#like I get he’s being dramatic here but daniel’s loneliness in general is something that gets looked over a lot

[aleksikesa]

Excerpt from the KK1 novelization

[modage]

My Top 10 Films of 2016

The difference between a good year and great year for film generally comes down to just a couple movies, and in 2016 there were a lot of films that I liked but just a few that I loved. I saw 121 films in the theatre, which is slightly less than last year, but more of those than ever (53!) were repertory titles, thanks to the newly opened Metrograph and Alamo Drafthouse. Unlike last year where studio films dominated my list with grand visions like Mad Max: Fury Road, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Inside Out, The Martian, Crimson Peak and Creed, this year the films got small. Only 3 studio films made the cut and indies like A24 and Annapurna ruled this year. As long as we still have places like those willing to make sure that film never dies, hopefully there will still be a culture left to appreciate it.

1. La La Land (Damien Chazelle) There has been a lot of talk recently about the death of film. Certainly there is no shortage of great films out there but the size of the audience to appreciate them may be shrinking, and with that the size of the films themselves. In the late 90s successful indie filmmakers could get a larger budget for their second or third film, and the result were films like Boogie Nights, Pulp Fiction and Rushmore. But today it seems like the choices are either jump straight into a blockbuster franchise or stay confined to the indie world. What we’ve lost is the $30m second or third film, the one that comes right after the scrappy indie debut and announces a promising filmmaker as a major talent. 

I liked Whiplash but never would have expected writer/director Damien Chazelle to make the leap that he did here, which is a jump in ambition, scale and talent, the likes of which I really haven't seen since the 90s. Movies may be on their way out, but La La Land makes the case for film: the best ones still do what TV never can. The film is so good and such a delicate tightrope of nostalgia/new that I'm shocked that none of the 90s auteurs got there first. (PTA & David O. Russell must be kicking themselves for never making a full-blown musical.) Emma Stone finally gets to show off her full comedic/dramatic potential, Ryan Gosling continues to hone his physical comedy chops, and the pair finally find a vehicle worthy of their onscreen chemistry. If teenagers still watch movies anymore, La La Land should be a total gateway drug to classic cinema like Boogie Nights was for me.

2. Everybody Wants Some!! (Richard Linklater) On first viewing it actually took me a few minutes to warm up to this laid back “spiritual sequel” to Dazed and Confused. Unlike Dazed which showcases the freaks and geeks and jocks of high school life, with Everybody you’re squarely planted in the world of baseball jocks  and Linklater may be the only filmmaker who could make you love them all by the end of the film. Featuring a talented young cast who will probably all be way more famous in a few years, this is an all-timer hangout movie.

3. Green Room (Jeremy Saulnier) Intense. Brutal. Shocking. I spent most of Green Room literally laughing and crying at the same time and literally biting my knuckles from stress. Saulnier is a filmmaker who has seen other thrillers and knows how things are supposed to happen in movies, unfortunately for audiences accustomed to the relative safety of those other films, in Green Room nothing happens how you'd expect and no character is off-limits. I left with goosebumps.

4. Moonlight (Barry Jenkins) The last time I was this blown away by a filmmaker who seemed to come out of nowhere with a fully formed cinematic voice was Steve McQueen (Hunger, 12 Years A Slave). In the hands of a lesser filmmaker Moonlight could have been misery porn, but through Jenkins' lense the film never feels anything less than completely alive. As beautifully shot (by Kevin Smith’s DP [!!!] James Laxton) as it is emotionally engaging, Moonlight is the rare “awards film” that actually deserves those awards.

5. 20th Century Women (Mike Mills) Even though his filmography is relatively small, 20th Century Women feels like the film Mills has been working towards his whole career. With a perfect ensemble cast led by Annette Bening (in what may be the performance of her career), a killer soundtrack (featuring Talking Heads, David Bowie) and gorgeous, sun-soaked vision of late 70s Los Angeles, the film is autobiographical, but never restrictively so. Mills steals from life to create something that feels authentic and true, and somehow universal.

6. De Palma (Noah Baumbach & Jake Paltrow) Most documentaries are either too short or spread too thin. Not the case with De Palma, where the director breathlessly narrates his own filmography, without ever cutting away to anything other than brilliantly edited clips from his films. Focused, comprehensive and absolutely essential for cinephiles. Is De Palma the best documentary ever about a filmmaker? I think it might be. Holy mackerel.

