someone less divisive. Someone that will unite the country. But that is definitely not what we have.
What we currently have in our country are two people running for president that the majority of the “governed” did not “consent” to. This is a massive problem. Politicians have routinely been accused of lying. Why? Because they say they are going to represent us in order to get our vote, then once elected, they do the opposite, which is always what they intended on doing anyway. It is rare to see a politician truly vote and lobby on behalf of the people that elected him or her. Recently, there was a group of politicians that got together to discuss the future of the area they served, and one stood up and said, “You expect us to listen to these people that don’t know as much as we do and just do what they want?” To which the speaker said, “Yes. That’s exactly what a representative democracy is.” This happened this year, 2024. Someone had to be reminded publicly that they represent people. They didn’t just get elected to do whatever they wanted. They got elected to represent us. That’s tragic.
If we don’t begin holding the “government” accountable to the “consent of the governed”, the government will only get bigger and bigger until it’s too big and we no longer have a republic, but rather an oligarchy or aristocracy. While an aristocracy is labeled as the better of the two because of a lack of corruption, neither are good, because they do not keep each other in check. As it stands, we have two candidates that were not chosen by the “governed”, but by financial elites that believe they know better than the entire country. The “governed” must get louder, or they will be silenced.
Here is a fair question. How is that we have both a massive rise in mental health cases like never seen before and more mental health professionals than ever before? If we have more mental health professionals than ever before, then we should have fewer cases of mental health issues. That’s the logical assumption. But that’s not what’s happening. We have both an increase in mental health cases and more mental health professionals than ever before.
So how did we get here? To answer this question, we must look at the differences in the overall value structure in societies before the mental health crisis explosion and after. Because what we value is what we will espouse, pursue, and emit into the world. Our values point us towards an end goal, whether we realize what that goal is and regardless of whether it is a positive and uplifting goal or a negative and destructive one.
The value and belief system of yesteryear is one of simplicity. Boys and girls grow up in school together, use different bathrooms, understand that their issues are different, and respect and appreciate the inequality of boys and girls. The values and beliefs of the past espouse the notion that where I lack, my neighbor will fill in the gap until I can stand again on my own. The community raises our children. If there was a problem with a teacher, we were instructed that we were the problem (if indeed we were, and we were most of the time). We all play a part and live closely by the golden rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” In the midst of this, if someone in our community was out of line, we stepped in to help right the wrong. If it hurt your feelings, so be it. You were better for it afterwards. Men could accomplish things that their wives couldn’t. And likewise, women could accomplish things their husbands couldn’t. And that was ok.
The values have shifted. Now, boys can go into girls’ bathrooms. Girls can join the “boy” scouts. Read that again. Now girls believe they can do anything a boy can do causing boys to react citing they can do anything a girl can do, neither of which is correct. Today’s values say take care of yourself because you can trust no one. Today’s belief system says that you can’t say anything to my children or there will be consequences. If there is a problem with a teacher, it has to be the teacher’s fault. Today’s golden rule is “He who has the gold makes the rules.”
Wives believe they can do absolutely everything their husband can do, allowing for no individualism, cooperation, negotiation, and contribution by both parties. As a result, this goal of “equality” emasculates their husband and leaves him feeling useless and worthless, which contributes to divorce. Men and women simply are not equal and appreciating that and utilizing one’s strengths where their partner is weak, and vice-versa, makes a relationship thrive long term. There is so much science that proves this.
Today we are so afraid of hurting anyone’s feelings that are willing to allow a total falsehood to control the narrative of human existence. We will deny thousands of years of objective science, thousands of years of learning and figuring out which way is the best way, and thousands of years of believing that we are not the highest being in the universe so that one person won’t have their feelings hurt.
How did we get here? We removed objective truthfrom our society. When I throw a ball in the air, it will come down. If a fetus has XY chromosomes, it will be male. Subjective versus objective can be explained this way: Merle Haggard is a great singer. That is a subjective truth. I believe that but my wife doesn’t. Merle Haggard has won multiple Grammy awards. That is objective. Regardless of how my wife feels about that, it is a verifiable, objective truth.
Some objective truths that we have let slip away include differences in sexes, appreciating the two genders, the family system is the best unit on earth for sustaining a society, the best possible environment for a child to be raised is in a low-conflict home with two biological parents, and the fact that religiosity balances, sustains, and causes any society to flourish. It promotes well-being, community, helping those in need, and unselfishness.
But we are so afraid of hurting someone’s feelings that we ignore these facts and tell outright lies. By “we”, I mostly mean mental health professionals. Although “we” as parents and societal members can also be included. And by outright lies, I mean telling society that a child being raised in a single-mother home is the same as being raised by two parents. My children don’t get to be in this category. I am divorced and remarried. That hurts my feelings. But it is a fact, regardless of how I feel about it. Or that males should be allowed to compete in female’s sports because we don’t want to hurt their feelings of being confused and qualifying for a mental health disorder, according to the DSM-V manual. This is where feelings override solid facts that point you towards healthier living. Healthier living requires that we die to one belief in order to make room for another. That requires that we hear something uncomfortable and are forced to acknowledge it and evaluate it for validity.
Regarding religiosity, when you believe you are the highest order of being in your universe, you are aware of your humanity, aware of the mistakes that you can and have made, and this frightens you. Therefore, you are either frozen in fear and refuse to take risks, or you are completely nihilistic about it and take far too many risks. Neither are good. When you believe in a higher power (God), you understand that you make mistakes but follow the One who doesn’t. You are willing to take risks, but not catastrophic risks. You understand that you have an ultimate goal to reach for, thereby making you better each day than you were the day before. You acknowledge your shortcomings, but chase the perfect One, which only makes you better, which makes your family better, which makes your community better, and so on.
We MUST return to a belief in an objective truth. Facts. Facts that say that discipline reroutes a child to success from where they were otherwise headed. Gentle parenting does not work. Facts that include teaching children that they are not the most important person in the universe and the world isn’t about them. It’s about others. Children are growing up believing they are so important that when they find out that they really aren’t, it is causing a mental health breakdown. These are measurable, scientific facts. There is an argument for and against objective morality. You can read that HERE.
Once we return to facts, even if it hurts someone’s feelings, objective truth, belief in something higher (God), we will begin to see the mental health crisis start to subside. Until then, we still have more mental health cases and more mental health professionals than ever before, which makes no logical sense. Bring logical sense back.
