Posted:
Feeling the burn? It's not lactic acid
Bigg Boss 20: Daily Discussion Thread- 3rd Oct 2026
🏏Asian Games 2026: Final: India vs Pakistan on 03/10/26🏏
🏏India vs West Indies, 3rd ODI, West Indies tour of India, 2026🏏
? Why Tiger ASIF deserve the 🏆
MY NAIVE SECRETARY-MG FF-NEW SEASON-PROLOGUE,PT 01-02-10-2026
Bhabhiji missing
Jai & Surya's Friend of RR -broken Gayle Record of 188* in SAfrica
Feeling the burn? It's not lactic acid
https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/balding-health-signs
'It's where you're balding that counts': What your hairline can reveal about your health
https://psyche.co/ideas/what-does-it-mean-to-have-relationship-ambivalence
What does it mean to have relationship ambivalence?
by Francesca Righetti, associate professor of psychology
When a relationship provokes both strong positive and negative feelings in you, it can take a toll – here’s what’s going on
We tend to talk about our relationships as either satisfying or unsatisfying, healthy or toxic. This either/or perspective shapes a lot of relationship advice, and filters through to the ways many of us chat about our relationship dilemmas with friends. But the reality is that many of our most consequential relationships in life are both positive and negative at the same time (or neither positive nor negative – which I’ll come back to later).
You can love your partner tremendously and hate their lack of responsibility. You can feel deeply grateful to your in-laws for all the support they offer while at the same time feeling extremely annoyed by their intrusiveness. You can admire your boss’s effectiveness and be irritated by their micromanaging.
My colleagues and I recently put forward a new four-quadrant framework for how people evaluate their relationships. The experiences I just described would fall into the ambivalent quadrant, which is characterised by having both strong positive and negative feelings toward another person at the same time. The other quadrants are feeling mostly positive, mostly negative or indifferent. We believe that ambivalence in relationships has been largely overlooked up until now, even though it’s such a common and consequential experience.
It’s important to say that being in an ambivalent relationship is not the same as finding it mildly satisfying – the distinctive nature of these relationships is that you experience strong positive feelings and strong negative feelings. It’s also important to distinguish ambivalence from indifference, which occurs when neither positive nor negative feelings are strong and the relationship instead feels emotionally neutral. In other words, ambivalence is ‘I care a lot, but I’m torn,’ while indifference is closer to ‘I’m not especially drawn in, upset, or emotionally invested.’
How does ambivalence arise in relationships? Certainly, some relationships are a mixed package from their very beginning: offering great warmth and connection alongside quirks, costs or complications that never quite disappear. Since their start, they stir both gratitude and frustration, attraction and hesitation. But ambivalence can also grow over time. Relationships evolve and studies show that even relationships that start out mostly positive (such as romantic relationships) often accumulate negative feelings as life unfolds and significant challenges emerge. Partners change, circumstances shift, responsibilities grow heavier. What once felt effortless now involves compromises, mismatched needs or recurring patterns we didn’t see in the early glow. When these negative feelings first emerge, the positive ones do not suddenly dissipate, thus creating ambivalence.
Think about a relationship in your own life that leaves you feeling torn. Maybe you care deeply about this person and value the bond, yet also feel hurt, frustrated or disappointed by them. If that feels unsettling, our findings suggest there is a reason: people are often distressed by the mixed feelings of relationship ambivalence. We do not want to feel pulled in opposite directions about someone who matters to us. In fact, our studies (and research by others) have shown that ambivalence in romantic relationships undermines both relationship quality and personal wellbeing. And the strain is not only psychological: experiencing ambivalence has been linked to higher blood pressure, greater inflammation and other early markers of cardiovascular risk.
Uncertainty doesn’t just chip away at relationship quality, it also affects wellbeing
Despite this tension, we’ve found that ambivalence doesn’t tend to mean that people check out of a relationship – if anything, it often means the opposite. When someone feels both pulled in and pushed away, they tend to stay mentally busy trying to ‘solve’ the ambivalence: they want to either like or dislike someone; they want to figure out whether the relationship is worth investment or whether it is best to pull away. In fact, in our studies we found that the more ambivalence someone experiences in a romantic relationship, the more they think and ruminate about it.
These ruminative thoughts tend to swing in two directions. At times they are constructive and people think about ways to improve things, fix patterns, reconnect. Other times, their thoughts are pretty destructive, focusing on all the difficulties, problems and flaws of the relationships. That same push‑pull shows up in behaviour. Some days people act warmly and constructively, trying to connect with the other person. On other days, people are destructive, by withdrawing or blaming and criticising others. And in our studies that have tracked people over time, we see that ambivalence reliably produces these swings, making people fluctuate substantially between these two different types of thoughts and behaviours on a daily basis.