7. Hail, Caesar! (Coen Bros.) The aughts have seen the Coen Brothers produce some of their best and worst films, with the worst ones generally being the broader, goofier ones starring George Clooney. Imagine my surprise at Hail, Caesar! which only appeared to be a broad comedy but in actuality is a strange (but still hilarious) meditation on faith and religion with more in common with A Serious Man than Intolerable Cruelty. The fact that it's also a love letter to classic Hollywood is just icing on the cake. 

8. The Witch (Robert Eggers) The best horror films aren’t just the ones that make you jump, they’re the ones that get under your skin and stay there. The Witch is a bit of a slow-burn, completely out of step with modern horror movies, and had me wondering if it would be one of those films to end ambiguously and never really deliver on its setup. But the finale delivers with a sequence so transcendently unnerving that it actually elevates the entire film that precedes it. Just hearing those final words will send a shiver up your spine.

9. Swiss Army Man (Daniels) There are a million ways a movie about a farting corpse could been terrible. But the directors known as Daniels take what could have been a one-joke premise and and turn it into an exploration of friendship, loneliness, shame and some truly interesting ideas. Not everything works (a third act reveal comes closest to derailing the film) but the duo make their surprisingly thoughtful and unsurprisingly hilarious debut maybe the most original since Being John Malkovich.

10. The Nice Guys (Shane Black) The first time I saw The Nice Guys I was actually a little bit disappointed. But after a second viewing I was able to appreciate the film for what it is: an entertaining-as-shit, action comedy written by a master of the genre and starring Gosling at the top of his game as a inept alcoholic P.I. and Crowe as a perfect tough guy foil. In a year where all the blockbusters disappointed, this was the perfect “they don’t make ‘em like they used to” antidote to everything else at the multiplex.

11. Kubo & The Two Strings (Travis Knight), 12. The Handmaiden (Chan-wook Park), 13. Don’t Breathe (Fede Alvarez), 14. The Lobster (Yorgos Lanthimos), 15. Pete’s Dragon (David Lowery), 16. The Edge of Seventeen (Kelly Fremon Craig), 17. Cafe Society (Woody Allen), 18. Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (Zach Snyder), 19. The Neon Demon (Nicolas Winding Refn), 20. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Gareth Edwards).

Runners-Up: Manchester by the Sea (Kenneth Lonergan), The Jungle Book (Jon Favreau), Microbe & Gasoline (Michel Gondry), Hell Or High Water (David Mackenzie), 13th (Ava DuVernay), Neighbors 2 (Nicholas Stoller), The Devil’s Candy (Sean Byrne), Sing Street (John Carney), A Bigger Splash (Luca Guadagnino), Elle (Paul Verhoeven).

[personalcoachingcenter]

The Beautiful Truths About Being a Highly Sensitive Human

New Post has been published on https://personalcoachingcenter.com/the-beautiful-truths-about-being-a-highly-sensitive-human/

The Beautiful Truths About Being a Highly Sensitive Human

Being intense and sensitive—seeing the world through different eyes and feeling the world on a distinctive wavelength—does not lay an easy path.

You are most likely a deep thinker, an intuitive feeler, and an extraordinary observer. You are prone to existential depression and anxiety, but you also know beauty and rapture. When art or music moves you, you are flooded with waves of joy and ecstasy. As a natural empathiser, you have a gift; yet you are also overwhelmed by the constant waves of social nuances and others’ psychic energies.

You might have spent your whole life trying to fit in with the cultural “shoulds” and “musts In school, you wanted to be in the clique, but you were unable to make small talks or have shallow relationships.

At work, you want the authorities to recognise you, but your soul does not compromise on depth, authenticity and connections.

You feel hurt for being the black sheep in the family, but your success is not recognised in a conventional way.

In these following paragraphs, I want to remind you how precious your unique life path is. Rather than pretending to be who you are not, you only do yourself and the world justice by celebrating your sensitivity and intensity.

(Please click here for a full definition of what it means to be emotionally intense and sensitive)

SENSITIVITY AS A FORM OF BRAIN DIFFERENCE

Emotional sensitivity is a brain difference—an innate trait that makes one different from the normative way of functioning.

While the mass media and medical professionals are eager to use labels to diagnose people with a way of being that is different from the norm, findings in neuroscience are going in the opposite direction. More and more, the scientific community acknowledges “neurodiversity”—the biological reality that we are all wired differently. Rather than being an inconvenience to be eliminated, neurodiversity is an evolutionary advantage, something that is essential if we were to flourish as a species.

