
‘Toxic Positivity' Denies Real Feelings. Here's How to Do Better.
I was recently texting with a friend when he paused for a moment before writing back:
Him: 'Full disclosure here. I'm having a biopsy next week for a growth on my bladder.'
Me: 'Thanks for telling me. … You know I had testicular cancer? One of my hard-won mantras in life: wait to worry.'
Him: 'I am not one to be consumed with worry. However, I know your words are with good intention, but have you heard of the term 'toxic positivity?''
Me: 'Yes, kinda. …'
To be honest, 'kinda' was stretching the truth. I'd heard 'toxic positivity' as a buzzword, but I hadn't really thought about its meaning – surely it would never apply to me, right? Now, I wondered: Why did 'wait to worry,' a comment I intended to be helpful, provoke the rebuke?
The term 'toxic positivity' has gained popularity in recent years to describe an unhealthy way of tamping down negative emotions for the sake of staying positive. Google Trends shows that searches for 'toxic positivity' began to emerge in 2019, with increasing discussion in texts and blogs, and new studies, and even a 2022 book, 'Toxic Positivity: Keeping It Real in a World Obsessed with Being Happy,' by Whitney Goodman.
Graham Reynolds, a psychologist and adjunct professor at Columbia University, put it like this: 'Toxic positivity occurs when encouraging statements are expected to minimize or eliminate painful emotions, creating pressure to be unrealistically optimistic without considering the circumstances of the situation.'
Harvard psychologist Susan David phrased it even more succinctly, calling it 'emotional suppression.'
Mental health impact
As I thought back to the chat I'd had with my friend, I realized I'd inadvertently negated his anxiety about a possible cancer diagnosis. Instead, I'd have been more helpful if I'd acknowledged his fear head on, telling him, 'That's scary. What can I do for you?' (Even better, 'Can I do some research for you?' Or, 'Would you like me to come with you to your next appointment?')
I also decided to ask several experts for examples, and this is what I heard. Their suggestions focus on how to validate someone's feelings and not reconfigure their life into a Hallmark movie, with its requisite happy ending.
Don't say: 'Just stay positive.'
Do say: 'That must be a hard situation for you.'
Don't say: 'Everything happens for a reason' or 'When a door closes, a window opens.'
Do say: 'I'm sorry you're going through this.'
Don't say: 'Look on the bright side.'
Do say: 'This sucks. How can I support you?'
While I'd begun to understand the drawbacks to toxic positivity, which is sometimes referred to as 'forced false positivity,' David gave me even greater context.
Distinctions are made between positive emotions (happiness, joy), which are 'perceived to be good and wonderful,' and negative feelings (anger, grief, anxiety), David said, and many mental health professionals try to quickly steer their patients away from the latter, which are often considered unhealthy or counterproductive in processing loss.
But David called tamping down those feelings perceived as negative a form of denial.
Toxic positivity means using language that 'sounds good on the surface, but really what you're saying is 'my comfort is more important than your reality.' Sometimes we use glib phrases just to be positive because we are uncomfortable by the conversation,' she said.
I thought back to the texts with my friend and my use of 'wait to worry.' True, I hadn't let him fully express his fear and anxiety, and that was, at least in part, because it made me uncomfortable.
I remembered the many long months, now decades ago, when I'd been in the midst of cancer treatments. When asked how I was, I often replied, 'Fine,' which even then I knew was skirting my feelings. The alternative? 'I'm nauseated. I have mouth sores. I'm constipated. I'm terrified.'
In not being able to share the emotional truth of two surgeries and four rounds of chemo, I was isolating myself, which limited my ability to draw on support from those closest to me. Long before it had a name, I'd drunk the 'toxic positivity' Kool-Aid.
David returned to her theme of 'emotional suppression,' including instances when it's self-inflicted. 'It's where you have this idea that I'm feeling sad but I shouldn't be sad because a lot of people have it worse than me, or I should just be grateful,' she said. I was thinking to myself, 'What's so bad about that?' when she explained, 'to suppress our emotions or push them aside has a real impact on our long-term well-being.'
By that she meant it can harm our psychological health, which hinders our ability to problem-solve (say around decisions involving insurance or treatment), to get crucial support, and to do what psychologists often call 'sense making,' which is how we draw meaning from an experience. David added, 'Sense-making is actually a crucial part of life and of recovery, the ability to move forward.'
During my illness and for years after, I plowed on, which is to say I resumed regular programming as soon as I could. I took no stock or time to deal with the complex emotions that cancer unearthed, which I now can see kept me stuck. To others I was the happy, fearless cancer warrior. At night, I lay awake overcome by fear.