So feeling ambivalent does not seem like a walk in the woods. It is stressful and consequential for how people behave in their relationship. And what about the person on the receiving end? What happens when your partner has both strong positive and strong negative feelings toward you: one day they want to connect, the next they pull back or critique, and the cycle repeats? Being on the receiving end of those mixed signals can feel destabilising. And those shifts – from connection to distance, from support to irritation – aren’t just confusing; they can take a toll on the sense of safety and stability in the relationship. In fact, in our studies, we find that recipients of ambivalence often experience their partner as unpredictable and hard to read. That uncertainty doesn’t just chip away at relationship quality, it also affects the wellbeing of the recipient of the ambivalence. Recipients report feeling more stressed, in a more negative mood, and less satisfied with their lives overall. It’s clear that ambivalence isn’t a solo experience, it tends to spill over, influencing (and potentially damaging) the person on the other side of the relationship, too.
If you recognise these descriptions of relationship ambivalence including the challenges involved, you might be wondering if there’s anything you can do about it. There’s no quick fix, but there is some good news. First, ambivalence means that the relationship matters to you. Mixed feelings – strong positives and strong negatives – show up only when someone is important to us. If the relationship didn’t matter to you, you wouldn’t feel torn; you would feel indifferent. Indifference is the state where even the negative feelings have faded – you’re no longer frustrated or hurt, you’ve simply stopped noticing. So ambivalence, uncomfortable as it is, signals that this is still a meaningful relationship. Second, ambivalence makes you reflect on the relationship. You are involved, you want to understand what is going on, and decide what should happen next. Ambivalence is an important signal that shows you that a rewarding and valuable relationship poses significant costs too, nudging you to ask whether to repair, recalibrate or step back.
All this means that if you are now recognising for the first time that a significant relationship in your life is ambivalent for you, this awareness is already an important first step. Becoming aware of your mixed feelings creates an opportunity to reflect on the relationship.
This is a good moment to intervene and influence what happens next. After all, if you are having these mixed feelings, it means two helpful conditions are present:
There’s still some positivity to build on. The relationship has rewards; the task is to reduce the negativity, not to build positivity from scratch; and
You are still engaged. You care, you’re motivated, and you’re open to making things better – whether through conversation, reflection, counselling or other forms of support (in other words, you are not in the indifferent quadrant of our framework, which would be worse news for the relationship!)
If negativity comes to overwhelm the positives – or if you find yourself starting to drift into indifference – then your window for change will have narrowed. Ambivalence, in contrast, sits in a workable in‑between zone, where effort still has room to make a difference. It can be a moment to approach the other person, communicate your needs, and see whether you can find ways together that allow the relationship to improve. After all, ambivalence is the emotional equivalent of a blinking yellow light: not a stop, not a go, but an invitation to pay attention. And with the right attention, many relationships can still find their better path.
Francesca Righetti is associate professor at the Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology at the VU Amsterdam in the Netherlands. Her research focuses on the psychology of close relationships, investigating processes related to relationship quality and maintenance.
Yours truly, ChatGPT I used an AI detector for a month. What I found from my peers, dates, and heroes horrified me.
I lay watching the faint streak of light that had descended into the darkness of the house. My parents and my kid brother Navin lay next to me like felled lumber, each lost in their own deep slumber. Light does not distinguish between anyone or anything and all it does is banish darkness with its billions of photons.
But, only my eyes were open and so the light that descended through the single glass tile of the roof came for me for I went for it. I was three or four years old then.
I lay watching the fan twirl at half speed in duet with the cool air from the AC vents. My wife lay next to me in a dead sleep, snoring gently. Placing my hands on my chest, fingers intertwined I lay thinking about the dead.
My old but young eyes searched for the glass tile so that I could reconnect with light.
Sadly, the only thing that glowed an alien green in the darkness of the bedroom, were the phosphorescent material of the Ac remotes buttons.
Sleep once again approached me, and striking me felled me once again into another bout of slumber.
A stranger can learn a lot about you in 5 minutes online – how to check and delete it ASAP
Gen Z has very strong opinions about age-gap relationships – and it could be rightZoe Williams
Should you cut off your friend? How to tell when a friendship needs repair, change or an ending
How to make – and keep – friends as a grownup, according to science
https://psyche.co/ideas/why-long-brewing-physical-and-mental-breakdowns-feel-so-sudden
Why long-brewing physical and mental breakdowns feel so sudden
by Sasi S Senga, neurosurgical oncologist
As a neurosurgeon and a son, I’ve come to see the parallel processes underlying growing tumours and stressed-out minds
I remember reading the words brain metastases on my phone between surgical cases. As the message arrived, the hospital corridor around me continued its ordinary rhythm. Doors opened and closed. A trolley rattled past toward the next theatre. Somewhere down the hall, a pager sounded and I heard footsteps quickening in response. The axis of my life had been upended but the building around me appeared oblivious.