Like many brain differences, it is misunderstood. As people naturally reject what they do not understand, the emotionally sensitive ones are being pushed to the margin. Those who feel more, and seem to have a mind that operates outside of society’s norm are often outcasted. In the Victorian era, women who appeared emotional were given the humiliating label of “hysteria.” Even today, emotional people tend to be looked down upon, and sometimes criticised and shunned.

The stigma attached to sensitivity is made worse by trends in the mass media. In 2014, author Bret Easton Ellis branded Millennials as narcissistic, over-sensitive and sheltered; from there, the disparaging term “generation snowflake” went viral. The right-wing media ran with the insult. Last year, a Daily Mail article described young people as “a fragile, thin-skinned younger generation.” This notion is not only unfounded but also unjust and damaging.

The sensitive male is also misjudged and marginalised. Under the ”boys don’t cry!” macho culture, those who feel more are called “weak” or “sissies,” with little acknowledgement of their unique strengths. Many sensitive boys and men live lives of quiet suffering and have opted to numb their emotional pain of not fitting the male ideal with alcohol, drugs, sex, gambling, or other addictions.

Being sensitive and intense is not an illness—in fact, it often points to intelligence, talents or creativity. However, after years of being misdiagnosed by health professionals, criticised by schools or workplace authority, and misunderstood by even those who are close to them, many sensitive people start to believe there is something wrong with them. Ironically, low self-esteem and loneliness make them more susceptible to having an actual mental disorder.

SOME OF US ARE BORN SENSITIVE

Since the 1990s, various scientific frameworks have emerged to explain our differences in sensitivity. Some of the most prominent being sensory processing sensitivity, “differential susceptibility theory,” and “biological sensitivity to context” (Lionetti et al., 2018).

From birth, we differ in our neurological makeup. Each baby has their style based on how well they react to external stimuli and how they organises sensation. Medical professionals use tools like the Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (NBAS) to measure such differences.

Harvard developmental psychologist Jerome Kagan was amongst the first scholars to examine sensitivity as a brain difference. In Kagan’s studies of infants, he found that a group of infants are more aroused and distressed by novel stimuli—a stranger coming into the room, a noxious smell. To these cautious infants, any new situation is a potential threat.

On closer examination, sensitive infants have different biochemical reactions when exposed to stress. Their system secrets higher levels of norepinephrine (our brain’s version of adrenaline) and stress hormones like cortisol. In other words, they have a fear system that is more active than most.

Since the regions of the brain that receive signals for potential threats are extra reactive, these children are not geared to process a wide range of sensations at a single moment. Even as adults, they are more vulnerable to stress-related disease, chronic pain and fatigue, migraine headaches, and environmental stimuli ranging from smell, sight, sound to electromagnetic influences.

In 1995, Elaine Aron published her book Highly Sensitive People, bringing the idea into the mainstream. Aron defines high sensitivity as a distinct personality trait that affects as many as 15-20 percent of the population—too many to be a disorder, but not enough to be well understood by the majority.

Here are a set of HSP traits in Aron’s original conception:

Noticing sounds, sensations and smells that others miss (e.g. clock ticking, the humming noise from a refrigerator, uncomfortable clothing)

Feeling moved on a visceral level by things like art, music and performance, or nature

“Pick up” others moods or have them affect you more than most

Being sensitive to pain or other physical sensations

A quiet environment is essential to you

Feel uneasy or overwhelmed in a busy and crowded environment

Sensitivity to caffeine

Startle/ blush easily

Dramatic impact on your mood

Having food sensitivities, allergies, asthma

THE ORCHIDS AND THE DANDELIONS

But does being born sensitive destine one to lifelong unhappiness and turmoil? To answer this question, Thomas Boyce, M.D., founded the “Orchid and Dandelion” theory.

Combining years of experience as a paediatrician, and results from empirical studies, Dr. Boyce and his team found that most children, approximately 80 percent of the population, are like dandelions—they can survive almost every environmental circumstances. The remaining 20 percent are like orchids; they are exquisitely sensitive to their environment and vulnerable under conditions of adversity. This theory explains why siblings brought up in the same family might respond differently to family stress. While orchid children are affected by even the most subtle differences in their parents’ feelings and behaviours, dandelion children are unperturbed.

