How to Fall Asleep in Less Than 30 Seconds

     

Does it take you a while to fall asleep at night? Do you find your mind dwelling on various thoughts before you’re able to finally drift off and relax into sleep? Do you find that you just aren’t sleepy enough when it’s time for bed?

Realize that if it takes you 15 minutes on average to fall asleep each night, that’s more than 91 hours per year that you’re wasting. This is the equivalent of spending more than two 40-hour workweeks just lying in bed waiting to fall asleep.

And if you have insomniac tendencies and take more than an hour to fall asleep each night, you’re spending more than nine 40-hour weeks on that pointless activity — every year. That’s a tremendous amount of wasted time.

If you’d like to change this situation, keep reading. I’ll explain the details and share a process for training your brain to fall asleep almost instantly when you’re ready to go to bed.

Drop Caffeine (at Least Initially)

First, if you drink coffee, tea (including green tea and white tea), yerba mate, cola, or any caffeinated beverages on a semi-regular basis, this method won’t work very well at all, so I strongly recommend that you get off all caffeine for at least 2 weeks before you attempt to make improvements in this area.I also advise that you drop chocolate during this time as well, including cocoa and cacao, since those contain stimulants too.

Even a small cup of coffee in the morning can disrupt your ability to fall asleep quickly at night. You may also sleep less restfully, and you’ll be prone to awaken more often throughout the night. Consequently, you may wake up tired and need extra sleep.

Simply eliminating all caffeine from your diet can improve your sleep habits tremendously. So if you haven’t already done that, please do that first before you attempt the training method I explain later in this article.

If you really love your caffeine though, the good news is that it’s okay to add it back once you’ve gone through this adaptation training. It will still disrupt your sleep a bit, but once you’ve mastered the habit of being able to fall asleep in 30 seconds or less, then most likely you’ll still be able to continue the habit even if you consume some caffeine during the day.

Train Your Brain to Fall Asleep Faster

A decade ago it might have taken me 15-30 minutes to fall asleep most nights. Sometimes it would take more than an hour if I had a lot on my mind. And very occasionally I could fall asleep within 5 minutes or less if I was very sleepy.

Today it’s fairly normal for me to fall asleep within 30 seconds or less, and often I’m able to fall asleep in less than 1 second. My best is probably around 1/4 of a second.

How do I know this? Because I have a witness that tells me how long I was out. I also know that I was sleeping because I awaken with the memory of a dream. If my sleep time is only a second or a fraction of a second, then it’s obviously a very short dream. Some time dilation occurs though, so a 1-second dream may feel significantly longer… perhaps as if 5-10 seconds have passed within the dream world.

Is this narcolepsy? No, narcolepsy is very different. I don’t just fall asleep at odd times throughout the day, and I don’t have excessive daytime sleepiness. Most days I don’t take any naps. One thing I do have in common with narcoleptics is that I can start having dreams immediately when I fall asleep, whereas most people don’t enter the dream state for at least an hour. I regard this as a positive adaptation though, not a problem or defect.

I can’t normally force myself to sleep when I’m not at all sleepy. But when I’m ready to go to sleep, I can go to sleep very quickly without wasting time trying to fall asleep.

I’m not able to do this 100% perfectly. If I have a stressful day and there’s a lot on my mind at night, I may find it more difficult to relax and go to sleep. But most of the time under normal, average conditions, I can get to sleep within 30 seconds or less.

I reached this point not by the exertion of conscious will but rather through a long-term process of sleep training. So don’t think that there’s some mental trick that you can use right away to make this happen instantly. However, once you’ve trained yourself to this point, the process is effortless. You’ll be able to do it automatically. It will be no more difficult than blinking.

Understanding the Training Process

The training process may take a long time — months or even years, depending on how far you want to go — but it’s not at all difficult, and it needn’t take a serious time commitment. In fact, the training will most likely save you a significant amount of time. The only challenging part is maintaining consistency long enough to get results.

First consider that it’s possible for you to fall asleep faster. Have you ever been really tired and sleepy at the end of a day, and you fell asleep very quickly after getting into bed? Have you ever drifted off while watching a movie or reading a book? Have you ever fallen asleep within less than 2 minutes after lying down? If you’ve done it before, then consider the possibility that your brain already knows how to fall asleep quickly, and if you create the right conditions, then you’re capable of doing this again. You just need to train your brain to do this more consistently.

The main reason that you aren’t falling asleep faster is that you haven’t trained your brain to do so. You may be able to reach that point eventually, but you’re not there yet. Similarly, you may be able to do the splits if you engage in flexibility training, but in the absence of such training, you probably won’t be able to do the splits at all.

If you want to fall asleep faster, you must incentivize your brain to drop all other activity and immediately transition into sleep when you desire to do so. That is the essence of this approach. If there are few consequences for a lazy approach to falling asleep, then your brain will continue to be lazy and inefficient in this area. You haven’t given it a good enough reason to select more efficient behaviors.

Your brain is always active, even during deep sleep, and it operates in different modes of consciousness, including beta (waking), alpha, theta, and delta phases. When you lie in bed waiting for sleep, you’re waiting for your brain to switch modes. An untrained brain will often take its own sweet time making the necessary state change. So you may dwell on other thoughts… or toss and turn… or just lie awake until your brain is finally ready to transition. This is a common experience. Without incentives to become more efficient, your brain will remain naturally lazy by default.

Your conscious mind might very much like to go to sleep, but it isn’t in charge. Your subconscious determines when you fall asleep. If your subconscious mind is in no hurry to fall asleep, then your conscious mind will have a hard time forcing it. In fact, your subconscious may continue to bubble up thoughts and ideas to occupy your conscious mind, distracting you with mental clutter instead of letting you relax and slide into sleep.

A trained subconscious mind is obedient and fast. When the conscious mind says to sleep, the subconscious activates sleep mode immediately. But this only works if you’re feeling at least partially sleepy. If the subconscious doesn’t agree with the need for sleep, it can still reject the request.

The process I’ll share next will teach your brain that putzing around isn’t an option anymore and that when you decide to go to sleep, it needs to transition immediately and without delay.

