Sònia Cervantes: interview with Hermano Mayor’s psychologist

"Vives o sobrevives" is the last book of the psychologist from Barcelona. We talked with her.

Sònia Cervantes is especially known for her role in the television program Hermano Mayor, in which she guided young people with problems in relating to others and their families.

But beyond her media facet (which is not limited to her appearances in the program), Sònia is, fundamentally, a social worker. Sònia is, fundamentally, a psychologist and therapist..

Meeting with Sònia Cervantes, psychologist and writer.

From this facet of hers, which has to do with her curiosity to understand the workings of the human mind, not only has her professional career as a psychologist been born, but also, to date, two books: Vivir con un adolescente and ¿Vives o sobrevives? The latter has been published recently, and through this interview to Sònia we intend to explore some of the ideas that have shaped the content of its pages..

Adrian TrigliaIf you had to give just one example that would express the difference between "vives" and "sobrevives", what would it be?

Sònia CervantesSurviving means going to the same restaurant every day, with the same menu and even with the probability that it will be bad for you again because sometimes the dishes are not entirely healthy; but you have it close to home and it's the only thing you know. Surviving involves trying different restaurants, varying the menu, daring to try new flavors at the risk of not liking some of them and deciding on a daily basis which one you like the most. Getting out of your comfort zone. Just because it's not bad, or even if it is, but it's what you know, doesn't mean it's right.

A.T.: What kind of experiences that you have had in your practice do you think have influenced you the most when writing the book?

S.C.: All those in which the people in front of me made a great effort to try not to suffer and paradoxically ended up suffering. The very dangerous triad: overthinking, dependent profile with low self-esteem and avoidant personality pattern. The Molotov cocktail to end up suffering uselessly because it is not productive suffering but the opposite, blocking and paralyzing.

A.T.: In your book you also point out that attention can make us get "trapped" by constantly thinking about the possible negative consequences of our actions. What do you think are the keys to solve this?

S.C.: Living here and now without becoming persistent fortune tellers of future misfortunes. Stopping living in YsilandiaWhat if I make a mistake, what if it goes wrong, what if I fail... I would say: What if it goes well? Or better yet, what if it happens, what will you do? It is the eternal struggle between coping and avoidance. Anticipatory anxiety, far from preparing us for the worst (something we have always been told) puts us in the worst of situations: in survival mode.

A.T.: There are several elements that are often linked to conformity and perpetual permanence in what is known as the comfort zone. For example, procrastination, or the tendency to think that everything bad that happens cannot be controlled or avoided. Which would you say is more harmful?

S.C.: Both because they anchor you to inactivity and suffering. If you were to make a list of your top 10 fears, 9 of them would never happen. The non-reality that you make up in your head is much worse than the existing reality, if that movie that you have formed exists. If it is in your hands to change, get to work; if it is not, accept the situation or change the attitude with which you face it. Don't wait for things to happen, make them happen, but don't build realities that haven't happened yet. When they come, you will deal with it.

A.T.: In the book you also talk about toxic relationships, do you think this is basically a problem of how people are being educated inside and outside schools?

S.C.: Almost everything has its origin in non-education or bad education and at the same time almost everything has its solution in education or re-education. I believe that we all educate: school, family and society. Not all the responsibility can fall on the school context. The growing presence of toxic relationships in children under 18 years of age has been growing alarmingly and exponentially in recent years. We must be doing something wrong for the generation with more access to information in the history of mankind and with more education in equality to be regressing to macho behaviors typical of 60 or 70 years ago. Overprotection, the misuse of social networks and certain social references of what a relationship should be are taking their toll on this generation. We are fostering insecure, dependent and low self-esteem profiles that will easily fall into toxic relationships.

A.T.: The passive attitude that you point out as an element that stagnates us in our way of living life can be reinforced by distractions. Do you think that the use of the Internet, with all the information that can be found on the web, makes it easier for people to find new goals and hobbies that bring them well-being? Or does it tend to be used as a distraction to kill time, rather?

S.C.: An excess of information can become a real infoxication. We are highly stimulated and bombarded on a daily basis but it is also in our hands to disconnect more often. It is not social networks or the fact that the Internet exists that causes the problem, it is the misuse or overuse we make of it all. We should learn to turn it off daily after a certain time and dedicate ourselves to other activities and to interact with those around us. Cleaning our phones and devices is not bad either. Does the world end if we remove the Whatsapp, Facebook or Twitter apps from our devices? Not at all. We can call those we whatsapp and we can check our profiles on the networks from the tablet or computer, without having to carry them on the mobile 24 hours a day. Try it for a week and then decide whether you want to stay chained to your smartphone or not.

A.T.: What do you think about this aspect of psychology that has been called "positive psychology"? To what extent do you think it can be useful?

S.C.: It is clear that the key to our well-being and also to our psychological discomfort, in the absence of highly stressful events that can explain it, is in our thoughts and in our way of interpreting reality, because even in bad times not everyone responds in the same way. It is true that positivizing our mind has very beneficial effects on our emotions and our body in general; but an excess of positivism can also be harmful. I do not like to sell smoke or the motorcycle with phrases like "you must be happy", "nothing happens, think positive" because it is not always possible. We must learn to be bad, to deal with suffering and to accept our mental storms always with the commitment to change. Acceptance without commitment is resignation. It is useful what helps us to face suffering, not to avoid it or to pretend that nothing is wrong.

8. There are strong criticisms directed against the philosophy of positive thinking, and one of them has to do with the idea that, if we believe that our experiences depend basically on our way of thinking, if we feel bad it will be our fault as individuals. Do you think that in certain contexts optimism can be harmful?

S.C.: We are not only what we think, not even what we feel or what we do. We are the whole of all this plus our lived experiences. The reductionism that everything is in our thinking can have the paradoxical effect of making us hyper-reflective, obsessive and generate a great feeling of guilt. Yes, it is true that our way of processing information can be a source of well-being or suffering, I do not deny that, but it is also true that we must see ourselves as a whole, accept our weaknesses and stop trying to BE happy and try to BE as happy as possible throughout our daily lives. We have the right to be sad, to get angry, to complain, to be grumpy and even to have negative thoughts.

A.T.: Many people who are directly or indirectly involved in psychology believe that the role of psychologists is mythologized. Why do you think that is?

S.C.: I do not share that opinion, but if that is the case, it may be due to many years of indoctrination by certain professionals instead of the accompaniment and reeducation that a patient needs. There are many "gurus" and prophets in this profession who deify themselves, seriously damaging the profession in particular and their patients in general. We should not tell people what they should do, we should make them reflect on what they do and give them tools if they are committed to making changes in their lives. Look for three fundamental things: Self-knowledge, acceptance and commitment. Let's not forget that a psychologist is just another person who also suffers and is sad. He/she only has one advantage: he/she knows the tools to end or at least deal with that suffering. Or can't a dentist have cavities?