Tetris Cures Anxiety Disorders, And The Medical Community Doesn’t Want You To Know About It

Tetris

In a recent news article, it was revealed that people exposed to traumatic images and events could be spared the suffering of recurring, obsessive thoughts by simply… playing Tetris soon afterwards.

From arstechnica.com:

“…the brain has limited resources, and secondly, work on memory consolidation suggests that there is a six-hour window within which disruption of that consolidation is possible. Put another way, there’s only so much your brain can do at once, and if you distract it within that six-hour window, you can prevent the memory being fully formed.”

It sounds too good to be true. But then, so does the actual cure for any disorder along the anxiety spectrum, including Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Panic Attacks, Depersonalization, Phobias, OCD, PTSD, etc etc. People who develop these types of conditions are often terrified when their initial research or trip to their doctor tells them that there is no actual specific cure for them; but that a course of SSRI anti-depressants and/or series of sessions in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy might just do the trick.

And yes, these approaches can certainly help and even cure people in some cases. But the actual structure and anxiety-related basis of these conditions means that if the patient does recover, it’s invariably a by-product of the therapy and not the therapy itself.

I’m speaking from experience; I suffered from chronic anxiety, panic attacks and depersonalization for almost two years. And I tried everything – you name it, I paid for it – Medication, meditation, Reiki, Yoga, etc etc. None of these approaches seemed to work. But in the end, I recovered, and what cured me was an intensive course of distraction. I kept my mind occupied 24/7: practicing the guitar, reading books, playing video games. I didn’t give myself one minute to accommodate the anxiety. Basically, I had to retrain my brain to not focus on obsessive, negative thoughts – and it worked like a charm. I’ve been telling people my story via an ebook, and have received almost universally positive feedback from readers. This stuff works, and it’s really as simple as it sounds. That’s not to say that it’s not hard work – it absolutely is – but it’s not complicated.

Doctor

I’m certainly not the first person to be aware of this. For example, Charles Linden’s anti-anxiety program basically says the same thing. And the fact is that anxiety research, when viewed through this lens, absolutely backs up the distraction theory. Indeed, it makes total sense that for something as purely self-perpetuating as anxiety disorders, treating them in the traditional sense is an exercise in futility. Most of these approaches just reconfirm to the individual that there is something ‘wrong’ with them, reminding their subconscious that it’s supposedly ‘ill’. But it’s not – it’s just addicted, temporarily, to one specific train of thought. And distraction can cure it.

The whole thing is basically an extension of the Tetris/PTSD phenomenon – If the events have been stuck in your thoughts for a few hours, then immediate, intensive distraction for a little while will push out them out as if they’d never been there in the first place.  If you’re unfortunate enough to have been stuck with these thoughts for months and even years, then it’s probably going to take a few months worth of constant distraction to achieve the same effect. But it always works. It works because the mind has been diverted (by trauma, drugs, grief etc) into an anxious, introspective state, and all you’re doing now is reversing that procedure. It works because it has to work.

People often fear that the trauma of the anxiety will be with them forever, or fear that their personality will be somehow different. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it’s because of a mental phenomenon known as state-specific memory. It basically means that once you are completely out of a state, or an experience, that it’s very difficult to remember the full extent or power of  your emotions while you were in it. It’s one of the most brutal things about depression, in that when you feel very down, you can actually ask yourself, “Was I ever really happy?”  Since you are not in anything resembling a happy state, it’s nearly impossible to remember when you had one. The same goes for anxiety (which is very much linked to depression). But the fact is that it works the other way too – so that when you get out of the anxious state, you actually wonder, “What the hell was I so worried about?”  So, I can clearly remember the time I spent feeling constant anxiety and panic attacks, but I can’t relate to it anymore. Which is a good thing.

I think that’s also the reason that when we have nightmares, in which we see  the most horrendous images dredged from the pits of our own subconscious, and tailored to terrify you specifically — we can still get up, have our breakfast, go to work and forget about it. Why are we not crippled by these images, why don’t they haunt us and stop us leaving the house? Because when we wake up we lose the dream state, we are immediately back in a normal, structured reality that is entirely different from the nightmare, and requires our full concentration to navigate. We don’t have time to focus on the fear, and so it disappears. (Interestingly, at the nadir of my anxiety disorder, I was actually having panic attacks in my dreams, waking up and having another panic attack. Great fun altogether…)

Unfortunately, this goes so completely against the standard medical view of anxiety disorders that it is seen by most doctors as baseless conjecture. All of these MDs who prescribe cocktails of medications to treat “separate” anxiety-related neuroses are following their training to the T, but they are missing the big picture. I’m not going to get into a rant about how so many of them are tied up in ‘sponsored dispensation‘ of medications, but the fact is that it’s far more beneficial for doctors to prescribe a long course of anti-depressants and follow-up appointments (which is all by the book) rather than tell a patient  that they might recover completely if they spend their money instead on a Nintendo with Tetris (which is definitely not by the book). It’s what happened to me; over the course of 12 months, I saw a doctor, one of the highest-paid in the country, who really had no idea how to deal with my condition and just gave me tablets and platitudes until I went away.

It just never fails to amaze me just how little doctors know about anxiety conditions in general. I have so many emails from people who, suffering from what are blatantly obvious symptoms of anxiety, are told by their doctors that they may be having a nervous breakdown, a manic-depressive episode, even a psychotic break. These poor souls, who are experiencing nothing more than an overreaction of their fight or flight response – something easily cured – are told that they may be looking at years of medication, therapy and brainscans, at the precise time when what they need most is distraction from their condition.