The Process

The process involves using short, timed naps to train your brain to fall asleep more quickly. Here’s how it works:

If and when you feel drowsy at some point during the day, give yourself permission to take a 20-minute nap. But only allow yourself exactly 20 minutes total. Use a timer to set an alarm. I often do this by using Siri on my iPhone by saying, “Set a timer for 20 minutes” or “Wake me up in 20 minutes.” The first one sets a countdown timer, while the later phrase sets an alarm to go off at a specific time. Sometimes I prefer to use a kitchen timer with a 20-minute countdown.

Begin the timer as soon as you lie down for your nap. Whether you sleep or not, and regardless of how long it takes you to fall asleep, you have 20 minutes total for this activity… not a minute more.

Simply relax and allow yourself to fall asleep as you normally would. You don’t have to do anything special here, so don’t try to force it. If you fall asleep, great. If you just lie there awake for 20 minutes, also great. And if you sleep for some fraction of the time, that’s perfectly okay too.

At the end of the 20 minutes, you must get up immediately. No lingering. This part is crucial. If you’re tempted to continue napping after the alarm goes off, then put the alarm across the room so you have to get up to turn it off. Or have someone else forcibly yank you off the couch or bed when they hear the alarm. But no matter what, get up immediately. The nap is over. If you’re still tired, you can take another nap later — wait at least an hour — but don’t let yourself go back to sleep right away.

I think it’s best to do your nap practice during the day if you can, but you can also do it in the evening, as long as it’s at least an hour before your normal bedtime. Perhaps the best time for an evening nap is right after dinner, when many people feel a little sleepy.

You don’t have to take the naps every day, but do them at least a few times a week if you can. I think the ideal practice would be one nap per day.

The next part of this process is to always wake up with an alarm in the morning. Set your alarm for a fixed time every day, seven days a week. When your alarm goes off each morning, get up immediately regardless of how much sleep you actually got. Again, no lingering. 

Now when you go to bed at night, seek to go to bed at a time that will essentially require you to be sleeping the whole time you’re in bed in order to feel well rested in the morning. So if you feel you need a good 7 hours of sleep each night to feel rested, and you plan to get up at 5am every morning, then get yourself into bed and ready to sleep at about 10pm. If you take 30 minutes to fall asleep, then you’re getting less sleep than you need, and this is a disincentive to continuing that wasteful habit.

The message you’re sending to your brain is that the time you have to sleep is limited. You are going to get out of bed after a certain number of hours no matter what. You’re going to get up from your nap after a specific amount of time no matter what. So if your brain wants to sleep, it had better learn to go to sleep quickly and use the maximum time allotted for sleep. If it wastes time falling asleep, then it misses out on that extra sleep, and it will not have the opportunity to make it up by sleeping in later. Sleep time squandered is sleep time lost.

When you go to bed whenever and allow yourself to get up whenever, you reward your brain for continued laziness and inefficiency. It’s fine if you take a half hour to fall asleep since your brain knows it can just sleep in later. If you awaken with an alarm but go to bed earlier than necessary to compensate for the time it takes you to fall asleep, your still tell your brain that it’s fine to waste time transitioning to sleep because there’s still enough extra time to get the rest it needs.

Coffee and chocolate are also crutches because if you don’t get enough sleep, your brain can come to rely on a stimulant to keep it going when necessary. If you remove these outs, then your brain will soon connect the dots. It will learn that taking too long to fall asleep equals not getting enough sleep, which means going through the day tired and sleepy. By closing the door on potential outs like stimulants and extra snooze time, you leave only one remaining option for a solution. Sooner or later your brain will determine that going to sleep faster is indeed the solution, and it will adapt by transitioning into sleep much more quickly, so as to secure the full amount of rest it desires.

Instead of continuing to give your brain the message that oversleeping is okay or that stimulants are available, begin to condition it to understand that sleep time is a limited resource. Your brain is naturally good at optimizing scarce physiological resources; it evolved to do so over a long period of time. So if sleep time appears to be a limited resource, your brain can learn to optimize its use of this resource just as it has learned to optimize the use of oxygen and sugar.

If you get sleepy during the day as a result of limiting your sleep time at night, that’s perfectly okay. Take naps as needed. It’s okay to take multiple naps during the day if you need to, but keep them limited to 20 minutes max, and don’t have two naps within an hour of each other. Whenever you get up, stay up for at least an hour.

Once you get used to 20-minute naps — or if you don’t have that much time available for napping — try napping for shorter intervals. Give yourself 15, 10, or even 5 minutes for each nap. I sometimes take 3-4 minute naps (with a timer), which are surprisingly refreshing, but only if I fall asleep quickly.

Teach your brain that a 20-minute nap means 20 minutes of total time lying down. If your brain wants to ruminate during part of that time, it always means less sleep.

Also teach your brain that X number of hours in bed at night is all it gets, and so if it wants to get enough sleep, it had better spend virtually all of that time sleeping. If it spends time on non-sleep activity, it always robs itself of some sleep.

Once you’ve adapted and you’re able to fall asleep quickly when you desire to do so, you can slack off on the training process, ditch the alarm, and wake up whenever you want. Most likely the training will stick. You can even add the caffeine back if you so desire. But for a period of at least a couple months to start, I recommend being strict about it. Take naps regularly, and use an alarm to get up at a consistent time every single day.

I still prefer to get up with an alarm most days. I don’t need it to fall asleep quickly, but I tend to linger in bed more than necessary without the alarm.

If this is too strict for you, I doubt you’ll succeed with this approach. If you give your brain an easy out, it will take that out, and it won’t learn the adaptation you’re trying to teach it here.

Everyone is different, so how long it takes you to adapt depends on your particular brain. I’m sure some people will adapt fairly quickly, within a few weeks, while others may take significantly longer. There are many factors that can influence the results, with perhaps the biggest one being your diet. In general, a lighter, healthier, and more natural diet will make it significantly easier to adapt to any sort of sleep changes. Regular exercise also makes it easier to adapt to sleep changes; cardio exercise in particular helps to rebalance hormones and neurotransmitters, many of which are involved in regulating sleep cycles. If you eat a heavily processed diet (i.e. shopping mostly outside the produce section) and you don’t exercise much, just be aware that I rarely see such people succeed with worthwhile sleep changes of any kind.