But denying our own feelings or having them suppressed by others has other consequences.
In a 2024 article, 'The Dark Side of #PositiveVibes: Understanding Toxic Positivity in Modern Culture,' Zoe Wyatt, a therapist and researcher specializing in trauma, wrote that the 'invalidation of genuine human emotional experiences' can lead to adverse psychological outcomes, including increased stress, reduced emotional resilience and harm to our interpersonal relationships, as well as mental health issues such as anxiety, depression and psychosomatic disorders. Put another way, it can prevent us from processing or dealing with genuine emotional experiences.
So, what can we do?
Experts suggest a number of steps to avoid indulging in toxic positivity:
– Recognize others' emotions: Don't dismiss them with platitudes like 'just stay positive' or 'it could be worse.'
– Acknowledge your own feelings: Allow yourself to feel sadness, grief or fear without judgment.
– Don't categorize emotions as 'good' or 'bad': Instead, as David advised, think of all emotions as leading you to greater compassion, curiosity and acceptance. All emotions are data that can help you find your way through challenging times.
As for my friend, the one waiting to hear the results of a bladder biopsy, he's just fine. No cancer found.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Japan Today
29-05-2025
- Japan Today
'Make America Healthy Again' report cites nonexistent studies: authors
US President Donald Trump (L) and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the release of the MAHA report at the White House on May 22, 2025 By Marisha GOLDHAMER and Bill McCARTHY At least four of the studies cited in a flagship White House report on children's health do not exist, authors listed in the document told AFP Thursday, casting doubt on the paper outlining U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s agenda. The highly anticipated "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) report was released on May 22 by the presidential commission tasked with assessing drivers of childhood chronic disease. But it includes broken citation links and credits authors with papers they say they did not write. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described the mishaps as "formating issues" during a press briefing Thursday and said the report will be updated to address them. "It does not negate the substance of the report," said Leavitt, who expressed confidence in Kennedy and his team, and insisted that their work was "backed on good science." The errors were first reported Thursday by NOTUS, a U.S. digital news website affiliated with the nonprofit Allbritton Journalism Institute. Noah Kreski, a Columbia University researcher listed as an author of a paper on adolescent anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic, told AFP the citation is "not one of our studies" and "doesn't appear to be a study that exists at all." The citation includes a link that purports to send users to an article in the peer-reviewed medical journal JAMA, but which is broken. Jim Michalski, a spokesman for JAMA Network, said it "was not published in JAMA Pediatrics or in any JAMA Network journal." Columbia University epidemiologist Katherine Keyes, who was also listed as an author of the supposed JAMA study, told AFP she does research on the topic but does not know where the statistics credited to her came from, and that she "did not write that paper." "I would be happy to send this information to the MAHA committee to correct the report, although I have not yet received information on where to reach them." Guohua Li, another Columbia University professor apparently named in the citation, said the reference is "totally fabricated" and that he does not even know Kreski. AFP also spoke with Harold Farber, pediatrics professor at Baylor College of Medicine, who said the paper attributed to him "does not exist" nor had he ever collaborated with the co-authors credited in the MAHA report. Similarly, Brian McNeill, spokesperson for Virginia Commonwealth University, confirmed that professor Robert Findling did not author a paper the report says he wrote about advertising of psychotropic medications for youth. A fourth paper on ADHD medication was also not published in the journal Pediatrics in 2008 as claimed in the MAHA report, according to Alex Hulvalchick, media relations specialist for the journal's publisher, the American Academy of Pediatrics. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declined to comment, referring AFP's questions to the White House. At her briefing, Leavitt declined to answer how the report was produced and whether artificial intelligence tools may have been used to craft it, directing those questions back to HHS. The Democratic National Committee blasted the report as "rife with misinformation" in a Thursday press release, saying Kennedy's agency "is justifying its policy priorities with studies and sources that do not exist." Kennedy was approved as health secretary earlier this year despite widespread alarm from the medical community over his history of promoting vaccine misinformation and denying scientific facts. Since taking office, he has ordered the National Institutes of Health to probe the causes of autism -- a condition he has long falsely tied to the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. The report's chronic disease references appear to nod to that same disproven theory, discredited by numerous studies since the idea first aired in a late 1990s paper based on falsified data. It also criticizes the "over-medicalization" of children, citing surging prescriptions of psychiatric drugs and antibiotics, and blaming "corporate capture" for skewing scientific research. © 2025 AFP


Yomiuri Shimbun
25-05-2025
- Yomiuri Shimbun
‘Toxic Positivity' Denies Real Feelings. Here's How to Do Better.