But sensitivity does not equal vulnerability. Many of Dr. Boyce’s orchid children patients have grown up to become eminent adults, magnificent parents, intelligent and generous citizens of the world. As it turns out; sensitive children respond to not just the negative but also the positive. Their receptivity to the environment can also bring a reversal of fortune.

Orchid children’s receptivity applies to not just physical sensations, but also relational experiences such as warmth or indifference. In critical, undermining setting, they may devolve into despair, but in a supportive and nurturing environment, they thrive even further more than the dandelions.

The Orchid and Dandelion theory holds a provocative view of genetics, which asserts that the very genes that give us the most challenges also underlie the most remarkable qualities. Sensitivity is like a “highly leveraged evolutionary bets” that carry both high risks and potential rewards (Dobbs, 2009). The very sensitive children that suffer in a precarious childhood environment are the same children most likely to flourish and prosper. They may be more prone to upsets and physical sensitivities, but they also possess the most capacity to be unusually vital, creative, and successful.

In other words, the sensitive ones are not born “vulnerable”; they are simply more responsive to their surrounding system. With the right kind of knowledge, support and nurture—even if this means replenishing what one did not get in childhood in adulthood—they can thrive like no others.

THRIVING IN A NEW WORLD

Our world is changing. Qualities such as sensitivity, empathy, high perceptiveness—what the sensitive person excel at, are needed and celebrated.

In Daniel Pink’s book, A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule The Future, he pointed out that our society has arrived at a point in which systematisation, computerisation, and automation are giving way to new skills such as intuition, creativity, and empathy. For more than 100 years, the sequential, linear, and logical were praised. As we move towards a different economic era, the world’s leaders will need to be creators and empathisers. As Pink quoted: “I say, ‘Get me some poets as managers.’ Poets are our original systems thinkers. They contemplate the world in which we live and feel obligated to interpret and give expression to it in a way that makes the reader understand how that world runs. Poets, those unheralded systems thinkers, are our true digital thinkers. It is from their midst that I believe we will draw tomorrow’s new business leaders.”

It is clear that humanity is calling for a different way of being, and a redefinition of power. In today’s world, people yearn to be led by empathy, rather than force. Even in the most ego-driven corporate space, we hear people saying things like “trust your gut instinct,” “follow your intuition,” or “watch the energy in the room.” Sensitivity, emotional intensity, deep empathy—what were previously thought as weaknesses—are now much-valued qualities that make you stand out.

We are in a time where the previously highly sensitive and empathic misfits rise to become the leaders. Therefore, embracing your gift of sensitivity is not just something you do for yourself, but also those around you. If you can summon the courage to stand out as a sensitive leader, you set a solid example for all others like you. The more you can free yourself from the childlike need to trade “fitting in” for authenticity, the more you can channel your gifts and serve the world.

TRUE BELONGING

For years, you have desperately wanted to “fit in.”

But at times, you hear a tiny whispering voice that champions the truth. It asks:

What if what your inner self needs is to be allowed just to be you, even when it means not fitting in the crowd?

What if what your soul is destined to be different, like many rebels, the artists, and visionaries in history?

What if like all the honourable trailblazers and truth tellers, your seat in this world is indeed on the fringe?

Coming to terms with your authentic place in the world might mean accepting the reality that you will never “fit in” the conventional way.

This is not immediately easy.

After all, you want to belong, to be part of a tribe, to feel like a wider part of humanity.

But once you have released the old idea of what “fitting in” meant, you could make room for a new meaning of belongingness.

In true belongingness, fitting in means something different.

It means you have made a home for yourself.

It means you have committed never to reject yourself, even when the world says otherwise.

It means you have asserted your boundaries, and you honour only the opinions of those who have earned your respect.

It means you drop the task of peacemaking and align with the mission of truth-telling.

It means you stop buying membership with the cost of your true self, but instead create membership by making your mark in the world.

With the courageous acceptance of your authentic place in the world comes both beauty and terror, excitement and fear.

See if you can embrace both, but keep your eyes on the prize.

Soon, your courage will bring you what your deepest self have longed a lifetime for—a true sense of belonging.

(Original Post)

Source, N;

[sentrava]

Artist Spotlight: Danish Photographer Balder Olrik

The Danes are a straightforward people; they say what they think. At first, this might seem a bit rude to a foreigner, but slowly you realize that that’s simply the way it is here. What does this have to do with the Danish photographer Balder Olrik? This interview is a rare example of frankness, straight-forwardness, and open-mindedness.