One last item I’ll share is that I’m able to fall asleep fastest when I’m cuddling someone, both for naps and when going to bed at night. On my own I can get to sleep in under 30 seconds normally, but when I’m cuddling a nice warm female body, that’s when I can often get to sleep in less than a second. So I invite you to experiment with this if you have a willing cuddle partner who enjoys serving as a human teddy bear.

Ten Things Wrong With The Media

1. The effects model tackles social problems 'backwards'

To explain the problem of violence in society, researchers should begin with that social violence and seek to explain it with reference, quite obviously, to those who engage in it: their identity, background, character and so on. The 'media effects' approach, in this sense, comes at the problem backwards, by starting with the media and then trying to lasso connections from there on to social beings, rather than the other way around.

This is an important distinction. Criminologists, in their professional attempts to explain crime and violence, consistently turn for explanations not to the mass media but to social factors such as poverty, unemployment, housing, and the behaviour of family and peers. In a study which did start at what I would recognise as the correct end - by interviewing 78 violent teenage offenders and then tracing their behaviour back towards media usage, in comparison with a group of over 500 'ordinary' school pupils of the same age - Hagell & Newburn (1994) found only that the young offenders watched lesstelevision and video than their counterparts, had less access to the technology in the first place, had no particular interest in specifically violent programmes, and either enjoyed the same material as non-offending teenagers or were simply uninterested. This point was demonstrated very clearly when the offenders were asked, 'If you had the chance to be someone who appears on television, who would you choose to be?':

'The offenders felt particularly uncomfortable with this question and appeared to have difficulty in understanding why one might want to be such a person... In several interviews, the offenders had already stated that they watched little television, could not remember their favourite programmes and, consequently, could not think of anyone to be. In these cases, their obvious failure to identify with any television characters seemed to be part of a general lack of engagement with television' (p. 30).

Thus we can see that studies which take the perpetrators of actual violence as their first point of reference, rather than the media, come to rather different conclusions (and there is certainly a need for more such research). The point that effects studies take the media as their starting point, however, should not be taken to suggest that they involve sensitive examinations of the mass media. As will be noted below, the studies have typically taken a stereotyped, almost parodic view of media content.

In more general terms, the 'backwards' approach involves the mistake of looking at individuals, rather than society, in relation to the mass media. The narrowly individualistic approach of some psychologists leads them to argue that, because of their belief that particular individuals at certain times in specific circumstances may be negatively affected by one bit of media, the removal of such media from society would be a positive step. This approach is rather like arguing that the solution to the number of road traffic accidents in Britain would be to lock away one famously poor driver from Cornwall; that is, a blinkered approach which tackles a real problem from the wrong end, involves cosmetic rather than relevant changes, and fails to look in any way at the 'bigger picture'.

2. The effects model treats children as inadequate

The individualism of the psychological discipline has also had a significant impact on the way in which children are regarded in effects research. Whilst sociology in recent decades has typically regarded childhood as a social construction, demarcated by attitudes, traditions and rituals which vary between different societies and different time periods (Ariés, 1962; Jenks, 1982, 1996), the psychology of childhood - developmental psychology - has remained more tied to the idea of a universal individual who must develop through particular stages before reaching adult maturity, as established by Piaget (e.g. 1926, 1929). The developmental stages are arranged as a hierarchy, from incompetent childhood through to rational, logical adulthood, and progression through these stages is characterised by an 'achievement ethic' (Jenks, 1996, p. 24).

In psychology, then, children are often considered not so much in terms of what they can do, as what they (apparently) cannot. Negatively defined as non-adults, the research subjects are regarded as the 'other', a strange breed whose failure to match generally middle-class adult norms must be charted and discussed. Most laboratory studies of children and the media presume, for example, that their findings apply only to children, but fail to run parallel studies with adult groups to confirm this. We might speculate that this is because if adults were found to respond to laboratory pressures in the same way as children, the 'common sense' validity of the experiments would be undermined.

In her valuable examination of the way in which academic studies have constructed and maintained a particular perspective on childhood, Christine Griffin (1993) has recorded the ways in which studies produced by psychologists, in particular, have tended to 'blame the victim', to represent social problems as the consequence of the deficiencies or inadequacies of young people, and to 'psychologize inequalities, obscuring structural relations of domination behind a focus on individual "deficient" working-class young people and/or young people of colour, their families or cultural backgrounds' (p. 199). Problems such as unemployment and the failure of education systems are thereby traced to individual psychology traits. The same kinds of approach are readily observed in media effects studies, the production of which has undoubtedly been dominated by psychologically-oriented researchers, who - whilst, one imagines, having nothing other than benevolent intentions - have carefully exposed the full range of ways in which young media users can be seen as the inept victims of products which, whilst obviously puerile and transparent to adults, can trick children into all kinds of ill-advised behaviour.

This situation is clearly exposed by research which seeks to establish what children can and do understand about and from the mass media. Such projects have shown that children can talk intelligently and indeed cynically about the mass media (Buckingham, 1993, 1996), and that children as young as seven can make thoughtful, critical and 'media literate' video productions themselves (Gauntlett, 1997).

3. Assumptions within the effects model are characterised by barely-concealed conservative ideology

The systematic derision of children's resistant capacities can be seen as part of a broader conservative project to position the more contemporary and challenging aspects of the mass media, rather than other social factors, as the major threat to social stability today. American effects studies, in particular, tend to assume a level of television violence which - as Barrie Gunter shows in this volume - is simply not applicable in other countries such as Britain. George Gerbner's view, for example, that 'We are awash in a tide of violent representations unlike any the world has ever seen... drenching every home with graphic scenes of expertly choreographed brutality' (1994, p. 133), both reflects his hyperbolic view of the media in America and the extent to which findings cannot be simplistically transferred across the Atlantic. Whilst it is certainly possible that gratuitous depictions of violence might reach a level in American screen media which could be seen as unpleasant and unnecessary, it cannot always be assumed that violence is shown for 'bad' reasons or in an uncritical light. Even the most obviously 'gratuitous' acts of violence, such as those committed by Beavis and Butt-Head in their eponymous MTV series, can be interpreted as rationally resistant reactions to an oppressive world which has little to offer them (see Gauntlett, 1997).

