Adele - When We Were Young (Live at The Church Studios)

For J.J.C.......so many years ago.........

Everybody loves the things you do
From the way you talk
To the way you move
Everybody here is watching you
'Cause you feel like home
You're like a dream come true
But if by chance you're here alone
Can I have a moment
Before I go?
'Cause I've been by myself all night long
Hoping you're someone I used to know

You look like a movie
You sound like a song
My God, this reminds me
Of when we were young

Let me photograph you in this light
In case it is the last time
That we might be exactly like we were
Before we realized
We were sad of getting old
It made us restless
It was just like a movie
It was just like a song

I was so scared to face my fears
Nobody told me that you'd be here
And I swore you moved overseas
That's what you said, when you left me

You still look like a movie
You still sound like a song
My God, this reminds me
Of when we were young

Let me photograph you in this light
In case it is the last time
That we might be exactly like we were
Before we realized
We were sad of getting old
It made us restless
It was just like a movie
It was just like a song

When we were young
When we were young
When we were young
When we were young

It's hard to win me back
Everything just takes me back
To when you were there
To when you were there
And a part of me keeps holding on
Just in case it hasn't gone
I guess I still care
Do you still care?

It was just like a movie
It was just like a song
My God, this reminds me
Of when we were young

When we were young
When we were young
When we were young
When we were young

Let me photograph you in this light
In case it is the last time
That we might be exactly like we were
Before we realized
We were sad of getting old
It made us restless
Oh, I'm so mad I'm getting old

It makes me reckless
It was just like a movie
It was just like a song
When we were young

Thoughts on Adele

It would be no surprise that on this cool, rainy summer's afternoon, I have loved playing Adele's music. Well, I suppose you can say it's music, but it far transcends that description.  At this time, she is known as the best female singer globally. Who would ever need a "high" when one could listen to her!  Her voice provides that. My 3 favorite singers are all from Britain....perhaps no surprise there, since a large part of my roots are from UK. Of all of them, Adele has not "fixed" her accent, and it is clear to hear in many lines. Along with her wry sense of humor, this Brit woman has a monumental career ahead of her.

Many of her changeups are remarkable....these bring tears to my eyes.

When she was to perform 4 concerts at Wembley..(the best of the best!!), she apparently injured her voice.  No small wonder!  Her chords and expression are the exquisite tools of a master.  At the end of that tour...well, her letter to the ticket holders (below) one evening is below. Adele uses her voice, not pre-recordings that one lip-syncs.  I thought this was a typical gesture for Adele.

I don’t even know how to start this. The last two nights at Wembley have been the biggest and best shows of my life. To come home to such a response after so long away doing something I never thought I could pull off but did has blown me away. However, I’ve struggled vocally both nights. I had to push a lot harder than I normally do. I felt like I constantly had to clear my throat, especially last night. I went to see my throat doctor this evening because my voice didn’t open up at all today and it turns out I have damaged my vocal cords. And on medical advice I simply am unable to perform over the weekend. To say I’m heart broken would be a complete understatement. I’m already maxed out on steroids and aids for my voice. I’ve considered doing Saturday nights show but it’s highly unlikely I’d even make it through the set and I simply can’t crumble in front of you all and walk out on you in that way. I’m so desperate to do them that I’ve even considered miming, just to be in front of you and be with you. But I’ve never done it and I cannot in a million years do that to you. It wouldn’t be the real me up there. I’m sorry. I’m sorry for your disappointment. I’m sorry for the nights you would have had with your loved ones and the memories you would have made together. I’m sorry for the time and money you’ve spent organizing your trips. You know I would not make this decision lightly. I have done 121 shows and I have 2 left. 2 left!!! And they are 2 gigantic shows! Who the fuck cancels a show at Wembley Stadium!? To not complete this milestone in my career is something I’m struggling to get my head around and I wish that I wasn’t having to write this. I have changed my life drastically in every way to make sure I got through this tour that started at the beginning of last year. To not be able to finish it, is something I’m really struggling to come to terms with. It’s as if my whole career has been building up to these 4 shows. I’m writing this as the decision has just this moment been made, so I don’t have any other information, but of course refunds will be available if the shows can’t be rescheduled. There will be more information over the next few days. I’m sorry, I’m devastated.