Balder tells us about the most intimate moments of his life, moments that others might have buried in their past. He chooses to share with us “intangible things” through his breathtaking photography. When looking at his photographs, one thing is for certain: he is way ahead of his time. Through his lens, we are able to see things that we might have never spoken about, even to ourselves. There is an ocean of photographs out there and there are even more background stories to those photographs. Balder Olrik’s photos, and especially his series “Under Reconstruction,” is something that has stayed in my mind for a very long time; it has changed me as a viewer. The story he shares, which is both funny and sad, is about a woman’s thoughts. At first, the images are confusing, but suddenly it becomes clear: of course! This story could not have existed without these images.  

Join us for this story, and the story of Danish photograoher Balder Olrik himself, in his own works:

  When did you start photographing? Did growing up in the family of scientists influence your vision?

My fascination with photography started a long time ago. The very first book I bought was about women photographers’ views on women. I was so young then that I didn’t even understand the title. I just liked the images and was inspired to take photos by myself. But I was not really able to take anything that came up to my standards. So for many years, photography was kind of a notebook for my paintings. Around 1990, my interest in photography grew dramatically when I saw the possibilities of combining two mediums.

As you mentioned, I come from a family of scientists. Their jobs is to constantly tried to show us the secrets of the world. But I have always wanted to understand what is intangible inside us, at least in myself.

At an early stage, I understood that each person, whether it was a parent, a teacher, a friend or anyone else, had completely different perception of me. Most of them were in contradiction to what I felt or who I really was. But what was the truth? The mystery of human perception is something I’ve tried to understand all my life. It keeps popping up again and again in different forms. I was always questioning things. Simple observations can spin me out of the orbit for months until I return back with a set of souvenirs. That’s the essence of science for me.

    I find your artworks very particular. Can we go back to ’80s when you were painting on canvas and continue to the ’90s, when you started merging paintings with photos?


My career as a painter exploded at a very early age. I was exhibiting internationally when my peers were still in high school. In a case like this, most artists would just try to live up to their success. But I just could not do that. For me, the reason for being alive lies in the unstoppable searching for answers. It happens every day. If you find me in those rare moments where I’m not like that, I am most likely in a state between desperation and depression. Photography, painting, and computers have been three main tools throughout my search. I wanted to find out how they materialize and how they differ.

    In the late ’80s, my photos were darkroom-manipulated, but the technological developments in the ’90s expanded the possibilities. I bought a very expensive computer for image manipulation, as early as ’93, when most people, didn’t even know that it was possible to do digital image manipulation. It became completely integral to my creative process. Today’s excellent color printing pushed me to go further in that direction.

      The series “System 2” deals with behavioral science and unconsciousness. What are the results of your investigation, and what is that we unconsciously choose to see or not to see?

I have learned much from using the theory System 1 & 2 in practice, and was able to take it further. Daniel Kahneman, who developed the theory of System 1 & 2 is not completely clear about what it is that triggers our shift from auto-perception to conscious-perception. I think I have a pretty good idea. It is basically when we miss some information to complete the picture. Another important thing I saw in the process was that we can learn to be conscious of our unconscious behavior. So you always know what state you are in. This enables you to make a shift and I think that it might be the single most important thing to learn today. If not, we will always be running after the yellow tennis balls like dogs.

If we asked a dog: “Why do you run after it?” It would probably answer: “It’s a yellow tennis ball man! I have to catch it!”

Yes, it might seem irresistible, but if we run after a ball every time somebody throws it, we are not free. We become dogs. In today’s media landscape, everybody’s throwing yellow tennis balls. Take Trump for example. Even clever people fool themselves into believing that it’s meaningful to read, post or comment on yet another crazy quote coming from him. Why? Just because he’s a madman doesn’t mean that you have to waste hours of your life on his foolishness. You haven’t changed the world even a bit by doing so. All you have accomplished is becoming yet another dog of his.


    The photos from your series “Stereo Vision” are pretty different from the rest of your photographs. Do those images have an undetected third dimension you would like to talk about?

The “Stereo Vision” images is an experiment about comparison. And it’s still in progress. Some of my earliest memories are of reading my grandmother’s gossip magazines as a child. On the second last page, there were two, almost identical, pictures. The task was to find five differences. I could look for them for hours. I didn’t understand why they were so hard to find.