I was recently texting with a friend when he paused for a moment before writing back: Him: 'Full disclosure here. I'm having a biopsy next week for a growth on my bladder.' Me: 'Thanks for telling me. … You know I had testicular cancer? One of my hard-won mantras in life: wait to worry.' Him: 'I am not one to be consumed with worry. However, I know your words are with good intention, but have you heard of the term 'toxic positivity?'' Me: 'Yes, kinda. …' To be honest, 'kinda' was stretching the truth. I'd heard 'toxic positivity' as a buzzword, but I hadn't really thought about its meaning – surely it would never apply to me, right? Now, I wondered: Why did 'wait to worry,' a comment I intended to be helpful, provoke the rebuke? The term 'toxic positivity' has gained popularity in recent years to describe an unhealthy way of tamping down negative emotions for the sake of staying positive. Google Trends shows that searches for 'toxic positivity' began to emerge in 2019, with increasing discussion in texts and blogs, and new studies, and even a 2022 book, 'Toxic Positivity: Keeping It Real in a World Obsessed with Being Happy,' by Whitney Goodman. Graham Reynolds, a psychologist and adjunct professor at Columbia University, put it like this: 'Toxic positivity occurs when encouraging statements are expected to minimize or eliminate painful emotions, creating pressure to be unrealistically optimistic without considering the circumstances of the situation.' Harvard psychologist Susan David phrased it even more succinctly, calling it 'emotional suppression.' Mental health impact As I thought back to the chat I'd had with my friend, I realized I'd inadvertently negated his anxiety about a possible cancer diagnosis. Instead, I'd have been more helpful if I'd acknowledged his fear head on, telling him, 'That's scary. What can I do for you?' (Even better, 'Can I do some research for you?' Or, 'Would you like me to come with you to your next appointment?') I also decided to ask several experts for examples, and this is what I heard. Their suggestions focus on how to validate someone's feelings and not reconfigure their life into a Hallmark movie, with its requisite happy ending. Don't say: 'Just stay positive.' Do say: 'That must be a hard situation for you.' Don't say: 'Everything happens for a reason' or 'When a door closes, a window opens.' Do say: 'I'm sorry you're going through this.' Don't say: 'Look on the bright side.' Do say: 'This sucks. How can I support you?' While I'd begun to understand the drawbacks to toxic positivity, which is sometimes referred to as 'forced false positivity,' David gave me even greater context. Distinctions are made between positive emotions (happiness, joy), which are 'perceived to be good and wonderful,' and negative feelings (anger, grief, anxiety), David said, and many mental health professionals try to quickly steer their patients away from the latter, which are often considered unhealthy or counterproductive in processing loss. But David called tamping down those feelings perceived as negative a form of denial. Toxic positivity means using language that 'sounds good on the surface, but really what you're saying is 'my comfort is more important than your reality.' Sometimes we use glib phrases just to be positive because we are uncomfortable by the conversation,' she said. I thought back to the texts with my friend and my use of 'wait to worry.' True, I hadn't let him fully express his fear and anxiety, and that was, at least in part, because it made me uncomfortable. I remembered the many long months, now decades ago, when I'd been in the midst of cancer treatments. When asked how I was, I often replied, 'Fine,' which even then I knew was skirting my feelings. The alternative? 'I'm nauseated. I have mouth sores. I'm constipated. I'm terrified.' In not being able to share the emotional truth of two surgeries and four rounds of chemo, I was isolating myself, which limited my ability to draw on support from those closest to me. Long before it had a name, I'd drunk the 'toxic positivity' Kool-Aid. David returned to her theme of 'emotional suppression,' including instances when it's self-inflicted. 'It's where you have this idea that I'm feeling sad but I shouldn't be sad because a lot of people have it worse than me, or I should just be grateful,' she said. I was thinking to myself, 'What's so bad about that?' when she explained, 'to suppress our emotions or push them aside has a real impact on our long-term well-being.' By that she meant it can harm our psychological health, which hinders our ability to problem-solve (say around decisions involving insurance or treatment), to get crucial support, and to do what psychologists often call 'sense making,' which is how we draw meaning from an experience. David added, 'Sense-making is actually a crucial part of life and of recovery, the ability to move forward.' During my illness and for years after, I plowed on, which is to say I resumed regular programming as soon as I could. I took no stock or time to deal with the complex emotions that cancer unearthed, which I now can see kept me stuck. To others I was the happy, fearless cancer warrior. At night, I lay awake overcome by fear. But denying our own feelings or having them suppressed by others has other consequences. In a 2024 article, 'The Dark Side of #PositiveVibes: Understanding Toxic Positivity in Modern Culture,' Zoe Wyatt, a therapist and researcher specializing in trauma, wrote that the 'invalidation of genuine human emotional experiences' can lead to adverse psychological outcomes, including increased stress, reduced emotional resilience and harm to our interpersonal relationships, as well as mental health issues such as anxiety, depression and psychosomatic disorders. Put another way, it can prevent us from processing or dealing with genuine emotional experiences. So, what can we do? Experts suggest a number of steps to avoid indulging in toxic positivity: – Recognize others' emotions: Don't dismiss them with platitudes like 'just stay positive' or 'it could be worse.' – Acknowledge your own feelings: Allow yourself to feel sadness, grief or fear without judgment. – Don't categorize emotions as 'good' or 'bad': Instead, as David advised, think of all emotions as leading you to greater compassion, curiosity and acceptance. All emotions are data that can help you find your way through challenging times. As for my friend, the one waiting to hear the results of a bladder biopsy, he's just fine. No cancer found.