I’m sorry. I love you I’m so sorry, please forgive me x
*********************************************

"Water Under the Bridge" by Adele

The Ties Between Crime and Malignant Narcissism/ by Rebecca Lee

The Ties Between Crime and Malignant Narcissism

By Rebecca Lee 
~ 2 min read

What do Jim Jones, OJ Simpson, and Ted Bundy all have in common? They were charismatic, charming, and had the ability to influence almost anyone. They also demonstrated specific characteristics associated with malignant narcissism. 

Malignant narcissism is known as a mixture of narcissism and antisocial personality disorder. They lack empathy and often live in grandiose fantasies that compete with reality. If the fantasies are revealed as such, the afflicted person may become hostile with high levels of rage. 

Malignant narcissism is not an individual diagnosis in the DSM, rather it is a subset of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. As well as having symptoms of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, a person with malignant narcissism also displays paranoia.

Jim Jones suffered from paranoid delusions especially during the last days of his cult. When he first became obsessed with the CIA, Jim Jones began his search for “The Promised Land.” By instilling his fear into the minds of his followers, he was able to control large groups of people, ultimately leading to their death.   

Since the personality of a malignant narcissist cannot tolerate any criticism, paranoia is usually stemmed from being mocked. Often times they will inflict paranoia in others by preaching highly controlled ideologies. Usually these are at least some-what fabricated to tailor the needs of the narcissist.  Religion and philosophy are two categories they often gravitate toward. 

Pathological lying is another obvious trait of malignant narcissism. Ted Bundy lied about his killings to various professionals, but not to be considered innocent. For example, he told one psychologist that he started killing women in 1974, but later he said the killing started in 1969. At one point, Bundy said there were 35 victims in all, but in another setting he claimed over 100. The criminal investigation reports that Ted Bundy seemed to be lying to impress people rather than avoid jail.  Many times he said the deaths of the women he killed were higher than the victims reported. 

Pathological lying can be much more subtle than in Ted Bundy’s case. The term “gas lighting” is often used when someone denies another person’s reality to purposely manipulate them into feeling insane. This is another tactic frequently used in both malignant narcissists and general narcissists with NPD.

Perhaps the most terrifying symptom of malignant narcissism is the lack of empathy that is required to carry out behavior. OJ Simpson frequently called his wife fat while she was pregnant. This was explained with the charisma of someone who was just “joking around.” Looking closer, this was not an isolated incident. He frequently beat his wife as well as publicly humiliated her by having affairs. When his wife was murdered, he seemed uninterested in his children, focusing more on himself.  It is hard to prove that someone does not have empathy especially if that person is highly charismatic.  

Someone with a lack of empathy may demonstrate kind facial or body language while simultaneously hurting another person. Because of the contrast in what is being said vs. what is being done, many people can feel as if they are losing their mind. 

The warning signs of involvement with someone who may be afflicted are as follows:

1. Success At Any Cost. A close inspection of past relationships may show a failure to treat people kindly for the promise of a grandiose, yet superficial success. Beware of flaunted expenses, especially if there are a lack of people to share in the enjoyment.
2. Narcissists may be hypersexual, often in relation to power and control. Incest is frequently reported as well as a lack of regard for partner and boundaries.
3. Incessant Blaming. Lack of personal responsibility is a key sign.  Often a narcissist will play ‘the victim’ even when he/she has hurt someone else.
4. Violence. Since their ego is so fragile to begin with, any criticism received feels like an attack.  They fight back much harder than what is doled out.  Someone who uses violence frequently, demonstrates lack of impulse control and may also have multiple addictions.
5. Manipulation. Pitting people against one another for the ultimate goal of loyalty is often used by narcissists. In this case, loyalty often means isolation.

If you are involved with someone who has these traits, most professionals advise leaving. There is no treatment for narcissism and statistically the outcome for change is low.  The longer someone stays in a relationship with a narcissist, the worse they feel.  

What is Depression Like?

Critical Thinking: Where, oh where, have you gone?

"FAKING IT"

Christopher Dwyer Ph.D

One of my favorite observations from teaching undergraduate critical thinking (as I noted in my last post) is that even though students claim to, they often don’t know what educators mean by "critical thinking." Even so, there is a tendency for students to nod their heads in agreement with whatever educators say, because hey, no one wants to look foolish! We see this behavior quite often in the classroom.