The secret may be that you have to change your perception from looking at symbols to looking at shapes in order to see the difference. But at that time it was a mystery to me. I became curious about comparison more generally. We constantly compare ourselves with others to decide if we are “okay.” Why is it so hard to look at your self without comparing to others? I don’t know, but I have to dig further into it and it’s exciting!

A side-effect I’ve noticed while working on “Stereo Vision” is that I fell into a meditative state several times when I was looking at the pictures. My eyes began swinging like a pendulum from one side of the picture to another and suddenly I could do nothing apart from being with all those colors and shapes.

    You photograph places that might appear melancholy to some. Where does all this solitude and sadness come from, what drives you to express your feelings in this poetic way?

At the age of nine, I was left outside the door of a foster home by my mother. She thought I was an evil child and she just wanted to get rid of me. Apparently, I drove her crazy by my presence. Today she likely would have been diagnosed with something on the Autism spectrum. When I got out, she gave the custody to my father only after 10 months. You have no idea how traumatizing it was. Most of the boys I met at the foster home either killed themselves or became drug addicts later in life. Working with art saved me; it was a way of healing myself from loneliness, sadness, and shame I felt inside. I forgave her completely. And even though I feel all of this belongs to the past now, it has somehow gotten into my handwriting. I can’t remove it.

    Do you think your photography is particularly Danish or Scandinavian? Why or why not?


Do you? It’s not an issue that interests me. I see artists in all parts of the world with whom I feel connected.

    If we turn to your ’80s paintings, you often portray humans. In your later works, they seem to have disappeared. Where did they go?


Good question. I hope they will come back one day. I guess I found them problematic. Showing a person is not just showing a person. Each of us carries evidence of our time and social class. They couldn’t just be humans in a picture like I wanted them to be. For instance, let’s say you have a picture of a girl. I am quite sure you’ll be able to tell when it was taken with an accuracy of three years only by looking at her dress. You could also tell her social class pretty precisely. Even if naked, slightly less accurate, but you would still be able to tell these things. That’s a huge problem if it’s disturbing, or if it’s irrelevant to a story you want to tell.

    What do you think of the current Danish or Scandinavian photography scene? Is it inclusive? Hard to get into? 
Generally speaking, and this goes for all scenes.

If you come as an outsider and take a look inside, you’ll think: “Why don’t they let me into their circle?” When you are inside the circle, you don’t really feel its existence. But I would say that photography is more open than other scenes. There are many possibilities to get your work out there. It often seems like a community of enthusiasts more than anything else. That’s probably related to the absence of money, which is both good and bad.

    What are you working on now? Where can people buy your works, if possible?

Right now I’m working on a book. I’ve neglected the book format for years, so now is the time to do it. The good thing is that I am in a fantastic work flow. The “bad” thing is that I have turned away from my original idea of an art book. For now, I’ll go with the flow and see where it ends up.


  Balder Olrik is represented by the Hans Alf Gallery in Copenhagen and Gallery Charlotte Lund in Stockholm, You can also find more information on his website.

Artist Spotlight: Danish Photographer Balder Olrik published first on https://medium.com/@OCEANDREAMCHARTERS

[personalcoachingcenter]

The Beautiful Truths About Being a Highly Sensitive Human

New Post has been published on http://personalcoachingcenter.com/the-beautiful-truths-about-being-a-highly-sensitive-human/

The Beautiful Truths About Being a Highly Sensitive Human

Being intense and sensitive—seeing the world through different eyes and feeling the world on a distinctive wavelength—does not lay an easy path.

You are most likely a deep thinker, an intuitive feeler, and an extraordinary observer. You are prone to existential depression and anxiety, but you also know beauty and rapture. When art or music moves you, you are flooded with waves of joy and ecstasy. As a natural empathiser, you have a gift; yet you are also overwhelmed by the constant waves of social nuances and others’ psychic energies.

You might have spent your whole life trying to fit in with the cultural “shoulds” and “musts In school, you wanted to be in the clique, but you were unable to make small talks or have shallow relationships.

At work, you want the authorities to recognise you, but your soul does not compromise on depth, authenticity and connections.

You feel hurt for being the black sheep in the family, but your success is not recognised in a conventional way.

In these following paragraphs, I want to remind you how precious your unique life path is. Rather than pretending to be who you are not, you only do yourself and the world justice by celebrating your sensitivity and intensity.

(Please click here for a full definition of what it means to be emotionally intense and sensitive)

SENSITIVITY AS A FORM OF BRAIN DIFFERENCE

Emotional sensitivity is a brain difference—an innate trait that makes one different from the normative way of functioning.