The condemnation of generalised screen 'violence' by conservative critics, supported by the 'findings' of the effects studies - if we disregard their precarious foundations - can often be traced to concerns such as 'disrespect for authority' and 'anti-patriotic sentiments' (most conspicuously in Michael Medved's well-receivedHollywood vs. America: Popular Culture and the War on Traditional Values (1992)). Programmes which do not necessarily contain any greater quantity of violent, sexual or other controversial depictions than others, can be seen to be objected to because they take a more challenging socio-political stance (Barker, 1984, 1989, 1993). This was illustrated by a study of over 2,200 complaints about British TV and radio which were sent to the Broadcasting Standards Council over an 18 month period from July 1993 to December 1994 (Gauntlett, 1995c). This showed that a relatively narrow range of most complained-of programmes were taken by complainants to characterise a much broader decline in the morals of both broadcasting in particular and the nation in general.

This view of a section of the public is clearly reflected in a large number of the effects studies which presume that 'antisocial' behaviour is an objective category which can be observed in numerous programmes and which will negatively affect those children who see it portrayed. This dark view is constructed with the support of content analysis studies which appear almost designed to incriminate the media. Even today, expensive and avowedly 'scientific' content analyses such as the well-publicised US National Television Violence Study (Mediascope, 1996; run by the Universities of California, North Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin), for example, include odd tests such as whether violent acts are punished within the same scene - a strange requirement for dramas - making it easier to support views such as that 'there are substantial risks of harmful effects from viewing violence throughout the television environment' (p. ix). [Footnote: Examination of programmes in full, sensibly also included in this study, found that ‘punishments occur by the end of the program (62%) more often than not for bad characters’, however (Mediascope, 1996, p. 15). Despite this finding, and the likelihood that a number of the remaining 38% would be punished in subsequent programmes, much is made of the finding that ‘violence goes unpunished (73%) in almost three out of four scenes’ (point repeated on p. x, p. 15, p. 25; my emphasis)]. This study also reflects the continuing willingness of researchers to impute effects from a count-up of content.

4. The effects model inadequately defines its own objects of study

The flaws numbered four to six in this list are more straightforwardly methodological, although they are connected to the previous and subsequent points. The first of these is that effects studies have generally taken for granted the definitions of media material, such as 'antisocial' and 'prosocial' programming, as well as characterisations of behaviour in the real world, such as 'antisocial' and 'prosocial' action. The point has already been made that these can be ideological value judgements; throwing down a book in disgust, smashing a nuclear missile, or - to use a Beavis and Butt-Head example - sabotaging activities at one's burger bar workplace, will always be interpreted in effects studies as 'antisocial', not 'prosocial'.

Furthermore, actions such as verbal aggression or hitting an inanimate object are recorded as acts of violence, just as TV murders are, leading to terrifically (and irretrievably) murky data. It is usually impossible to discern whether very minor or extremely serious acts of 'violence' depicted in the media are being said to have led to quite severe or merely trivial acts in the real world. More significant, perhaps, is the fact that this is rarely seen as a problem: in the media effects field, dodgy 'findings' are accepted with an uncommon hospitality.

5. The effects model is often based on artificial studies

Since careful sociological studies of media effects require amounts of time and money which limit their abundance, they are heavily outnumbered by simpler studies which are usually characterised by elements of artificiality. Such studies typically take place in a laboratory, or in a 'natural' setting such as a classroom but where a researcher has conspicuously shown up and instigated activities, neither of which are typical environments. Instead of a full and naturally-viewed television diet, research subjects are likely to be shown selected or specially-recorded clips which lack the narrative meaning inherent in everyday TV productions. They may then be observed in simulations of real life presented to them as a game, in relation to inanimate objects such as Bandura's famous 'bobo' doll, or as they respond to questionnaires, all of which are unlike interpersonal interaction, cannot be equated with it, and are likely to be associated with the previous viewing experience in the mind of the subject, rendering the study invalid.

Such studies also rely on the idea that subjects will not alter their behaviour or stated attitudes as a response to being observed or questioned. This naive belief has been shown to be false by researchers such as Borden (1975) who have demonstrated that the presence, appearance and gender of an observer can radically affect children's behaviour.

6. The effects model is often based on studies with misapplied methodology

Many of the studies which do not rely on an experimental method, and so may evade the flaws mentioned in the previous section, fall down instead by applying a methodological procedure wrongly, or by drawing inappropriate conclusions from particular methods. The widely-cited longitudinal panel study by Huesmann, Eron and colleagues (Lefkowitz, Eron, Walder & Huesmann, 1972, 1977), for example, has been less famously slated for failing to keep to the procedures, such as assessing aggressivity or TV viewing with the same measures at different points in time, which are necessary for their statistical findings to have any validity (Chaffee, 1972; Kenny, 1972). [Footnote: A longitudinal panel study is one in which the same group of people (the panel) are surveyed and/or observed at a number of points over a period of time]. The same researchers have also failed to adequately account for why the findings of this study and those of another of their own studies (Huesmann, Lagerspetz & Eron, 1984) absolutely contradict each other, with the former concluding that the media has a marginal effect on boys but no effect on girls, and the latter arguing the exact opposite (no effect on boys, but a small effect for girls). They also seem to ignore that fact that their own follow-up of their original set of subjects 22 years later suggested that a number of biological, developmental and environmental factors contributed to levels of aggression, whilst the mass media was not even given a mention (Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz & Walder, 1984). These astounding inconsistencies, unapologetically presented by perhaps the best-known researchers in this area, must be cause for considerable unease about the effects model. More careful use of the same methods, such as in the three-year panel study involving over 3,000 young people conducted by Milavsky, Kessler, Stipp & Rubens (1982a, 1982b), has only indicated that significant media effects are not to be found.

Another misuse of method occurs when studies which are simply unable to show that one thing causes another are treated as if they have done so. Correlation studies are typically used for this purpose. Their finding that a particular personality type is also the kind of person who enjoys a certain kind of media, is quite unable to show that the lattercauses the former, although psychologists such as Van Evra (1990) have casually assumed that this is probably the case. There is a logical coherence to the idea that children whose behaviour is antisocial and disruptional will also have a greater interest in the more violent and noisy television programmes, whereas the idea that the behaviour is aproduct of these programmes lacks both this rational consistency, and the support of the studies.