“Does anyone have any questions?”

Nothing. Not a single hand. Maybe, there genuinely are no questions. However, in larger classrooms, with over 100 people, this is probably not the case—there’s bound to be at least one question. In my opinion, if a student has a question, it makes them look smarter to ask it. It is in their interest to do so, particularly if they don’t understand what is being discussed. Still, questions often go unasked, perhaps, because of shyness or uncertainty. When hands do go up, there are generally very few of them. No one wants to stand out and look like they don’t get it, especially if no one else is raising their hand. Thus, some might just be sitting there, still wondering, “What do you mean by critical thinking?”  

Source: Syda Productions/Shutterstock

Critical thinking (CT) is a metacognitive process: It consists of a number of sub-skills and dispositions, that, when applied through purposeful, self-regulatory, reflective judgment, increase the chances of producing a logical solution to a problem or a valid conclusion to an argument (Dwyer, 2017; Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart, 2014). As noted in my last post, CT is important because it allows students to gain a better understanding of complex information; it allows them to achieve higher grades and become more employable, informed and active citizens; it facilitates good decision-making and problem-solving in social and interpersonal contexts; and it decreases the effects of cognitivebiases and heuristic thinking. Though past research suggests that explicit CT instruction can foster CT (e.g. Reed and Kromrey 2001; Rimiene 2002; Solon 2007), how best to teach it remains a key concern in educational research (Dwyer, et al., 2014). This is perhaps a result of issues regarding CT conceptualization.

Though the definition above is a modern and, arguably, straightforward description of what is meant by CT, it is only one of many. The varying definitions and conceptualizations can make it difficult for researchers and teachers to understand or agree on the key components of CT. In turn, this may impede their ability to construct an integrated theoretical account of how best to train and assess it (Dwyer, Hogan & Stewart, 2014).

The University of Western Australia (2007), found that while 92 percent of academic staff believed it was important to provide students with opportunities to critically evaluate their own beliefs and perspectives with a view towards changing them, 54 percent of students felt that they were not actually provided such opportunities by their educators. Perhaps this can be somewhat explained by research conducted by Lloyd and Bahr (2010), who examined the qualitative descriptions of CT provided by academics. According to one university lecturer interviewed, "we expect students to do it [think critically], but now you are questioning me on my understanding of it, I wonder if I actually understand it myself."

Lloyd and Bahr’s research revealed that only 37 percent of academics instructing or assessing CT in university courses at least acknowledge the dispositional and self-regulatory aspects of CT. Furthermore, only 47 percent described CT in terms of involving processes or skills! If educators are in the dark about CT, how can we expect students to know its meaning?

Lloyd and Bahr’s research indicates that students’ descriptions of CT were largely outcome focused, whereas academics’ descriptions of CT were more process focused. For CT instruction to be effective: (1) instructors need to acknowledge the discrepancies among "understandings" (i.e. discrepancies between educators’ and students’ understanding, as well as understandings among educators themselves); and (2) students’ pre-existing understandings (sometimes inaccurate) must be addressed (Bransford, et al. 1999). These considerations, like CT, are metacognitive in their own right; for example, in this context, students are required to think about their thinking (Flavell, 1976). If the diverse perspectives that students hold prior to training are not engaged, they may fail to grasp newly taught concepts; and may fail to understand how they can coordinate their knowledge with the knowledge of others and apply it to real world problems — CT in practice!

Educators need to reach agreement on what is meant by CT. However, what seems like the simplest solution, unfortunately, is not. For example, in 1988, a committee of 46 experts in the field of CT gathered in an effort to agree upon a definition of CT and the skills necessary to think critically. The findings of this meeting, the Delphi Report, revealed overwhelming agreement (i.e. 95 percent consensus) that analysis, evaluation and inference were the core skills necessary for CT (Facione, 1990). Though advancements in understanding CT have been made, 30 years later, these skills remain "core." Nevertheless, debate lingers on. Why? Why is it that educators, after 30 years, still have trouble conceptualizing and communicating CT for instruction?

Perhaps it isn’t necessarily an issue of agreement or even trouble. Both for good and bad, critical thinking has become a "buzz" phrase over the past couple of decades. We all know it’s important, useful and we want our students to do it; but, maybe it’s the case that, consistent with the qualitative excerpt above, many educators don’t really know what researchers mean by "critical thinking" and/or simply haven’t researched it themselves (see also: Eigenauer, 2017). Despite not understanding it, there is a tendency for educators to, like my students, nod their heads in agreement with whatever researchers say. In a way, educators will sometimes fake it too. 