While the mass media and medical professionals are eager to use labels to diagnose people with a way of being that is different from the norm, findings in neuroscience are going in the opposite direction. More and more, the scientific community acknowledges “neurodiversity”—the biological reality that we are all wired differently. Rather than being an inconvenience to be eliminated, neurodiversity is an evolutionary advantage, something that is essential if we were to flourish as a species.

Like many brain differences, it is misunderstood. As people naturally reject what they do not understand, the emotionally sensitive ones are being pushed to the margin. Those who feel more, and seem to have a mind that operates outside of society’s norm are often outcasted. In the Victorian era, women who appeared emotional were given the humiliating label of “hysteria.” Even today, emotional people tend to be looked down upon, and sometimes criticised and shunned.

The stigma attached to sensitivity is made worse by trends in the mass media. In 2014, author Bret Easton Ellis branded Millennials as narcissistic, over-sensitive and sheltered; from there, the disparaging term “generation snowflake” went viral. The right-wing media ran with the insult. Last year, a Daily Mail article described young people as “a fragile, thin-skinned younger generation.” This notion is not only unfounded but also unjust and damaging.

The sensitive male is also misjudged and marginalised. Under the ”boys don’t cry!” macho culture, those who feel more are called “weak” or “sissies,” with little acknowledgement of their unique strengths. Many sensitive boys and men live lives of quiet suffering and have opted to numb their emotional pain of not fitting the male ideal with alcohol, drugs, sex, gambling, or other addictions.

Being sensitive and intense is not an illness—in fact, it often points to intelligence, talents or creativity. However, after years of being misdiagnosed by health professionals, criticised by schools or workplace authority, and misunderstood by even those who are close to them, many sensitive people start to believe there is something wrong with them. Ironically, low self-esteem and loneliness make them more susceptible to having an actual mental disorder.

SOME OF US ARE BORN SENSITIVE

Since the 1990s, various scientific frameworks have emerged to explain our differences in sensitivity. Some of the most prominent being sensory processing sensitivity, “differential susceptibility theory,” and “biological sensitivity to context” (Lionetti et al., 2018).

From birth, we differ in our neurological makeup. Each baby has their style based on how well they react to external stimuli and how they organises sensation. Medical professionals use tools like the Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (NBAS) to measure such differences.

Harvard developmental psychologist Jerome Kagan was amongst the first scholars to examine sensitivity as a brain difference. In Kagan’s studies of infants, he found that a group of infants are more aroused and distressed by novel stimuli—a stranger coming into the room, a noxious smell. To these cautious infants, any new situation is a potential threat.

On closer examination, sensitive infants have different biochemical reactions when exposed to stress. Their system secrets higher levels of norepinephrine (our brain’s version of adrenaline) and stress hormones like cortisol. In other words, they have a fear system that is more active than most.

Since the regions of the brain that receive signals for potential threats are extra reactive, these children are not geared to process a wide range of sensations at a single moment. Even as adults, they are more vulnerable to stress-related disease, chronic pain and fatigue, migraine headaches, and environmental stimuli ranging from smell, sight, sound to electromagnetic influences.

In 1995, Elaine Aron published her book Highly Sensitive People, bringing the idea into the mainstream. Aron defines high sensitivity as a distinct personality trait that affects as many as 15-20 percent of the population—too many to be a disorder, but not enough to be well understood by the majority.

Here are a set of HSP traits in Aron’s original conception:

Noticing sounds, sensations and smells that others miss (e.g. clock ticking, the humming noise from a refrigerator, uncomfortable clothing)

Feeling moved on a visceral level by things like art, music and performance, or nature

“Pick up” others moods or have them affect you more than most

Being sensitive to pain or other physical sensations

A quiet environment is essential to you

Feel uneasy or overwhelmed in a busy and crowded environment

Sensitivity to caffeine

Startle/ blush easily

Dramatic impact on your mood

Having food sensitivities, allergies, asthma

THE ORCHIDS AND THE DANDELIONS

But does being born sensitive destine one to lifelong unhappiness and turmoil? To answer this question, Thomas Boyce, M.D., founded the “Orchid and Dandelion” theory.

