Jeff Bezos offers advice on how to handle stress and anxiety. Jeff Bezos offers advice on how to handle stress and anxiety. © Getty Images—Miguel J. Rodriguez Carrillo / AFP When life feels chaotic and unmanageable, it often feels easier to just procrastinate or ignore snowballing problems. But one of the wealthiest and most successful people in the world says that’s not the real cure for anxiety and stress. “I find if I’m stressed about something it’s usually because I’m not doing anything about it,” Amazon founder Jeff Bezos said in 2017 during a visit to the Museum of Flight in Seattle. “I’m listening to my body as a signal that something is wrong, and I find that the stress goes away the second I take the first step.” Wealth Advisory Services Wealth Advisory Services The Vanguard Group The Vanguard Group · Sponsored Ad Choice call to action icon Bezos, who has a net worth of $234 billion and is the world’s fourth-richest man, undoubtedly experienced stress while building what is now the No. 1 Fortune 500 company. After all, he started Amazon in a rented garage and had to take 60 meetings to raise the first $1 million in seed capital for his nascent company in the mid-1990s. But instead of letting the stress get to him, he chooses to turn his anxiety into motivation. “If I’m stressed about something, I’m trying to figure out why [I am] stressed,” Bezos said. “I’m listening to my body as a signal.” To handle stressful situations, Bezos recommends talking to others and finding allies to problem-solve with. He said this can transform an anxiety-inducing situation into one that’s actually “fun.” “If you can find friends who are interested in similar things or want to help you solve a problem, problem-solving is inspiring for me all by itself,” he added. “There’s nothing more fun than getting in a room with a group of inventors and saying: ‘Look, here’s the problem. Let’s invent a solution to it.’ And as soon as you start doing that, I find that it turns from something that might create stress into something that creates fun.” Savings Account? Do This Instead Savings Account? Do This Instead Lear Capital Lear Capital · Sponsored Ad Choice call to action icon And in terms of problem-solving, Amazon’s most prominent leaders always have Bezos’ 16 leadership principles to turn to for guidance. “The leadership principles are something you have to constantly work at,” Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said in the company’s Leadership Principles Explained video series. “When they’re applied well, they’re powerful.” How other CEOs handle stress While Bezos says his key to handling stress is just pushing through, other CEOs take on a variety of different approaches to combat anxiety. Former Starbucks CEO Laxman Narasimhan, for example, told Fortune in a 2023 interview he relies on three nonnegotiables to beat burnout: daily meditation, regular exercise, and protected family time. Here Are 10+ of the Coolest 250th Anniversary Gifts for This 2026 Here Are 10+ of the Coolest 250th Anniversary Gifts for This 2026 250th Anniversary · Sponsored Ad Choice call to action icon “I’m very disciplined about balance,” said Narasimhan, who now serves on the boards of the Brookings Institution and Verizon. And Red Lobster’s CEO practices emotional control to make sure his team doesn’t see him stressed, he told Business Insider. “Practicing emotional control means taking a moment to pause, assess the situation, and respond thoughtfully, rather than reacting impulsively,” Damola Adamolekun, the 37-year-old CEO, said. “When you model emotional control, you create a stable environment where your team feels supported and motivated, even in the face of adversity.” But Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella takes a somewhat similar approach to Bezos in that he confronts adversity head-on. That means facilitating open communication and building flexibility into workplace policies so employees don’t burn out, thereby reducing their own leadership stress. “The notion of having work-life harmony in a highly competitive economy is a first-class topic,” Nadella said. “The key is to make sure you’re engaging in a dialogue with your employees. There also needs to be flexibility in all the [workplace] policies that someone like me sets and propagates. You cannot have people burn out. It’s bad for your company, and it’s bad for society.”
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
No comments:
Post a Comment