If we want everyone to stop faking it and successfully apply CT, we need to make sure we, as educators, understand it. We need to throw away the buzz words and read the research on CT. For students to think critically, we must not fake it. 

Even moderate drinking can damage the brain - current research

Research reported last week found “even moderate drinking” could “damage the brain”. Considering 78% of Australians over 14 years old drink alcohol, this is understandably concerning information.

News reports were reasonably accurate in their interpretation of the study. With measured headlines using words such as “may damage the brain” and “linked with”, these reported that the observational study found an association between moderate drinking and brain damage, not a causation.

The Financial Review ran the headline:

The silent damage from drinking moderately down the decades

and CBS News said:

Even moderate drinking could harm the brain.

Others, such as the Deccan Chronicle, were more hyperbolic, hinting at causation:

Moderate drinking leads to severe brain damage.

We know about 17% of Australians drink at levels considered to put them at risk of long-term harm such as diabetes, liver disease and cognitive problems.

And it’s well established heavy drinking over ten years or more can cause significant cognitive difficulties. These include disorders such as Korsakoff’s Syndrome and Wernicke’s Encephalopathy, where memory and other essential thinking functions, as well as motor coordination, are severely and permanently damaged.

But what about those of us who have two to three drinks a night?

First, this is an observational study that followed people over time, showing an association between their alcohol intake and certain cognitive functions. Observational studies cannot prove that one (alcohol) caused the other (impaired brain function).

And while alcohol can potentially affect multiple parts of the brain, the researchers found significant impact in only one part of the brain. And that did not appear to correlate with poorer brain functioning overall.

---

The Conversation, CC BY-ND

---

How was the study conducted?

Researchers from the University of Oxford and University College London conducted the study, which was published in the well-regarded journal The BMJ. It followed 550 men and women for 30 years who were not alcohol-dependent.

Participants were categorised into four groups based on how much alcohol they drank per week. The “abstinent” group drank less than one standard drink a week, and the “light” between one and seven drinks. “Moderate” drinkers had between seven and 14 drinks a week for women, and between seven and 21 drinks for men. Men who had 21 or more drinks per week, and women who drank 14 or more, were classified as “unsafe” drinkers.

The participants had brain scans once (at the 30-year point) and neuropsychological testing five times over the 30 years.

What did it find?

The main difference between the drinking groups was a smaller hippocampus – the area of the brain important for learning, memory and spatial awareness – in people who drank more.

Compared to “abstainers”, people who drank an average 30 or more drinks a week over the 30 years were more likely to have a smaller hippocampus. But even those drinking between 14 and 21 drinks a week had, on average, a smaller hippocampus.

The Conversation, CC BY-ND

How should we interpret the results?

There are a few reasons to be cautious about these results. The study looked at brain function (how well the brain works, measured by neuropsychological tests) over time. But researchers measured brain structure (the physical make-up of the brain) with a brain scan only at the end of the study.

Although the hippocampus was smaller in the heavier drinking groups, alcohol consumption did not seem to affect the function of the brain. There was no alcohol-related decline in measures of memory and executive functions (such as planning, problem solving and impulse control). These are usually the cognitive domains most sensitive to effects of alcohol and most likely to show the negative impact of hippocampal shrinkage.

Not having scanned the brains of participants at the beginning of the study means researchers did not know the original size of their hippocampi. They visually assessed the size of brains from the scans and compared them to expected brain size, using an established scale for that purpose. Around 65% of people who drank 14 to 21 drinks a week showed a smaller hippocampus, but even 35% of the abstainers had “hippocampal atrophy”.

The study used many measures of brain functioning (visual and verbal memory, executive function and working memory), but it found alcohol-related decline in only one function – verbal fluency (the ease with which we can retrieve words). And none of the groups were particularly impaired overall compared to people in the general population of the same age and education level.

Researchers scanned participants’ brains only once, at the end of the study. from shutterstock.com

What else should we take into account?

In a study with a moderate number of people like this, it can be harder to assess brain differences because it is difficult to properly take into account other important factors such as age, gender, mental health problems and other drug use.