7. The effects model is selective in its criticisms of media depictions of violence

In addition to the point that 'antisocial' acts are ideologically defined in effects studies (as noted in section three above), we can also note that the media depictions of 'violence' which the effects model typically condemns are limited to fictional productions. The acts of violence which appear on a daily basis on news and serious factual programmes are seen as somehow exempt. The point here is not that depictions of violence in the news should necessarily be condemned in just the same, blinkered way, but rather to draw attention to another philosophical inconsistency which the model cannot account for. If the antisocial acts shown in drama series and films are expected to have an effect on the behaviour of viewers, even though such acts are almost always ultimately punished or have other negative consequences for the perpetrator, there is no obvious reason why the antisocial activities which are always in the news, and which frequently do not have such apparent consequences for their agents, should not have similar effects.

8. The effects model assumes superiority to the masses

Surveys typically show that whilst a certain proportion of the public feel that the media may cause other people to engage in antisocial behaviour, almost no-one ever says that they have been affected in that way themselves. This view is taken to extremes by researchers and campaigners whose work brings them into regular contact with the supposedly corrupting material, but who are unconcerned for their own well-being as they implicitly 'know' that the effects will only be on 'other people'. Insofar as these others are defined as children or 'unstable' individuals, their approach may seem not unreasonable; it is fair enough that such questions should be explored. Nonetheless, the idea that it is unruly 'others' who will be affected - the uneducated? the working class? - remains at the heart of the effects paradigm, and is reflected in its texts (as well, presumably, as in the researchers' overenthusiastic interpretation of weak or flawed data, as discussed above).

George Gerbner and his colleagues, for example, write about 'heavy' television viewers as if this media consumption has necessarily had the opposite effect on the weightiness of their brains. Such people are assumed to have no selectivity or critical skills, and their habits are explicitly contrasted with preferred activities: 'Most viewers watch by the clock and either do not know what they will watch when they turn on the set, or follow established routines rather than choose each program as they would choose a book, a movie or an article' (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan & Signorielli, 1986, p.19). This view, which knowingly makes inappropriate comparisons by ignoring the serial nature of many TV programmes, and which is unable to account for the widespread use of TV guides and VCRs with which audiences plan and arrange their viewing, reveals the kind of elitism and snobbishness which often seems to underpin such research. The point here is not that the content of the mass media must not be criticised, but rather that the mass audience themselves are not well served by studies which are willing to treat them as potential savages or actual fools.

9. The effects model makes no attempt to understand meanings of the media

A further fundamental flaw, hinted at in points three and four above, is that the effects model necessarily rests on a base of reductive assumptions and unjustified stereotypes regarding media content. To assert that, say, 'media violence' will bring negative consequences is not only to presume that depictions of violence in the media will always be promoting antisocial behaviour, and that such a category exists and makes sense, as noted above, but also assumes that the medium holds a singular message which will be carried unproblematically to the audience. The effects model therefore performs the double deception of presuming (a) that the media presents a singular and clear-cut 'message', and (b) that the proponents of the effects model are in a position to identify what that message is.

The meanings of media content are ignored in the simple sense that assumptions are made based on the appearance of elements removed from their context (for example, woman hitting man equals violence equals bad), and in the more sophisticated sense that even in context the meanings may be different for different viewers (woman hitting man equals an unpleasant act of aggression, or appropriate self-defence, ora triumphant act of revenge, or a refreshing change, or is simply uninteresting, or any of many further alternative readings). In-depth qualitative studies have unsurprisingly given support to the view that media audiences routinely arrive at their own, often heterogeneous, interpretations of everyday media texts (e.g. Buckingham, 1993, 1996; Hill, 1997; Schlesinger, Dobash, Dobash & Weaver, 1992; Gray, 1992; Palmer, 1986). Since the effects model rides roughshod over both the meanings that actions have for characters in dramas and the meanings which those depicted acts may have for the audience members, it can retain little credibility with those who consider popular entertainment to be more than just a set of very basic propaganda messages flashed at the audience in the simplest possible terms.

10. The effects model is not grounded in theory

Finally, and underlying many of the points made above, is the fundamental problem that the entire argument of the 'effects model' is substantiated with no theoretical reasoning beyond the bald assertions that particular kinds of effects will be produced by the media. The basic question of why the media should induce people to imitate its content has never been adequately tackled, beyond the simple idea that particular actions are 'glamorised'. (Obviously, antisocial actions are shown really positively so infrequently that this is an inadequate explanation). Similarly, the question of how merely seeing an activity in the media would be translated into an actual motive which would prompt an individual to behave in a particular way is just as unresolved. The lack of firm theory has led to the effects model being based in the variety of assumptions outlined above - that the media (rather than people) is the unproblematic starting-point for research; that children will be unable to 'cope' with the media; that the categories of 'violence' or 'antisocial behaviour' are clear and self-evident; that the model's predictions can be verified by scientific research; that screen fictions are of concern, whilst news pictures are not; that researchers have the unique capacity to observe and classify social behaviour and its meanings, but that those researchers need not attend to the various possible meanings which media content may have for the audience. Each of these very substantial problems has its roots in the failure of media effects commentators to found their model in any coherent theory.

So what future for research on media influences?

The effects model, we have seen, has remarkably little going for it as an explanation of human behaviour, or of the media in society. Whilst any challenging or apparently illogical theory or model reserves the right to demonstrate its validity through empirical data, the effects model has failed also in that respect. Its continued survival is indefensible and unfortunate. However, the failure of this particular model does not mean that the impact of the mass media can no longer be considered or investigated.

The studies by Greg Philo and Glasgow University Media Group colleagues, for example, have used often imaginative methods to explore the influence of media presentations upon perceptions and interpretations of factual matters (e.g. Philo, 1990; Philo, ed., 1996). I have realised rather late that my own study (Gauntlett, 1997) in which children made videos about the environment, which were used as a way of understanding the discourses and perspectives on environmentalism which the children had acquired from the media, can be seen as falling broadly within this tradition. The strength of this work is that it operates on a terrain different from that occupied by the effects model; even at the most obvious level, it is about influences andperceptions, rather than effects and behaviour. However, whilst such studies may provide valuable reflections on the relationship between mass media and audiences, they cannot - for the same reason - directly challenge claims made from within the 'effects model' paradigm (as Miller & Philo (1996) have misguidedly supposed). This is not a weakness of these studies, of course; the effects paradigm should be left to bury itself whilst prudent media researchers move on to explore these other areas.