Japan Today
12-05-2025
- Japan Today
AI tool uses selfies to predict biological age and cancer survival
Three pedestrians take a selfie on the picturesque alleyway at the end of Rue de l'Universite, Paris By Issam AHMED Doctors often start exams with the so-called "eyeball test" -- a snap judgment about whether the patient appears older or younger than their age, which can influence key medical decisions. That intuitive assessment may soon get an AI upgrade. FaceAge, a deep learning algorithm described in The Lancet Digital Health, converts a simple headshot into a number that more accurately reflects a person's biological age rather than the birthday on their chart. Trained on tens of thousands of photographs, it pegged cancer patients on average as biologically five years older than healthy peers. The study's authors say it could help doctors decide who can safely tolerate punishing treatments, and who might fare better with a gentler approach. "We hypothesize that FaceAge could be used as a biomarker in cancer care to quantify a patient's biological age and help a doctor make these tough decisions," said co-senior author Raymond Mak, an oncologist at Mass Brigham Health, a Harvard-affiliated health system in Boston. Consider two hypothetical patients: a spry 75‑year‑old whose biological age clocks in at 65, and a frail 60‑year‑old whose biology reads 70. Aggressive radiation might be appropriate for the former but risky for the latter. The same logic could help guide decisions about heart surgery, hip replacements or end-of-life care. Growing evidence shows humans age at different rates, shaped by genes, stress, exercise, and habits like smoking or drinking. While pricey genetic tests can reveal how DNA wears over time, FaceAge promises insight using only a selfie. The model was trained on 58,851 portraits of presumed-healthy adults over 60, culled from public datasets. It was then tested on 6,196 cancer patients treated in the United States and the Netherlands, using photos snapped just before radiotherapy. Patients with malignancies looked on average 4.79 years older biologically than their chronological age. Among cancer patients, a higher FaceAge score strongly predicted worse survival -- even after accounting for actual age, sex, and tumor type -- and the hazard rose steeply for anyone whose biological reading tipped past 85. Intriguingly, FaceAge appears to weigh the signs of aging differently than humans do. For example, being gray-haired or balding matters less than subtle changes in facial muscle tone. FaceAge boosted doctors' accuracy, too. Eight physicians were asked to examine headshots of terminal cancer patients and guess who would die within six months. Their success rate barely beat chance; with FaceAge data in hand, predictions improved sharply. The model even affirmed a favorite internet meme, estimating actor Paul Rudd's biological age as 43 in a photo taken when he was 50. AI tools have faced scrutiny for under‑serving non-white people. Mak said preliminary checks revealed no significant racial bias in FaceAge's predictions, but the group is training a second‑generation model on 20,000 patients. They're also probing how factors like makeup, cosmetic surgery or room lighting variations could fool the system. Ethics debates loom large. An AI that can read biological age from a selfie could prove a boon for clinicians, but also tempting for life insurers or employers seeking to gauge risk. "It is for sure something that needs attention, to assure that these technologies are used only in the benefit for the patient," said Hugo Aerts, the study's co-lead who directs MGB's AI in medicine program. Another dilemma: What happens when the mirror talks back? Learning that your body is biologically older than you thought may spur healthy changes -- or sow anxiety. The researchers are planning to open a public-facing FaceAge portal where people can upload their own pictures to enroll in a research study to further validate the algorithm. Commercial versions aimed at clinicians may follow, but only after more validation. © 2025 AFP