It seems logical that something like alcohol, which has a strong short-term impact on the brain, might have longer-term effects, and this study adds to the growing evidence that alcohol can impact brain structure. But we are still some way off knowing how much moderate alcohol consumption affects the brain and whether that translates to a functional impairment.

Alcohol is implicated in a number of physical and mental health problems and should be used occasionally and within recommended limits. Studies that have reported health benefits of moderate drinking in the past have now been shown to be methodologically flawed.

The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines on alcohol consumption recommend that adults (both men and women) should drink a maximum of two standard drinks a day to maintain long-term health and no more than four drinks on one occasion to prevent short-term harm. – Nicole Lee and Rob Hester

---

Peer Review

I agree with the observations made in this Research Check. There are several other factors to consider when interpreting this study.

Firstly, the researchers found a decline in verbal fluency, as well as atrophy of the hippocampus in participants. But (as Figure 7 in the study shows) there is no pathway between hippocampal volume and verbal fluency decline. Verbal fluency is usually associated with an area of the brain called the frontal lobe, while the hippocampus is associated with memory.

And apart from differences in verbal fluency, the researchers found no other differences between groups on tests associated with the hippocampus, such as those for learning and memory. In the absence of changes to other executive and memory tests, it is uncertain what the clinical and functional significance of a reduction in verbal fluency means.

Further, it’s unknown how the participants spaced out their alcohol intake. There is new evidence showing moderate drinking in a “binge” fashion could be dangerous to cognitive ability. The researchers did not distinguish between those who drank two standard drinks per day throughout the week and those who saved their 14 drinks for a single session on the weekend. This could also be mediating their results.

There is also evidence that abstinence from alcohol can improve brain structure and cognitive performance, even after a few months. So don’t be too alarmed when reading these results. – Travis Wearne

---

This article has been amended to say that the NHMRC guidelines recommend adults drink no more than four drinks on one occasion.

"Are You Drawn to Narcissists?" / Dan Neuharth, PhD, MFT

Are You Drawn to Narcissists?

By Dan Neuharth, PhD MFT 
~ 2 min read

Have you found yourself more than once drawn to narcissists, only to regret it? Do you have a number of narcissistic people in your life?

If so, it is important to figure out why.

Some narcissistic people can initially seem charming, entertaining, even seductive. When you first meet them and they turn their focus on you, you may momentarily feel like the most important person in the room for them. Such experiences can be compelling.

It is only when the darker side emerges that many of us re-evaluate the connection. Narcissists’ charm turns to control, their entertaining turns to demanding self-centeredness, and their seductiveness reveals a shallow ability for real intimacy. The feeling of being the only other person in the room becomes fleeting as a narcissist’s attentiveness washes in and out like the tide.

For many of us, the draw of narcissists may go deeper. When we knowingly or unconsciously allow a narcissistic person to get close, doing so may reflect the hope that if we can find a narcissist who treats us well, it will make up for what we didn’t get years ago from a narcissistic parent or lover.

Such a longing to right the wrongs of the past is understandable. But relationships with narcissists are frequently disappointing and time wasting because narcissists care little about treating others well.

Of course, I am not suggesting that if you know one or more narcissistic persons, that you necessarily sought them out or somehow attracted them to you. There are likely more than 100 million people with narcissism on Earth, so the odds are that many of us will come across narcissists from time to time just in the process of living.

But if you feel unfulfilled in a relationship and wonder if a friend or partner is a narcissist, ask yourself:

1. Why am I with them?
2. Does this relationship remind me of any earlier relationship with a narcissistic person?
3. Do I hope to change or reform them?
4. Do I keep hoping they will someday see how good I am and appreciate, love, and accept me?

If you notice a pattern of consciously or unconsciously allowing narcissistic people into your life who treat you in unhealthy ways, this can be an important wake-up call.

Recognizing this pattern is nothing to feel ashamed about. It may reveal deep unmet needs from your past.

Human beings are inherently self-healing. Physical injuries, such as a cut in your finger, heal with little conscious effort on your part.

In the same way, our hearts and psyches are inherently self-healing. The more we protect them from further assault and seek out new, healthy experiences, the more readily we can recover from emotional and psychological wounds.

If you had multiple open wounds, you’d go to a hospital, not a landfill.