Combining years of experience as a paediatrician, and results from empirical studies, Dr. Boyce and his team found that most children, approximately 80 percent of the population, are like dandelions—they can survive almost every environmental circumstances. The remaining 20 percent are like orchids; they are exquisitely sensitive to their environment and vulnerable under conditions of adversity. This theory explains why siblings brought up in the same family might respond differently to family stress. While orchid children are affected by even the most subtle differences in their parents’ feelings and behaviours, dandelion children are unperturbed.

But sensitivity does not equal vulnerability. Many of Dr. Boyce’s orchid children patients have grown up to become eminent adults, magnificent parents, intelligent and generous citizens of the world. As it turns out; sensitive children respond to not just the negative but also the positive. Their receptivity to the environment can also bring a reversal of fortune.

Orchid children’s receptivity applies to not just physical sensations, but also relational experiences such as warmth or indifference. In critical, undermining setting, they may devolve into despair, but in a supportive and nurturing environment, they thrive even further more than the dandelions.

The Orchid and Dandelion theory holds a provocative view of genetics, which asserts that the very genes that give us the most challenges also underlie the most remarkable qualities. Sensitivity is like a “highly leveraged evolutionary bets” that carry both high risks and potential rewards (Dobbs, 2009). The very sensitive children that suffer in a precarious childhood environment are the same children most likely to flourish and prosper. They may be more prone to upsets and physical sensitivities, but they also possess the most capacity to be unusually vital, creative, and successful.

In other words, the sensitive ones are not born “vulnerable”; they are simply more responsive to their surrounding system. With the right kind of knowledge, support and nurture—even if this means replenishing what one did not get in childhood in adulthood—they can thrive like no others.

THRIVING IN A NEW WORLD

Our world is changing. Qualities such as sensitivity, empathy, high perceptiveness—what the sensitive person excel at, are needed and celebrated.

In Daniel Pink’s book, A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule The Future, he pointed out that our society has arrived at a point in which systematisation, computerisation, and automation are giving way to new skills such as intuition, creativity, and empathy. For more than 100 years, the sequential, linear, and logical were praised. As we move towards a different economic era, the world’s leaders will need to be creators and empathisers. As Pink quoted: “I say, ‘Get me some poets as managers.’ Poets are our original systems thinkers. They contemplate the world in which we live and feel obligated to interpret and give expression to it in a way that makes the reader understand how that world runs. Poets, those unheralded systems thinkers, are our true digital thinkers. It is from their midst that I believe we will draw tomorrow’s new business leaders.”

It is clear that humanity is calling for a different way of being, and a redefinition of power. In today’s world, people yearn to be led by empathy, rather than force. Even in the most ego-driven corporate space, we hear people saying things like “trust your gut instinct,” “follow your intuition,” or “watch the energy in the room.” Sensitivity, emotional intensity, deep empathy—what were previously thought as weaknesses—are now much-valued qualities that make you stand out.

We are in a time where the previously highly sensitive and empathic misfits rise to become the leaders. Therefore, embracing your gift of sensitivity is not just something you do for yourself, but also those around you. If you can summon the courage to stand out as a sensitive leader, you set a solid example for all others like you. The more you can free yourself from the childlike need to trade “fitting in” for authenticity, the more you can channel your gifts and serve the world.

TRUE BELONGING

For years, you have desperately wanted to “fit in.”

But at times, you hear a tiny whispering voice that champions the truth. It asks:

What if what your inner self needs is to be allowed just to be you, even when it means not fitting in the crowd?

What if what your soul is destined to be different, like many rebels, the artists, and visionaries in history?

What if like all the honourable trailblazers and truth tellers, your seat in this world is indeed on the fringe?

Coming to terms with your authentic place in the world might mean accepting the reality that you will never “fit in” the conventional way.

This is not immediately easy.

After all, you want to belong, to be part of a tribe, to feel like a wider part of humanity.

But once you have released the old idea of what “fitting in” meant, you could make room for a new meaning of belongingness.

In true belongingness, fitting in means something different.

It means you have made a home for yourself.

It means you have committed never to reject yourself, even when the world says otherwise.

It means you have asserted your boundaries, and you honour only the opinions of those who have earned your respect.

It means you drop the task of peacemaking and align with the mission of truth-telling.

It means you stop buying membership with the cost of your true self, but instead create membership by making your mark in the world.

With the courageous acceptance of your authentic place in the world comes both beauty and terror, excitement and fear.

See if you can embrace both, but keep your eyes on the prize.

Soon, your courage will bring you what your deepest self have longed a lifetime for—a true sense of belonging.

(Original Post)

Source, N;