I read the message again as though repetition might change its meaning. A few minutes later, I washed my hands, retied my mask and returned to theatre. Instruments passed into my palm in familiar sequence: suction, bipolar, clip. My hands followed movements rehearsed thousands of times before.
The tumour had not begun that morning. I knew from my training that, long before those words appeared on my phone, the biological processes that produced them had been unfolding inside my mother’s body.
Since that pivotal day, I keep thinking about the way that collapse often feels sudden, but how rarely that’s the case in living systems. What appears to us as abrupt failure is usually the delayed visibility of strain that has been accumulating for years.
This pattern appears repeatedly across biology and psychology. What looks like stability from the outside reflects hidden systems absorbing strain – what physiologists call homeostasis – until their capacity to compensate is finally exceeded. Systems theorists describe this as movement toward a critical transition. When the threshold is eventually crossed, change can seem abrupt even as underlying instability grows.
Neural circuits possess a remarkable ability to reorganise themselves in response to disruption
Most cancers originate through the gradual accumulation of mutations within individual cells, altering the mechanisms that normally regulate growth, division and repair. Yet the presence of these mutations does not immediately produce illness. Surrounding cells continue performing their roles, the immune system eliminates many abnormal cells, and the architecture of the tissue subtly reorganises itself to preserve organ function. A tumour may therefore grow for years while the organ continues to appear functionally intact. The person carrying it may feel entirely well until that balance is finally exceeded.
In the brain, this dynamic becomes especially striking. Unlike many other tissues, neural circuits possess a remarkable ability to reorganise themselves in response to disruption, sometimes preserving cognition even after profound structural loss. Brain tumours do not merely compress or destroy surrounding tissue. Instead, tumour cells interact directly with surrounding neural circuits, responding to the brain’s electrical activity and integrating into existing networks.
In patients whose tumours infiltrate the language cortex, recordings made during surgery show speech-related activity extending beyond the regions normally responsible for language. As the tumour disrupts the local circuitry, neighbouring networks are recruited to help sustain performance. Language processing therefore becomes distributed across a wider system as the brain attempts to preserve function.
For a time, this redistribution allows cognition to continue functioning normally. Patients may continue speaking, reasoning or navigating their environment even as a disease progresses within the structures that support those abilities. Only when the system can no longer redistribute that burden does the disruption become suddenly obvious.
The brain’s response to sustained psychological pressure follows the same principle. As stress hormones reshape activity across the brain, control gradually shifts away from networks centred in the prefrontal cortex, which support flexible reasoning and deliberate decision-making. At the same time, hippocampal systems that normally provide contextual memory become less influential. In their place, greater influence shifts toward circuits associated with habit and routine, particularly within the striatum.
Crucially, these changes rarely feel pathological at first. On the contrary, they often appear as discipline or productivity. Under chronic stress, you might work longer hours, concentrate more intensely on urgent responsibilities, and postpone activities that don’t seem immediately necessary. Because your outward performance is preserved, the underlying strain remains largely invisible, both to you and those around you.
It was during a stressful period of life that a doctoral student eventually came to see me in clinic, worried that something might be wrong with her brain. Over recent weeks, this young woman had experienced a series of small but unsettling lapses. Midway through a research presentation, she’d lost the thread of her argument and struggled to continue, despite knowing the material well. On another occasion, she missed a familiar turn while driving home along a route she had taken hundreds of times before, and for several seconds could not understand why she was on the wrong road.
Too often, strain is absorbed by those who are more vulnerable and least able to resist it
Rather than interpreting these experiences as due to stress or exhaustion, she began to imagine neurological explanations. Perhaps there was a tumour growing silently. Perhaps the lapses signalled the early stages of cognitive decline. The possibility of a hidden lesion seemed more plausible to her than the idea that her working conditions might explain the change. In medicine, we are trained to look for disease inside the body; it is often harder to recognise the ways environments can reshape how the mind functions.
Thankfully, her imaging was entirely normal. There was no mass, no oedema and no structural abnormality that could account for the symptoms she described. From a neurological standpoint, the scans were reassuring. Yet the experiences that had frightened her were real, and they required explanation.