So when it comes to healing the wounds of past relationships with narcissistic people, why do we sometimes seek relationships that are more like landfills, full of risk for further injury and infection, rather than seeking healthier relationships that offer safety and care?

One reason may be that pursuing relationships with narcissists postpones facing a heartbreaking recognition:  Your narcissistic parent or other important person in your life wasn’t there for you, couldn’t be there for you, and will never be there for you.

Accepting and mourning that painful reality can allow you to focus on what is best for you and pick healthier people to be around, rather than trying to fight and win the last war.

Critical for Parents: The Blue Whale Challenge"

The Blue Whale Challenge is Real, Sad, & Frightening

By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. 
~ 3 min read

A “game” played on social media called the Blue Whale Challenge tests teenagers’ and young adults’ ability to follow a set of steps that eventually leads to them dying by suicide. The #bluewhalechallenge has been questioned by some authorities as to whether it really exists, but it’s clear that some teens are taking their own lives due to the game.

What is the Blue Whale Challenge and how can you stop your child or teen from taking part in it?

The “game” is simply following a set of fairly dumb directives given to the teen or child by a “curator.” The curator is one of the game’s organizers and leaders; twisted individuals who reach out to children, teens, and young adults via social media. Teens are usually the ones to make first contact, due to suicidal feelings they are experiencing. People who play the game are known as “whales.”

I say “dumb,” because the directives involve unoriginal cutting and self-harm activities to show your loyalty and commitment to the game and your curator. In fact, out of the supposed 50 steps involved in the game, the game designer became so lazy he just made steps 30-49 the same generic thing:

Everyday you wake up at 4:20 am, watch horror videos, listen to music that “they” send you, make 1 cut on your body per day, talk “to a whale.”

This is not exactly a directive that demonstrates much in the way of creativity (then again, neither is choosing the color “blue” for the whale). It shows a significant laziness in the game’s design. The originator of the game probably thought something along the lines of, “I need to get to Step 50, but don’t have enough ideas for all 49 intervening steps… so we’ll just do this instead.”

Is it Real?

Yes. One of the game’s steps is to post the “#i_am_whale” hashtag on the social media account of players. A quick search on this term finds thousands of occurrences of it on Twitter, VKontakte, Instagram, and other social networking websites. This makes the game very much a real phenomenon, but we don’t yet know how many teens have actually taken their lives trying to follow all 50 steps of the game.

The Psychology of the Blue Whale Challenge

The psychology behind the blue whale challenge is simple — find victims, create an emotional bond with them through an arbitrary set of steps demanding completion in order to move forward in the game, and then hope they follow through to Step 50, “Jump off a high building. Take your life.”

This is the creation of someone who is likely a psychopath or sociopath, or has significant tendencies of psychopathy. This “game” isn’t really a game at all. It’s simply a control and manipulation scheme directed toward vulnerable people who have serious thoughts of suicide, loneliness, and death.

When a person is suicidal, they feel most of all alone and worthless. The game creator understood these feelings (probably having felt them themselves at some point in their lives), and is taking advantage of these kinds of feelings.

What better way to make someone feel like they are together with others than have them identify as an arbitrary mammal (a whale)? And what better way to make them feel a little less worthless than have them succeed at a series of tasks anyone could perform?

What You Can Do About It

You can tell someone is playing the game pretty easily, as they will have cuts on their hands with either the number 57 and/or 40 on them. You can check their social media accounts (the game says to use VKontakte, but users are using whatever social media they are currently on) and see if they’ve posted anything similar to #i_am_whale, a hashtag used in one of the steps of the game.

The game is easily defeated by talking to your teen, child, or young adult about their suicidal feelings, and encouraging them to reach out to get help for them through psychotherapy or counseling. It’s not an easy conversation to have, but it may be a life-saving talk.

Teens and young adults need to understand — you’re at the very beginning of your life. No matter how bad you feel right now (and I understand, as I felt as bad or worse than you when I was a teen), it will get better. You may not believe me, but why take the words of a stranger in the first place — whether it’s to play a dumb game or something else? Reach out to your friends (or an adult, if you can) and see if you can find a different way to cope with these feelings.

And remember, don’t throw away your shot.

If you or anyone you know is having suicidal thoughts, please reach out to National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 800-273-TALK (8255) or text “help me” to the Crisis Text Line at 741741.