It’s a disgusting level of ignorance, perpetuated by both the pharmaceutical industry and avaricious, blinkered doctors, and it ruins lives. It needs to be addressed immediately.

f

Should We Ignore Or Help Difficult People?

In my last article, “The Secret: Fact Or Fiction?”, I  said that “It is certainly flawed in places, and offers rather simplistic views of, for example, why bad events sometimes befall people (they draw it upon themselves, apparently).” Some people have argued that “The Secret” implies a  shunning of these people, that negative thoughts are contagious and that you must not draw them – or the people who think them – upon yourself.

I have wondered about this for a long time; what are you supposed to do with people who are just, well, negative?

A few years back, I suffered from panic attacks and an obsessive thought disorder known as depersonalization. Despite my initial enthusiasm for the Internet as a research tool, I found that using it as such in this case was extremely dangerous. Why? Because almost all of the forums in which you would expect to find support were actually inhabited by people who had no intention of getting better. It’s a horrible thing to say, but it’s true. People logged in day after day, broadcasting their self-pity on a digital soapbox. These posts usually amounted to little more than reassurance of the grimness of everyone’s situation, which is particularly demoralising to an individual with an obsessive thinking disorder. According to these people, nobody ever gets better from these conditions, and most people who logged on to say they had were branded a liar (I was one of them).

After my recovery, I wrote and began selling a guide on how to deal with obsessive thinking; one of the golden rules of that book was to never, ever go into a forum again. I have told everybody, and I mean hundreds of buyers, everyone who has read the book – to never speak to the people in the forums again, to have nothing to do with them. Because they will drag you down, they will infect you via emotional osmosis and make your own recovery that much more difficult. It happened to me many, many times before I noticed the pattern and stopped it.

And that’s the dilemma. Is it our duty to help and be kind to people who are, on the surface at least, cruel and hurtful? Or, to be exact, is it our duty to do this continually for that person?

I have been blessed with a wonderful family, with whom I get on very well; but I know people who have had to practically cut relatives out of their lives, purely for the sake of ease. Again, it sounds terrible, but if that person’s mood and demeanour affects yours (as it almost always must), how do you deal with a regular barrage of pessimism and ignorance that sucks the energy and vitality from yourself? And let me be clear; I am not talking about depression or sadness in a person. Of course, these absolutely must be dealt with, thoroughly and attentively. But in this case I am talking about negativity, insults, put-downs, bullying, manipulation and exploitation.

I had the experience of spending a good deal of time with one individual who had been “cut off” by another close member of their family, simply because the latter was totally unable to deal with the irresponsible behaviour of the former. Despite my initial scepticism towards this way of dealing with the situation, I had to eventually conclude that it was the only practical way of doing so. The assumption, however hopeful, would be that the person in question would in the future, find a level of maturity on their own to allow for a reconciliation.

But until then, is there really any other alternative? Talking things out is not always a viable option. Often, when someone is confronted with what they perceive to be an assault on their ego, they can respond with tears, shouts or even violence. Indeed, arguing one worldview versus another is generally a exercise in futility. For example, take your average college debate. Let’s say that one side comes up with a long list of trump reasonings for their argument, while the other side fails to respond with anything remotely cohesive. Do you think that at any point, any member of the latter team will stand up and say “You know what? You’re right”, and join the other side?

Of course not. Why? Because most of us have developed this silly idea that our viewpoint is somehow connected to our ego, that changing one’s mind is somehow evidence of defeat, of not having thought things through. A healthier stance would be that changing one’s mind is evidence of adaptability, of willingness to change and evolve.

That’s why confronting someone who you believe to be mistreating others or acting in an ignorant manner can be so dangerous; because you are criticizing their behaviour, the way they interact with the world – and deep offence can be taken.

On the other hand, let’s consider the audience of the debate. These people are prone to great variances in opinion between the beginning and end of the verbal contest. In an excellent, ongoing series of podcasts, the moderators measure the listeners’ attitudes before and after the debate, which often produces huge differences. Why does this happen to the audience and not the debaters? Because the audience are spectators; they have no immediate social investment in the belief being contested. Not only that, but they are part of a gathering where the adaptation of thought is accepted and even encouraged.

They weigh up the evidence, and decide for themselves. And that’s a great microcosm for one’s personal ascent to maturity. Telling someone to change won’t make them change; demonstrating the value of change will allow them to make the decision for themselves. The famous therapeutic hypnotist Milton Erickson accomplished this brilliantly: For example, he had a rule of never telling his patients what not to do (i.e., “Don’t laugh”, “Don’t worry”). Also, he used techniques such as metaphorical stories to insinuate that the patient could get better. The bottom line was that everything was accomplished on the patient’s terms, a revolutionary approach that allowed for full recoveries in astonishingly short periods of time. Why? Because the patient figured out for themselves that they could do just that, for themselves.

It’s like the Buddhist saying, “When the student is ready, the lesson presents itself.” And the Desiderata says, “Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexations to the spirit.” If we take these sayings together, we might conclude that sometimes, it’s necessary to just leave some people alone and hope that they figure certain things out for themselves. This can be very tough, especially if that person is or has been close to you.

r

But if the student isn’t ready, maybe there is little you can do but wait and hope for the best.

r