Any paradigm which is able to avoid the flaws and assumptions which have inevitably and quite rightly ruined the effects model is likely to have some advantages. With the rise of qualitative studies which actually listen to media audiences, we are seeing the advancement of a more forward-thinking, sensible and compassionate view of those who enjoy the mass media. After decades of stunted and rather irresponsible talk about media 'effects', the emphasis is hopefully changing towards a more sensitive but rational approach to media scholarship.

The Effects Of Cigarette

There have been numerous campaigns against cigarette smoking communicating that this vice causes death. But a threat to health doesn’t seem to be a good reason for quitting anymore. People somehow block themselves and ignore all the information that is given to them. The purpose of this essay is to discuss three effects of cigarette smoking, besides the broadly mentioned possibility of developing cancer or dying, which are the smell of smoke, the stained teeth, and the cost of doing it.

The first effect of cigarette smoking, and probably the one that the non-smokers hate the most, is that it permeates everything around it. Smokers usually have smelly hair, breath, clothes, and, if they smoke indoors, a smelly room. The stench of cigarette smoke is very penetrating and hard to remove. Even if the person quits smoking the odor remains for a long time.

The second effect of cigarette smoking is one that most people don’t even take into consideration. It stains the teeth yellow or sometimes even brown. Since this effect is long term, most people are not aware of it when they begin smoking. The truth is that a cigarette stain is very hard to eliminate from the teeth, and it will probably end up costing a considerable amount of money. Yellow teeth are disgusting because they give an unhygienic image and make people look older.

The third effect of smoking is that it will eventually end up affecting the smoker’s personal economy. Depending on the country the prices of cigarettes can differ. But even at an affordable price the regular consumption of cigarettes will eventually take its economic toll.

These are only three out of many other effects that cigarette smoking can have, but to any sensible person they are more than enough to realize that smoking is bad. People can’t possibly be proud of calling themselves smokers. It is terrible for health as well as personal appearance. In the end, those who live in poverty, stink of smoke, and have yellow teeth are the people who are affected the most by this life threatening activity.

Population Explosion And Pakistan

Population is considered as an asset for a country. But it turns to be a burden when increases uncontrollably. This is the case with the world. Rapid growth in population has become a global problem and Pakistan is no exception. Pakistan inherited many chronic problems at the time of its inception. Problems like illiteracy, poverty, unemployment, corruption, lawlessness, political instability, poor infrastructure etc. were uncalled gifts for Pakistan. Overpopulation has further added to the fire. Many reasons are behind it; most of them seem to arise from our social and cultural norms. All of them are leaving adverse effects on our society. Some of the major impacts are shortage of food and housing facilities, overcrowding in cities, low investment etc. Let’s discuss the problem of overpopulation from world’s perspective and then see what are its causes and impacts on Pakistan.

The whole world is in the grip of overpopulation. It has crossed the six billion mark. After terrorism, the population explosion can be called the biggest problem the world is facing today. Every day, we come across the often repeated phrase, “Population Bomb is ticking”.

At the time of partition, Pakistan had a population of 33 million. Today, our country has crossed the number of 170 million. At present, Pakistan’s population is growing at the rate of 1.57% yearly. if the current growth rate of Pakistan remained continued, the day is not away when Pakistan would be number 1 in term of population. Let’s discuss some of the major causes responsible for this phenomenon.

Illiteracy is the major cause of overpopulation. Those lacking education fail to understand the need to prevent excessive growth of population. They are unable to understand the harmful effects that overpopulation has. Lack of family planning is commonly seen in the illiterate lot of the world. In Pakistan’s rural areas, there is a trend of large families and due to the lack of awareness and proper knowledge people go on producing more and more children.

Thanks to science for its contribution, on one hand it is saving the lives of people but if we look it on other hand it is playing a negative role to population growth.

Along with it, the rapid growth in population can be attributes to the custom of early marriages in our society. More than half of the population of Pakistan lives in rural areas. In rural areas, due to ignorance, people have a conservative approach. They prefer early age marriages for their children. They do so to prevent them from indulging in immoral activities. Child marriage not only affects the health of the couple but also the child they give birth to.

Furthermore, the trend of polygamy is also responsible for this problem. Polygamy is the most common in our rural areas. In rural areas people prefer to have more than one wife at a time. This inclination of people further aggravates the situation of population in the country. Likewise, improper usage of contraceptive method has contributed negatively.

Furthermore, preference of male child over female infant has deteriorated the existing situation of backward countries. Again the religious zeal, inculcated into the minds of illiterate class at the hands of pseudo orthodox contributes very harmful effects on ever increasing population. The one of the reason described by these orthodox not to interfere in the work of creator.

Only a few of all Pakistanis participate in outdoor activities such as eating out, domestic and foreign travel for fun and work etc. Majority is unable to do any of these activities. This is mainly due to lack of finances and opportunity. Therefore, the lack of recreational activities force people to stay with their life partner. The male performs his duty like drone.

Lastly, the failure of proper implementation of government’s Population Planning Policies is the major cause of population growth. Many policies have been formulated up till now. But none of them has produced the desired results. There are many challenges to population planning implementation in Pakistan. In Pakistan, the cultural and religious institutions consider family planning a very wrong deed. This factor is the primary reason why many areas of Pakistan are still devoid of family planning centres. Misconception, rumours and false propaganda about family planning practices are also among the common reasons.

Overpopulation has badly hampered the economic growth in the country. High population is responsible for a decline in the per capita income. This leads to a decline in the purchasing power of the people. As the demand for goods decreases then by “Demand and Supply” law, the investment in the country also suffers. Such a stagnant economy will lead to closing of factories and businesses and the outcome is joblessness and poverty. 

Even if the country somehow is successful in attracting foreign investment, still overpopulation will not allow effects on the country’s economy. Greater population means more number of hungry souls to feed. This is the problem of “Dependency ratio” which is acutely felt in our country.

For years, social services in the country have suffered even after sincere efforts by successive governments. The fact remains that more schools, hospitals and parks are of little comfort if the population keeps on increasing at an alarming rate.