When she later described the months leading up to these episodes, her story began with a meeting that was supposed to be routine. Her supervisor had suggested it, saying the director of graduate studies would attend to clarify expectations. At first, the conversation seemed procedural. They thanked her for coming and spoke about standards, competitiveness and the importance of maintaining momentum.
As she described the meeting to me, what stood out was how the senior academic’s language gradually shifted. Delays in my patient’s progress were described as ‘patterns’. Questions she had raised about supervision were reframed as signs of her ‘dependency’. No one raised their voice, but by the end of the meeting, the challenges of the doctoral programme had somehow been reframed in terms of questions about her resilience. You might have seen these dynamics yourself. In hierarchical institutions, strain rarely travels upward to those in power. Too often, it is absorbed by those who are more vulnerable and least able to resist it.
In the wake of the meeting, my patient told me how her sleep shortened, meals became irregular and how she’d given up leisure activities to devote more time to her studies. Her attention narrowed toward immediate demands and, for a time, the strategy worked. Those lapses that frightened her were the first signs of the strain becoming visible. They marked the moment when a nervous system that had been compensating for too long could no longer sustain the effort.
After I’d reassured her that there was no evidence of a tumour or degenerative disorder, the true explanation for her symptoms became easier to consider, though not necessarily easier for her to accept.
However, several months later she returned briefly to the clinic to thank me. She mentioned how, after the scans, things had begun to improve. With encouragement from family and friends, she’d made small adjustments: reduced some commitments, restored a more regular pattern of sleep, and gradually reintroduced routines that had once structured her days but had disappeared during the months of greatest pressure.
A mind that had been compensating for too long had begun to regain its equilibrium
The improvements were gradual. Tasks that had once felt disproportionately demanding slowly returned to their familiar scale. Reading, concentrating and speaking no longer felt such an effort. Conversations unfolded without the need to rehearse sentences internally before speaking. The small cognitive hesitations that had alarmed her began to recede.
Listening to her describe these changes, it sounded to me like her cognitive flexibility was returning. Her attention had widened again, making it easier to hold multiple ideas in mind and move between them without effort. What looked like renewed motivation was in fact the restoration of regulatory capacity. A mind that had been compensating for too long had begun to regain its equilibrium.
My patient’s experience can be understood from an evolutionary perspective. The tendency of living systems to compensate rather than immediately fail reflects a fundamental biological and psychological priority: survival in the present moment often takes precedence over preserving optimal function across the lifespan, even if this means damage accumulates over time. Continuing to function despite accumulating strain can be more advantageous than signalling distress too early.
The same principle operates across many levels of biology. Cells continue dividing despite accumulating mutations if doing so preserves tissue integrity. Neural circuits recruit neighbouring regions when networks are compromised, and psychological systems narrow attention toward urgent demands when environments become overwhelming.
When I received the message telling me that my mother had developed brain metastases, it felt like a dividing line between one life and another. Yet what stayed with me was not only the diagnosis itself, but the realisation that it had arrived so late in the story. By the time those words appeared on my phone, the disease had already been shaping her life for months, perhaps years, while her body continued to adapt in ways neither of us could see. The news felt sudden; what it revealed was anything but.
That realisation altered the way I thought about apparent stability. Over the years, I found myself returning to that same observation in many different settings. Not because cancer and psychological strain are the same phenomenon, nor because they arise from identical biological mechanisms, but because both reveal something fundamental about living systems: the work required to preserve function is often least visible when it is succeeding.
Understanding this does not allow us to foresee every collapse before it occurs. It may, however, change what we pay attention to. The earliest signs of strain are often easy to overlook because they arrive disguised as ordinary adaptations. Life becomes increasingly organised around what feels necessary. What is urgent begins to crowd out what is restorative, and the resulting narrowing can easily be mistaken for dedication, productivity or resilience.
Seen in this light, care involves more than responding to visible distress. It also means attending to what is gradually disappearing: opportunities for rest, moments of curiosity, sources of connection and renewal. The things that give life depth, texture and meaning are often the first things surrendered in the effort to keep going.
Perhaps this is why collapse so often feels sudden. What we witness is not the beginning of a failure but the culmination of a long period of accommodation. We notice the moment a structure gives way, not the years it spent holding itself together.
Sasi S Senga is a neurosurgical oncologist, biomedical scientist and AI-biotech entrepreneur. He has held academic appointments at Oxford and Stanford, and is the founder of a cancer charity. His writing explores neuroscience, cancer biology and complex systems. He is the author of The Equations of Life (2026) and has been published in the Financial Times.
Yeh Fitoor Tera
Bollywood