Agriculture is another sector, which has been adversely affected by the rapid increase of population. About 70% of Pakistan’s population rely on agricultural sector. Overpopulation is even having an adverse effect on agricultural outcome. More population means smaller farms and that leads to a decline in productivity. The same would happen with the forests and also with the availability of fresh water.

People having smaller farms have no other choice but to mitigate in hope for better life. This leads to urbanization, which itself is a major social problem. 

Overpopulation has contributed towards an increase in a number of social evils, like lawlessness, crime and corruption. The fight over resources has divided the society into groups i.e. one who possess all and the other who fight for its mere survival. 

Overpopulation in cities has also contributed to toxic pollution. A greater number of vehicles on the roads mean the availability of large quantities of poisonous gas for people to inhale. Sewage problems and lack of clean drinking water can also be attributed to the population problem. 

Despite the adverse effects of rapidly growing population, the government of Pakistan can mitigate these effects and can achieve control on population. Following are some suggestions:

• Family planning facilities be made a part of health facilities.
• There should be a greater role for local and provincial governments.
• Role of NGOs and doctors in disbursement of Aid received for family planning should be increased.
• Males should be urged to cooperate more.
• Status of women be raised in society as done by present government by giving more seats in assemblies.
• Better health and educational facilities be provided for women.
• Issue to be taken as a nation crisis.
• Role of media be encouraged especially in rural areas.
• Government programs should involve Ulemas and NGOs
• Greater participation of landlords.

Pakistan today is standing at the crossroads. What is need of the hour is vision and sincere leadership that could transform dreams into reality. The problem of population has started to haunt us and unless we tackle it pragmatically our dream of bright and glorious future will just remain a pious wish. It needs a multi-pronged attack with overpopulation. A strong Pakistan should be our first priority. If we have to make certain hard decisions for its accomplishment no one should hesitate to lead and pull the trigger. Indeed, Pakistan comes first even before our personal vested interests.

Plastic Garbage in Oceans: Understanding Marine Pollution from Microplastic Particles

 Large quantities of globally produced plastics end up in the oceans where they represent a growing risk. Above all very small objects, so-called microplastic particles, are endangering the lives of the many sea creatures. An estimate of how greatly the oceans are polluted with microplastic particles has so far failed in the absence of globally comparable methods of investigation and data. Together with British and Chilean colleagues, scientists of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association have now analysed all published studies on this topic and have proposed standardised guidelines for the recording and characterisation of microplastic particles in the sea.

Plastic bottles washed on to the beach are as much a part of the coast as the sound of seagulls. What the eye does not see are the innumerable ultra-small plastic objects which float in the water, are washed on to the beach or settle on the sea bed. Scientists refer to these plastic particles as "microplastic particles," understanding these to mean plastic objects whose diameter is less than five millimetres -- whereby the majority of microplastic particles are smaller than a grain of sand or the tip of a needle. It is this property that also makes them so dangerous to the sea dwellers. "Microplastic particles are swallowed by organisms and absorbed via the digestive tract. It has been possible, for example, to detect them in the tissue of mussels or other animals," says Dr. Lars Gutow, biologist at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association. Toxic substances also attach to the small particles in the sea which then enter the food chain in this way and may therefore ultimately be dangerous to humans.

Lars Gutow and colleagues from the Universidad Católica del Norte in Chile and the School of Marine Science and Engineering in Plymouth have now jointly addressed the question as to how greatly the oceans of the world are polluted with microplastic particles. The biologists analysed 68 scientific publications on this subject and determined that the results are difficult to compare. "Very different methods were used in these studies which is why it could not be understood whether the observed regional differences in the distribution of the plastic particles are real or whether they are attributable to the methods of recording," explains Prof. Martin Thiel, initiator of the now published comparative study and scientist at the Universidad Católica del Norte. It emerged that 100,000 times more microplastic particles could be fished out of the water column if a net with a mesh of 85 micrometres was used instead of one with 450 micrometres.

Based on these findings the international team of researchers has now for the first time prepared guidelines for the recording and characterisation of microplastic particles and has published these in the Environmental Science & Technology journal in which the scientists also explain the possible origins of the plastic waste. "Microplastic particles reach the seas in different ways. A large share is accounted for by so-called plastic pellets used as a raw material in the manufacture of plastic products such as computer housings and other everyday articles. If these pellets are handled carelessly, during ship loading for example, many may be blown away by the wind and fall into the sea," explains Lars Gutow.

Microplastic particles are also to be found in cosmetics and cleaning agents, however. "Very small plastic particles are used as "abrasives" in many a peeling product. They then reach the sea via sewage water and rivers," says the biologist. And finally every plastic bottle, every plastic bag floating on the sea, one day disintegrates into countless microparticles. "It can take years for larger plastic parts to disintegrate primarily through physical processes. The UV radiation of the sun makes the plastic brittle. It is then broken down into ever smaller parts from the waves and friction processes," says Lars Gutow.

The smallest particles so far detected had a diameter of one micrometre which is one thousandth of a millimetre. Complex investigations are required to be able to determine such tiny plastic objects exactly and clarify their origins. "We recommend to every scientist to analyse very small microplastic particles using an infrared spectroscope. This procedure uncovers the constituents and permits an exact identification as a plastic," says Lars Gutow.

The scientists also point out gaps in their knowledge in their research guidelines. "The topic of plastics in the sea has become considerably more important in recent years. There is a lot of research going on. Nevertheless we do not know, for example, whether and in which quantity microplastic particles are deposited on rocky shores and in salt marshes. The latter are above all known for having a high retention potential for particles. Whether this also applies to microplastic particles is not so far known," says Martin Thiel who is examining the contamination of the Chilean coast with microplastic particles.

If in the future all marine researchers used standardised methods to record the microplastic particles based on the recommendations of this comparative study, then not only the reliability of their results ought to increase considerably. This then offers the chance of determining the final fate of microplastic particles accumulating in the world's oceans and to uncover the consequences of this pollution for the ecological systems and therefore for humans.

Historical Places Of Pakistan

Pakistan is a country in which you would find a variety of historical places that signify the unique traditions and culture of the country. These places are of extraordinary significance for people interested in history, at the same time they may act as an attraction for tourists. The tourism industry of Pakistan flourishes because of the existence of beautiful historical sites in the country.

Some of the most significant historical places in the country include Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro and Taxila. Harappa is situated approximately 200 km from Lahore in the Montgomery District of Punjab. It is the place of the historic Indus Valley Civilization settlement which is as old as 5000 years and is a civilization which the modern day people almost forgot about. A beautifully designed civilization which was discovered in 1920 has all elements of a modern day arrangement of a city. It had an exceptional sewerage system, drinking water wells and a high quality waste disposal system. The Harappans were agrarian people and experts believe they had a system of government for the distribution of the wealth of food.

Mohenjo-Daro was discovered in 1922 and is one of the oldest and most built up urban civilizations of the world. It is located on the west bank of the Indus River and it is a tiny proportion of the Indus river civilization of Harappa. Experts believe that the city was one of the most important in the Indus Valley Civilization and would have held majority of the trade courses and strength of the Southern Indus Plain between 2600 and 1900 BCE. One might find it difficult to find any palaces or monuments in the area but the city is well known for having historical pieces of gold beads, lapis, carnelian and ivory. All the houses in the city had areas for bathing and water wells were located in multiple spots all across the city. It had the most amazing drainage system and many of the modern day civilizations use the model of Mohenjo-Daro's drainage system to build new ones.

Taxila is another place which holds much significance when talking about the historical places of Pakistan. It is located 30 km North West of the Rawalpindi city and it is considered to be one of the most significant historical locations in Asia. The city is known for prospering culturally and economically from the 1st to 5^th century AD. The city comprises of a variety of buildings, settlements and castles. It also used to be the capital of the Budhist Kingdom so tourists might come across multiple Budha monuments in the city.

The three sites mentioned above are historical sites of utmost importance, but there are other historical sites in the country which attract tourists from all over the world such as the Takhti Bahi and the mausoleum of Jahangir, the Mughal emperor.

The historical significance of various sites of Pakistan is the country's unique selling point when it comes to the tourism industry. With a country marred by terrorist attacks finds it difficult to attract tourists, these sites act as a pulling force for archeologists who are willing to risk their lives to view the most extraordinary sites in the world.

What is Self Esteem?

Self esteem is the degree to which one values oneself. Although the word esteem means high worth or value, self esteem carries with it an evaluative component which is often specified as 'high self esteem' or 'low self esteem' and we evaluate ourselves along this continuum of high to low.

We all have changing experiences and issues over our life time and our self esteem, how we value ourselves, is shaped from these experiences. In some areas of our life we may value ourselves highly, in other areas we may not. Our self esteem can affect the way we feel and think about ourselves, affect our behavior, and have a marked effect on how we interact with others and how we perceive our place in the world.

People who can value themselves in many different areas of their lives, that is, they can perceive themselves as being good at some things and less so at others, tend to have fewer mental health problems and enjoy a varied and enriched life. They hold an accurate view of their talents and do not react badly when not performing well in areas where their talents are not optimal. By valuing themselves people are able to adjust to the challenges that come their way, that is, they are more solid internally and are therefore less affected by critical or stressful events and are able to respond in healthy and more constructive ways.

For some, however, low self esteem reduces well being. This occurs when self evaluation is overly negative across many aspects of life leading to a diminished self worth causing distress and suffering. In order to protect themselves from this distress people with low self esteem may limit risks taken, for example, in social, academic or career opportunities. Defensive behaviors like blaming, getting angry, or maybe becoming a perfectionist may also be expressions of low self esteem. Some may be vulnerable to dependency on drugs and alcohol. Low self esteem can be expressed in grandiose ways too, like bragging, showing off and in 'acting out' behaviors.

Early Development of Low Self Esteem
Early life experiences form the basis on how self esteem is built. From birth we begin to learn where we fit into the world around us. This learning is based on the interactions with our primary care giver, usually mother, and the sense of self that develops is dependent on mother's response to us. As babies we gaze at our mother's facial expressions and learn about safety and danger. We read our mother's responses to our own emotional expressions and build a sense of our own self worth on an emotional level. At this early stage of development, our learning remains out of awareness but importantly is at the core of our internal sense of self that forms our understanding of the world and how we fit into it.

As we grow we develop language and mobility that broadens our social interactions and brings verbal communication to our sense of self. Our parents, siblings, friends, teachers, and others who are important to us, influence our perception of how we are making our way in the world and who we are. We are impacted internally by others reactions to us. Their perceptions and behaviors, what they say or don't say, and their evaluations of us, and our response to them, are all influential in affecting how we value ourselves. Depending on our earlier experiences, we may swallow their reactions to us and add it to our understanding of who we are, or we may reject the other's responses or reactions to us. Over time, with repeated similar experiences, how we come to value ourselves may become generalised across different areas of life and lead to inaccurate and unhelpful self representations, for example, "I am weak", "I am not lovable", etc.

Early life experiences that are common in affecting healthy self esteem development are:

• rigid or harsh family discipline
• parents' having unrealistic expectations
• not fitting in with siblings and class mates
• being bullied
• absence of positive experiences
• family's standing within our community
• failing to meet peer group expectations.

Unhelpful Thinking and Self Esteem
Our life experiences, particularly early experiences, strongly influence the way we value ourselves. We form ways of thinking that become habitual and that repeat the same unhelpful or negative thoughts we learnt through childhood. In addition, we tend to expand the circumstances in which to apply these negative thoughts. While we see our thoughts as facts they are actually distorted thoughts that feed our view of ourselves and continually erode our self esteem. We use these distortions to tell ourselves of our faults when we make mistakes, or when we are under pressure, and when we fear rejection or negative results from our efforts.

There are a number of unhelpful or negative thoughts which can decrease our level of self esteem. Commonly we will overgeneralise when something does not meet our satisfaction. One mistake is amplified to become mistakes we 'always' make. Or we will filter information remembering only the parts of an event that did not go to plan and neglect the more positive areas of the event. Constant comparison with others or blaming ourselves for everything that goes wrong also indicate unhelpful thinking that can decrease our self esteem.

Everyone's view of themselves and the world has been shaped by early experience and it becomes difficult to envisage that there are other ways of viewing who we are. We have had this view for so long we often remain unaware that we could change our thoughts and perceptions and improve our lives.